Future of Notting Hill Carnival 'in jeopardy'
The future of the Notting Hill Carnival could be in doubt without "urgent funding" from the government, its organisers said in a letter leaked to the BBC.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".It follows a review of the festival, which attracts about two million people over the August Bank Holiday weekend, that identified "critical public safety concerns" that needed additional funding to address, the letter said.The Met Police's Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist previously raised concerns of a "mass casualty event" due to crowd density.
Funding 'essential'
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has been contacted for a response.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.In the leaked letter, Mr Comfort said: "The April 2025 London Assembly report highlights the increasing strain placed on the Metropolitan Police during large-scale public events. "Limited resourcing has restricted the police service's ability to respond to growing operational pressures."The carnival chair said that increased investment in stewarding and crowd management was "now essential to allow the police to focus on their primary role of crime prevention and public protection".Mr Comfort added 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.The safety review's full findings and recommendations have not been made public.
Mr Comfort said that while the GLA 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.
Mr Comfort added: "A co-ordinated, well-resourced safety approach is essential to protect attendees and meet the operational demands of this major national event."
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.Giving evidence to the London Assembly Police and Crime Committee in September, Mr Twist said: "While we acknowledge that crime often gets the headlines, the thing that worries me most is the crowd density and the potential for a mass casualty event."The committee's report - separate to the safety review commissioned by Carnival organisers - found that while the force was being put under increasing strain by Carnival, "this has not been matched with an increase in funding from the government".Speaking in April at the report's publication, committee chair Susan Hall said: "It is absolutely essential that the Met is on hand to carry out its duties, and not fill in for a lack of stewarding from the organisers."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
21 minutes ago
- BBC News
Solar on roofs not farms, says Reform UK in North Northamptonshire
The leader of a Reform UK-controlled council said solar panels should be installed on warehouses rather than Griffiths, who leads North Northamptonshire Council, said putting the panels on good-quality fields was "ridiculous".He has been setting out his priorities for the authority which now has 40 Reform UK councillors after they ousted the Conservatives in May's also thinks climate change targets are "holding our country back". Griffiths is no stranger to the role of leader, having been at the helm of Conservative-controlled Wellingborough Borough Council before it was abolished in jumped ship from the Tories to Reform UK, he now commands a group with a majority of 12 to the BBC about his priorities, he said an improvement programme waas under way in the council's planning said: "I'm determined that we are going to make some progress in that area. It isn't about nimbyism - it's about wanting the very best for our area." One planning issue that he said he was "keen to address" was solar said: "Isn't it interesting that all of these big high-density warehouse developments are coming forward with no solar panels on the roofs?"It's ridiculous when we're putting solar in good-quality farmland."It's something that the developers probably don't want to do because it means that they've got to strengthen roofs, etcetera, but doesn't it make sense?"He added the issue had come up regularly on the doorstep during campaigning. Despite being a member of a party that is openly sceptical about the causes of climate change, Griffith insists: "I don't deny climate change, but I think our net zero targets are the things that are really holding our country back, so that's what my group are very, very concerned party's much-publicised Doge-style efficiency review is also on the agenda in North said it "will include the possibility of bringing in party experts" to scrutinise expenditure and systems at the added: "We're not going to pay a penny [for the Doge review] so that's why our officers are fully in support of this." Helen Harrison, the leader of the Conservative opposition on the council, said: "We will support them when their proposals are in the interests of the people of North Northamptonshire and will constructively challenge them when we believe they are not."If the new administration continues to prioritise cost-effective services and our policy of prioritising road repairs, we will support it. "We will, of course, look at each proposal on its merits." Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Non-crime hate incidents should be scrapped, says ‘anti-woke' police chief
Non-crime hate incidents have gone too far and should be scrapped, the head of Greater Manchester Police has said. Sir Stephen Watson said the policy had been introduced with good intentions but was now past its 'sell-by date'. He stressed it was not the job of the police to involve themselves in people's arguments, and said the collection of non-crime hate incident data had fuelled the accusations of two-tier policing. In a speech to the Policy Exchange think tank, the Chief Constable, who was knighted in the King's recent birthday honours list, urged police forces to get back to basics in order to restore public trust and confidence. He also hit out at the impact human rights legislation was having on policing, saying it was not right that foreign criminals who 'fecklessly fathered children' could then avoid deportation by claiming the right to a family life. A non-crime hate incident is defined as an incident that falls short of being criminal but is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards a person with a particular characteristic. Non-crime hate incidents were introduced in 2014 following recommendations made in the Macpherson Report into the racist killing of Stephen Lawrence. They are intended to provide forces with an intelligence picture of community tensions and help them understand where problems might suddenly arise, but have often resulted in police intervening in social media spats, with critics claiming they have a chilling effect on free speech. There are also concerns