Notting Hill Carnival's lack of funding 'a significant concern'
The Metropolitan Police has said it is "significantly concerned" that Notting Hill Carnival is yet to secure "essential funding" with only a matter of weeks until the event. The comments, made in the London Policing Board agenda, explain that "crowd safety needs to be addressed", and calls for effective stewarding. The concerns come after a leaked letter to the BBC showed that carnival organisers felt the event could be in doubt without "urgent funding" from the government. Carnival chair Ian Comfort has written to Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy to request the funding, which he said was "essential to safeguarding the future and public safety of this iconic event".
The government is yet to respond, and has told media it will "respond to the letter in due course".The Met Police's Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist previously raised concerns of a "mass casualty event" due to crowd density.
Running out of time
The new comments from the Met Police highlight the force's worries over the event going ahead. The Met said: "With each week that passes, the ability to successfully implement the phase one recommendations become more challenging as event management companies will be hesitant to take on an event at such short notice without a sufficient lead in time."Phase one recommendations focus on event management and crowd safety.It said, however, that its own plans for policing the event were "well underway", and said that planning began "as soon as last year's carnival concluded".As part of its policing operation for the 2024 carnival, the Met had about 7,000 officers on duty, drawn from local policing teams as well as specialist units, with a total of around 14,000 officer shifts across the whole event.
The latest concerns from the Met follow a review of the festival, which attracts about two million people over the August Bank Holiday weekend, which identified "critical public safety concerns" that needed additional funding to address, the letter said.The independent safety review was commissioned by the carnival's organisers and paid for at a cost of £100,000 by the Greater London Authority (GLA), Kensington and Chelsea Council and Westminster Council.The safety review's full findings and recommendations have not been made public.
In the leaked letter, Mr Comfort wrote that a failure to secure immediate additional funding "risks compromising public safety and jeopardising the future of the carnival".He did not put a number on the level of funding needed.Mr Comfort said that while the Greater London Authority and the two councils had provided "substantial support" for stewarding during past festivals, they could no longer meet the "growing operational requirements identified in the review".
The government has supported Carnival through bodies such as Arts Council England.However, it is understood that if the organisers' request is granted, it would mark the first time direct government funding has been provided.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
12 minutes ago
- The Independent
What's the point of the UK talking to Tehran? More than you might think…
Europe's frantic diplomatic mission in Geneva may go down as one of its most arduous ventures on the world stage – and also one of its most consequential. The foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany must persuade a battered Iranian regime to kow-tow to the US and Israel over its nuclear ambitions, or face likely annihilation. All three European powers would, of course, love to see the back of supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei's corrupt and brutal theocracy. But they rightly fear the regime's capacity to unleash death and destruction before it goes. If Trump joins Israel in the war on Iran with US bunker-busting bombs on nuclear sites, and it succeeds in killing Khamenei, there will still be plenty of Iranian hardliners left who will be willing to fight to the death. Previous inhibitions will not apply. That could mean use of a dirty bomb in the West, or chaos unleashed in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 90 per cent of the Gulf's oil passes. For the world at large, the stakes are that high. British foreign secretary David Lammy – after meeting his US counterpart, Marco Rubio, and presidential envoy Steve Witkoff in Washington on Thursday – said that the UK was 'determined that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon". He thinks a window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution, as Trump dithers over whether to attack the regime, as US neo-cons and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu are demanding – or whether to heed the no-more-wars mantra of his Maga base. And so, in search of a diplomatic solution, Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi is meeting with his European counterparts in Switzerland. But what can be achieved? For all their good intentions – French president Emmanuel Macron said the diplomats would make a "comprehensive, diplomatic and technical offer of negotiation" to Iran – the Europeans are unlikely to persuade the Iranians to pull back from the brink. At least not on their own. While one Iranian diplomat said Tehran was willing to pursue 'a balanced and pragmatic policy in its dealings with Europe, and engage rationally with both East and West', Araghchi said there will be 'no talks' with the US over Iran's nuclear programme while the Israeli bombardment continues: 'The Americans want negotiations and have sent messages several times, but we have clearly said that there is no room for dialogue.' But there is a useful point to holding talks on neutral ground with Tehran – and it's not simply to ask them nicely and face-to-face if they wouldn't mind stopping with their nuclear