Manchester Arena bombing victim would have survived but for ‘inadequate’ emergency response, inquiry finds
A victim of the Manchester Arena bombing would likely have survived had it not been for the inadequate emergency response, an inquiry has found.
John Atkinson’s injuries were “survivable” but he did not receive the “treatment and care he should have”, said Sir John Saunders, chairman of the Manchester Arena Inquiry.
Mr Atkinson, a 28-year-old healthcare worker, was one of 22 innocent people who lost their lives following the suicide bombing at the end of an Ariana Grande concert in May 2017.
A report examining the emergency response to the attack found that “significant aspects… went wrong” and “the performance of the emergency services was far below the standard” it should have been.
“Some of what went wrong had serious and, in the case of John Atkinson, fatal consequences for those directly affected by the explosion,” Sir John said.
The inquiry has heard that firefighters did not arrive at Manchester Arena until two hours after the bombing; only one paramedic entered the blast scene in the first 40 minutes, and Greater Manchester Police (GMP) did not declare a major incident for more than two hours.
The father of the youngest victim – eight-year-old Saffie-Rose Roussos – described the emergency response as “shameful” and “inadequate”, with some experts telling the inquiry she could have survived had the response been different.
Saffie-Rose Roussos was the youngest victim of the attack
However Sir John concluded that “there was only a remote possibility that she could have survived with different treatment and care”.
“On the evidence that I have accepted, what happened to Saffie-Rose Roussos represents a terrible burden of injury,” he said.
“It is highly likely that her death was inevitable even if the most comprehensive and advanced medical treatment had been initiated immediately after injury.”
Emergency response ‘prevented victim’s survival’
In the second of three reports into the Manchester Arena bombing, Sir John found that 20 of the 22 people who died in the attack suffered injuries that were “unsurvivable”.
However in the case of Mr Atkinson, the retired High Court judge said that had the victim “received the treatment and care he should have, it is likely that he would have survived”.
“It is likely that inadequacies in the emergency response prevented his survival,” Sir John added.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Arena bombing victims ‘let down’
Mr Atkinson, a fitness fanatic whose family described him as their “heart and soul”, had received tickets to the Ariana Grande concert as a Christmas present and went with a friend.
He was standing just six metres away from Salman Abedi when the bomber detonated his device at about 10.30pm on 22 May 2017, causing severe injuries to Mr Atkinson’s legs.
Read more:
How emergency crews responded to arena bombing
Security failings that led to Manchester attack
The inquiry heard Mr Atkinson, from Bury, Greater Manchester, lost a significant amount of blood as he laid in agony on the foyer floor for 47 minutes before he was carried downstairs by police on a makeshift stretcher to a casualty clearing area at Victoria station.
More than 20 minutes passed – as ambulances queued outside – before he went into cardiac arrest at 11.47pm and was finally rushed to Manchester Royal Infirmary at midnight, where he was pronounced dead about 25 minutes later.
A member of the public, Ronald Blake, held an improvised tourniquet on Mr Atkinson’s right leg for up to an hour before paramedics reached him.
Only three paramedics entered the area known as the City Room, where the bomb went off, on the night – two of them just a few minutes before Mr Atkinson was evacuated.
He was not triaged, assessed or assisted by North West Ambulance Service (NWAS) personnel during his time in the foyer.
In his report, Sir John said he accepted the conclusion of experts that Mr Atkinson “would have survived if given prompt and expert medical treatment”.
He concluded that medical tourniquets should have been applied to Mr Atkinson’s legs and dressings applied to his wounds earlier.
The inquiry chairman said “responsibility for that failure” rested with the arena’s operator SMG and the management of Emergency Training UK, which was contracted to provide healthcare at the venue.
He added that more paramedics should have been in the City Room earlier and they would likely have “identified the need for urgent treatment and evacuation” of Mr Atkinson.