that they serve as a distraction for stretched police officers, who would be better off concentrating on serious crime. Asked if he believed whether the policy of collecting non-crime hate incident data should be scrapped, Sir Stephen said: 'Simple answer – yes, I think it should. I think the policy has passed its sell-by date.' He said it was the 'antithesis' of doing the basics and was at odds with the public perception of what was right. Sir Stephen conceded that the policy was introduced so police could have a better understanding of vulnerable people in their communities. But he added: 'What it morphed into was pretty much anybody with a protected characteristic who perceived themselves to be a victim of an incident, because of that, was automatically recorded. I think that's a mistake, and I think it went too far.' Sir Stephen was also critical of the impact some areas of the Human Rights Act was having on policing and confidence in the justice system. He said: 'The Human Rights Act is part of the panoply of the legislative machinery within which we have to operate. And candidly, you know, as a police officer it is less helpful for me to pontificate on what the legislative framework should look like. It's simply observing what it is and faithfully serving it in the public interest. 'However, there are manifestations of the Human Rights Act, which I think impacts policing and society more generally, I mean classically, foreign national offenders and the ability to deport people. 'It seems to me that is entirely unhelpful, particularly when people are simply claiming on the basis of having, very often, fecklessly fathered the number of children in our country, that they somehow shouldn't be deported because they have the right to a family life. Well, I suspect most of the public beg to differ.' Greater Manchester Police was in special measures when Sir Stephen was appointed four years ago, but he has turned the force around thanks to a traditional, no-nonsense approach to policing. He said getting the basics correct was vital if police forces were to deliver what the public expected. He added: 'It's picking up the phone, it's getting to people. It's turning up looking like you can pull the skin off a rice pudding. 'It's about being smart, it's about being professional, it's about being compassionate, it's about being diligent. 'It's about understanding the law, and it's about demonstrating to the public that you care and you're hungry to help because they don't ring us because they want to talk to us, they ring us because bad things are happening in their lives, things that are causing them and their families great consternation. 'It's about recording all crime faithfully, it is about investigating every reasonable line of enquiry for a single crime, and it's about locking people up. And it's about doing all of this with vim and vigour to demonstrate to the public that we're there to be relied upon.'
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
My experience shows why women must be allowed late stage abortions
The change in law this week that decriminalises women who end an unwanted pregnancy at home, after the current legal limit of 24 weeks (previously the offence almost certainly led to imprisonment and could entail a life sentence), has led to outrage in many quarters. But I must confess, I welcome the changes, having pondered the arguments over the 22 years since my own abortion – always questioning whether I would have made different choices had my baby's condition been diagnosed far later in my pregnancy. I have great friends who are passionate, eloquent advocates for unborn babies' rights and who are living testament to the immense joy that children who are disabled, or who have complex genetic conditions, can bring to a family. I have witnessed that robust parent-child love first-hand and wish it was foregrounded more in our public debates. When our son Scobie was a toddler (he was born 18 months after the child who never was), he started talking of having a silver 'ghost brother' who chatted to him. That's how I've thought of my Patau baby ever since: a little human. Even so, I do not regret my own decision and, if it had proved necessary, I would have made the same choice far later in my baby's gestation. If that avenue had been forbidden to me by law, I can all easily envisage coming to that conclusion in private, at my own peril, as I explored avenues marginally less painful than the one allotted to me by laws formed over a century ago. Aged 35, when that first, fragile pregnancy careered off the rails, I was the editor and co-owner of The Erotic Review, busily engaged in fund-raising for the magazine and responsible for seven people's livelihood. I cannot imagine how I could have fulfilled my commitments to my colleagues while raising this child, let alone maintained my marriage. Angus was 51 at the time and anxious about his energy levels with a perfectly healthy, standard-issue baby, let alone one who would need round-the-clock care and outside help, had it lived. Nor would we have had any cushion of savings to help us. More than that, I simply do not believe there is any kindness or dignity afforded to a baby with that grave level of disability in carrying it to term. I am even more opposed to the idea of legally enforcing a mother who does not wish to watch her newborn baby die (90 per cent of children with Patau Syndrome die within the first year of life and most die within 10 days) proceed to a normal labour. Another mother may make a different choice, but for me it would be the ultimate cruelty and might have crushed my sanity for all time. We should never forget that the most vulnerable time for most women's mental health is during pregnancy, or just after birth. Post-partum psychosis and severe OCD are not uncommon, while suicides spike in this demographic. When I look at legal cases where women were prosecuted for late-stage abortions, they all speak of mental torment and very human desperation. The sort of self-harming behaviour (going through an induced miscarriage at home!) that should be addressed by psychiatrists and social workers, not judges. I suppose I always see two paths: the one I took and think was right, yet still grieve on an elemental level. But there is also the other scenario, the one where I live in a country with harsher abortion laws and have to endure a labour that is always going to end in unimaginable distress. I would criminalise myself to avoid that pain, just as desperate pregnant women did before The Abortion Act of 1967. In my experience, we are punished enough by our consciences and ghost children, the attention of the courts is entirely unnecessary.