enrichment programme. Rather than relaying Trump and Netanyahu's demands to Iran, Geneva is about feeding back to the White House – translating Tehran's position for the US president. The Europeans aren't there to stop the war, they're Trump-whispering for the Ayatollah. It's not clear that European diplomats have the connections they need to have a greater role to play than this, useful though it will prove. But when it comes to a practical breakthrough, some of the Gulf states might, however. Behind the scenes, figures in what some dub 'Iran's deep state' – many of them members of the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – are talking to representatives of Oman and Qatar; it might be these Middle Eastern countries that can make the difference, in a second stage of dialogue. Qatar, for its part, will likely hold more sway over Washington than London or Paris. All the peacemakers, though, will be battling the plans of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Nothing less that the obliteration of the regime in Tehran will satisfy him. Worryingly, Israel's premier appears to have been joined by an increasingly pro-war Fox News, with Sean Hannity this week declaring that Iran 'is the biggest existential threat to the entire western world'. The West should have learnt by now – after the disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya – that enforced regime change in the Middle East is best avoided. Andreas Krieg, a leading Iran expert at King's College London thinks regime change in Iran would 'not be clean or peaceful'. If the current theocracy falls, there is no significant alternative political-social structure to lead this country of 92 million into the light. The IRGC, a ruthless military-industrial complex, would not easily cede control of the Iranian economy. Instead, with 190,000 personnel and a similar number of Basij paramilitaries to call on, it might well create a military dictatorship. The West and Israel would be back to square one. And the Iranian people would be no better off. Ironically, the last time the West brought about regime change in Iran – by booting out, in 1953, the democratically elected premier Mohammad Mosaddegh (for which we have British Petroleum and the CIA to thank) – it laid the groundwork for the emergence of the current Islamic Republic in the 1970s. In between rounds of golf, as he ponders his next steps in the Middle East, you can't help wishing Potus would be shown – by Lammy or anyone else – the relevant pages of a history book. It is within the president's power to unleash hell – or stop history repeating itself. After the Geneva talks, let's hope he listens to what the Trump-whisperers tell him.
BBC News
18 minutes ago
- BBC News
UK preparing to charter flights from Israel, David Lammy says
The UK is arranging charter flights to return British nationals from Israel once Israeli airspace re-opens, the foreign secretary has Lammy confirmed the government was working with the Israeli authorities to provide flights out of Tel Aviv airport, the number of which will be based on demand. Israeli airspace is currently closed due to the ongoing conflict with Iran. The two nations have exchanged waves of air strikes since Israel targeted military and nuclear sites, as well as military commanders and nuclear scientists, a week statement came as Lammy arrived in Geneva for talks with Iran, in the hopes of negotiating an agreement on Tehran's nuclear programme. British nations who wish to return home from Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories have been advised to complete a form with their email and UK passport number. Lammy said this was to "register their presence in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories to be contacted with further guidance on these flights". Flights will only be provided to those who hold a UK passport, the Foreign Office said. Land routes out of Israel remain open and Lammy said UK staff will be on hand to support British nationals who have crossed the border - including providing transportation to nearby the Foreign Office said families of staff at the UK embassy in Tel Aviv and the British consulate in Jerusalem had been temporarily withdrawn "as a precautionary measure".The talks in Geneva with Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi will also include top diplomats from the EU, Germany and France.
.png%3Fwidth%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Poll of the day: Do you support the assisted dying bill?
The assisted dying bill returns to Parliament today for its final reading amid growing controversy – and a vote that could determine whether the legislation moves forward or falls entirely. A group of Labour MPs dramatically withdrew their support on Thursday night, citing serious concerns about the removal of key safeguards, including the requirement for High Court oversight. They warned that the bill had been 'drastically weakened' and no longer offers enough protection for vulnerable patients. If passed, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would allow people in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for a medically assisted death. Approval would be required from two doctors and a panel including a senior legal figure, a social worker, and a psychiatrist. Campaigners are making a final push on both sides of the debate, and with a narrow majority at stake, every vote counts. MPs have a free vote and are not bound by party lines. Supporters argue that the bill offers dignity and choice to those in need. Meanwhile, opponents argue it opens the door to abuse and erodes trust in end-of-life care. With so much at stake and such deeply personal questions at the heart of this debate, we want to hear from you: do you support the assisted dying bill? Vote in our poll and let us know your thoughts in the .