Police at the scene of the bombing on 22 May 2017
“That did not occur,” Sir John said. “Responsibility for that failure rests with NWAS.
“Such treatment would, I am satisfied, have enabled John Atkinson to arrive at hospital prior to having a cardiac arrest and would probably have saved his life.”
Sir John also said that Mr Atkinson should have been moved from the City Room promptly and if firefighters had been at the scene at the time, the victim would have been “prioritised for evacuation”.
He also pointed out that if more ambulances had been at the scene shortly after 11pm, Mr Atkinson would have received treatment and he would have been taken to hospital sooner.
“Either way, he would have reached hospital before having a cardiac arrest and is likely to have survived,” Sir John said.
“John Atkinson would probably have survived had it not been for inadequacies in the emergency response.”
The victims of the Manchester Arena bombing
‘Mistakes’ made by emergency services
In his report, Sir John said “significant aspects of the emergency response on 22 May 2017 went wrong” and “this should not have happened”.
The inquiry chairman said he had “no doubt that lives were saved by the emergency response”, but added: “Looked at overall, and objectively, the performance of the emergency services was far below the standard it should have been.”
He said GMP “did not lead the response” the way it should have; Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service (GMFRS) “failed to turn up at the scene at a time when they could provide the greatest assistance”; and NWAS “failed to send sufficient paramedics” into the City Room and “did not use available stretchers to remove casualties in a safe way”.
The inquiry heard that police officers, arena staff and members of the public were forced to carry injured people using advertising hoardings, crowd barriers and tables due to the lack of stretchers, which Sir John said was “a painful and unsafe way of moving the injured”.
He added that “one of the most emotional and upsetting parts of the inquiry” was hearing of the “despair” of those injured, who could hear ambulance sirens outside but saw few paramedics arrive.
Among the failures identified in the report:
• Inspector Dale Sexton, the force duty officer at GMP’s headquarters, became “overburdened” and made a “significant mistake” in failing to declare a major incident in the early stages of the emergency response. GMP only declared a major incident close to 1am – two and a half hours after the bomb went off
• After inaccurate reports of gunshots, Insp Sexton declared Operation Plato – the emergency response to an attack by a marauding terrorist with a gun – but failed to communicate this to other emergency services
• GMFRS station manager Andrew Berry sent firefighters to Philips Park fire station, three miles away from the scene, meaning some firefighters were driving away from the incident and past ambulances travelling in the opposite direction
• Inspector Benjamin Dawson, from British Transport Police (BTP), declared a major incident around 10 minutes after the attack but did not tell GMP or GMFRS
• There was “substantial confusion” over the location of a rendezvous point for emergency services, with each service choosing their own
• NWAS declared a major incident about 15 minutes after the attack but this was not shared with any other emergency service
Sir John said “there was the failure of anyone in a senior position in GMFRS to take a grip of the situation during the critical period of the response”.
He acknowledged he had “criticised a large number of people” who he considered had “made mistakes on the night”, adding that “some of those criticisms may seem harsh, particularly given the situation that those individuals were faced with”.
“They were trying to do their best,” he added. “I do understand the enormous pressures that they were acting under.
“They had to do many things in a short time and it may not be surprising that things went wrong. I am not unsympathetic to them.
“But I need to identify mistakes where they have been made because otherwise there is no prospect of preventing them in the future.”
Read more:
The missed opportunities to stop Salman Abedi
Manchester Arena lives could have been saved – but warning was ‘fobbed off’
Salman Abedi carried out the suicide bombing
Among a series of recommendations, Sir John said that “in the event that public funding cuts are in the future considered necessary by the government, the Home Office should consider whether some funding arrangement for police services different from that applied in the post-2010 period is necessary”.
Responding to the report, Home Secretary Suella Braverman said it was “a devastating reminder of the Manchester Arena attack and the horror of that night”.
“Without doubt, our emergency services show incredible courage when responding to incidents of this magnitude,” she said.
“It’s right that we reflect and work together to learn from this tragedy. I will carefully consider the recommendations made so far to strengthen our response.”
Sir John’s first report on security issues at the arena venue was issued last June and highlighted a string of “missed opportunities” to identify Abedi as a threat before he walked across the City Room foyer and detonated his shrapnel-laden device.
The third and final report will focus on the radicalisation of Abedi and what the intelligence services and counter-terrorism police knew, and if they could have prevented the attack. It will be published at a later date.
UK
Prince Andrew insisted on ‘gag order’ to stop allegations spoiling Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, memoir claims
Prince Andrew insisted his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, sign a one-year gag order – to prevent details of her allegations tarnishing the late Queen’s platinum jubilee, her memoirs have claimed.
Andrew relinquished his Duke of York title and remaining honours on Friday evening.
It came after discussions with King Charles, in consultation with the Prince of Wales, both of whom wanted to bring an end to the long-lasting scandal.
But, according to The Telegraph, Ms Giuffre’s book, which is due out on Tuesday, is focusing further attention on the sexual assault allegations and the prince’s friendship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, which led to the royal’s downfall.
She tells how Andrew’s “disastrous” Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis was like an “injection of jet fuel” for her legal team, and it raised the possibility of “subpoenaing” his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, and daughters Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and drawing them into the legal case.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Prince Andrew’s ’embarrassed’ Royals ‘for years’
The Telegraph also reports Ms Giuffre’s claims that she got “more out of” Andrew than a reported £12m payout and $2m (around £1.4m) donation to her charity because she had “an acknowledgement that I and many other women had been victimised and a tacit pledge to never deny it again”.
The former duke paid to settle a civil sexual assault case with Ms Giuffre in 2022, despite insisting he had never met her.
Ms Giuffre alleged she was forced to have sex with the prince when she was 17, after being trafficked by Epstein. Andrew continues to vehemently deny her allegations.
Read more:
Andrew giving up title is ‘Victory for Virginia’
Everything we know about Andrew losing titles
Prince Andrew: A timeline of events
Queen Elizabeth II was celebrating her platinum jubilee in 2022 – the first British monarch to reach the milestone – as the civil case against her son was gathering pace.
It was settled nine days after she reached the 70th anniversary of her accession.
According to the Telegraph, Ms Giuffre, who died in April, reveals in her book: “I agreed to a one-year gag order, which seemed important to the prince because it ensured that his mother’s platinum jubilee would not be tarnished any more than it already had been.”
Parades, processions, concerts and street parties were held across the UK in celebration of the Platinum Jubilee. Pic: PA
In January 2022, a US judge ruled the civil case against Andrew could go ahead, and the Queen went on to strip him of his honorary military roles, with the prince also giving up his HRH style.
‘Devastating’ interview
His 2019 Newsnight interview, which he hoped would clear his name, backfired when he said he “did not regret” his friendship with convicted paedophile Epstein, who trafficked Ms Giuffre.
Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre (then Roberts) in 2001 – a picture the prince claimed had been doctored. Pic: Shutterstock
Andrew also said he had “no recollection” of ever meeting Ms Giuffre and added he could not have had sex with her in March 2001 because he was at Pizza Express with his daughter Beatrice on the day in question.
Ms Giuffre, whose book is called Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, wrote, according to The Telegraph: “As devastating as this interview was for Prince Andrew, for my legal team it was like an injection of jet fuel.
“Its contents would not only help us build an ironclad case against the prince but also open the door to potentially subpoenaing his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, and their daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.”
‘Amazed he was stupid enough’
She also told how Andrew had “stonewalled” her legal team for months before settlement discussions began moving very quickly when his deposition was scheduled for March 2022.
Ms Giuffre also wrote she was “amazed” that a member of the royal family would be “stupid enough” to appear in public with the convicted paedophile, after a photo of the pair walking in New York emerged.
Andrew, who remains a prince and continues to live in the Crown Estate property Royal Lodge, said on Friday the “continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the royal family”.
He insisted he was putting his “family and country first” and would stop using “my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me”.
It’s not the first seismic statement I’ve had to deal with from the Royal Family late into the evening.
But what I have learnt from past experience is that when they do come in this way, it’s because the decision has been made to act now and act fast.
Which inevitably has us all wondering, why now?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Prince Andrew: ‘Too much of a distraction’
The latest stories about Prince Andrew and his email to Jeffrey Epstein were again a sign of just how close he’d been to the convicted paedophile, and an extract released from the late Virginia Giuffre’s book was heartbreaking and excruciatingly seedy.
And yes, the full book is released on Tuesday.
But in some ways, we have heard a lot of these lurid details before, albeit allegations that Prince Andrew denies.
Which is why it feels like this time, the family had just had enough.
It’s framed as a personal statement from Andrew, but the involvement of his relatives could not be any clearer: “In discussion with the King, and my immediate and wider family,” he writes, followed up by, “with His Majesty’s agreement, we feel I must now go a step further”.
It has always been hard to get a full picture of how much the King has engaged in the problems with his brother.
Prince Andrew speaks with King Charles as they leave Westminster Cathedral Pic: Reuters
Speak to those who know the family well and they’ll tell you our current monarch “doesn’t like confrontation”, just like Queen Elizabeth II.
And while there has always remained “a warm familial feeling between the two brothers” which we’ve seen through Andrew’s appearance at family events, it is “tempered by the King’s responsibilities as head of state to be entirely separate from the perceived, real or alleged activities of the Duke of York”.
In the end, as head of the institution, and not as his brother, the King would have had to lead the discussions about the Andrew problem, but I suspect with heavy involvement from his eldest son and wife.
William, only in recent weeks, has told us there will be change when he becomes monarch, his advisors stressing he isn’t afraid to question why the Royal Family continues to do things in a certain way.
His very visible unease at standing next to Prince Andrew at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral showed us how uncomfortable he felt about his uncle being there at such a public moment.
His involvement in those discussions behind the scenes and making sure the institution was seen to be taking action against Andrew is likely to have been considerable.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
A timeline of allegations against Andrew
I know that Queen Camilla is also a quiet but hugely powerful influence behind palace walls.
She is her husband’s listening ear, sounding board, but also not afraid to tell him when she believes there needs to be change.
Her own work to break taboos around sexual violence and encourage survivors to speak out must have made it even more difficult for her to read the stories about Andrew’s links to Epstein, and the sexual allegations against her brother-in-law, even though he has always vehemently denied them.
And then there are those closest to the Prince.
You have to have sympathy with his daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. Did they tell their father that he needed to do something for their sake to try and shut down the noise?
His ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, has also been burned in recent weeks by her association with Epstein – a spectre who, despite his death, has continued to haunt the royal family.
So what of Prince Andrew? How will this impact him?
Any sense he might have a chance at returning to some kind of public life has truly evaporated. We wait to see if, with time, he is again allowed to appear at least for family occasions.
I’ve always been told “he is robust and self-contained and always has been”.
Interpret that how you will – arrogance that he could ride it out, or a very strongly-held conviction that he has never done anything wrong?
Either way, he clearly believes he has been unfairly punished by the court of public opinion.
One thing a source did tell me is that there is a sense he’s never really needed the affirmation of his family.
Read more from Sky News:
Andrew named in Epstein files
Harry denies fight with Andrew
Author: Andrew has no public future
He may not need their emotional support, but in the end, we have again seen how no member of the family is bigger than the institution.
Protecting the reputation of “the firm” has to come first.
Prince Andrew may feel that he has done the right thing, even done his family a favour, by personally relinquishing the use of his titles and honours, but this, in the end, was not just his choice.
No longer to be known as HRH or the Duke of York, he is now Prince Andrew only – ultimately forced to fall on his sword by his own family.
Prince Andrew has announced he is giving up his royal titles, including the Duke of York.
The decision is understood to have been made in close consultation with King Charles and other members of the Royal Family.
Prince Andrew said continued accusations against him were distracting from the King’s work.
He had been accused by Virginia Giuffre, who died in April, of sexual assault. He denies this.
Which titles is he giving up?
Prince Andrew is giving up his Duke of York title. Sky News understands this will be immediate.
He will also give up his knighthood as a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO) and his Garter role as a Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.
He will retain the dukedom, which can only be removed by an Act of Parliament, but will not use it.
Prince Andrew will also remain a prince, as the son of Queen Elizabeth II.
Virginia Giuffre had accused Prince Andrew of sexually assaulting her before her death. Pic: AP
Why is this happening now?
Ms Giuffre, who was one of billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, alleged Prince Andrew sexually assaulted her on three occasions when she was 17, and sued him in 2021.
In her posthumous memoir Nobody’s Girl, due to be published on Tuesday, she alleged he was “entitled” and “believed having sex with me was his birthright”.
Prince Andrew has always denied the allegations.
He has also always claimed that a well-known image of them together was doctored. Before her death, which her family said was by suicide, the case was settled outside of court for a sum believed to have been around £12m.
Ms Giuffre’s posthumous memoir goes on sale a week after an email emerged showing Andrew told Epstein “we are in this together”.
The email was reportedly sent three months after he said he had stopped contact with the convicted sex offender.
Flight logs released by a US committee from Epstein’s estate name Prince Andrew. Pic: House Committee on Oversight and Government
On Friday evening, the US House Oversight Committee also released documents from Epstein’s estate showing “Prince Andrew” listed as a passenger on the financier’s private jet – the so-called Lolita Express – from Luton to Edinburgh in 2006, alongside Ghislaine Maxwell.
He was also listed on another flight to West Palm Beach, Florida, in 2000.
The flight logs have been reported on for years but the release may have added to pressure.
“The situation has become untenable and intolerable, and this week in particular, the tipping point had been reached,” said royal correspondent Laura Bundock.
It is understood that the changes will take effect immediately.
The Giuffre family has called for the King to go further and “remove the title of Prince”.
Prince Andrew’s decision to relinquish his titles also comes following increased pressure over his relationship with an alleged Chinese spy.
The move will not impact the Princesses, including Princess Beatrice, here.
Will this affect his ex-wife and daughters?
Sky News understands that Andrew will continue to live at the Windsor Estate at the Royal Lodge. His ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, will also remain living at the Royal Lodge.
But for the second year running, he will not attend the Royal Family’s annual Christmas celebrations at Sandringham, it is understood.
Andrew’s ex-wife will also no longer use her Duchess of York title.
She was dropped by numerous charities last month after it emerged that she wrote to convicted sex offender Epstein, calling him a “supreme friend”, despite publicly disowning him in the media.
The decision over Andrew’s titles will not impact on the position of his daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, it is understood.
Sky News royal correspondent Rhiannon Mills says the move may not stop the influx of negative stories about him.
She said: “This ends the questions on what more the monarch could do to show how the family felt about the accusations, the upset and the embarrassment caused.
“Will it stop the stories, the allegations and the interest in Prince Andrew? That is far less certain. But in what is the prince’s first public statement since that ill-fated Newsnight interview in 2019, it is striking that he signs it off by saying, ‘I vigorously deny the accusations against me’.”
Prince Andrew made the decision to give up his titles in close consultation with King Charles, it is understood. Pic: Reuters
What did Prince Andrew say in his statement?
In his statement, Prince Andrew said: “In discussion with The King, and my immediate and wider family, we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family.
“I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life.
“With His Majesty’s agreement, we feel I must now go a step further. I will therefore no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me.
“As I have said previously, I vigorously deny the accusations against me.”
Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024