Policing Protests
Posted by Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, at 10:11, Wed 19 August 2009:
As many constituents will know, I was appalled by the behaviour of some police officers at the G20 protests. And following a number of emails and letters from constituents – some of whom were at the protests and witnessed police brutality for themselves – I held a debate in Parliament to demand action. I asked the Government to launch a fully independent investigation into allegations of abuse and to explore better policing tactics for large protests.
Earlier this month the Independent Police Complaints Commission released details of its investigation into one of the allegations of abuse. A female protester alleges that she was pushed back into the crowd by riot police with such force that she was left bruised and with heavy bleeding. Once the police officers had formed a cordoned area she was trapped and asked that she could be let out because of the bleeding. She was refused permission to leave. Doctors have now said there’s a possibility the bleeding was a miscarriage.
Another progression in investigations is that the Ian Tomlinson file (the newspaper vendor who died of a heart attack shortly after being attacked by police at the G20 protests site) has been passed from the IPCC to the Crown Prosecution Service for investigation.
Whilst it is heartening to see that the IPCC seems to be taking these allegations of misconduct by police officers seriously, the police tactics shown at recent protests raise serious questions about how we police protests. Supporters of the “kettle” technique claim that it is a fair way to control protests that are getting out of hand. They say that containing people in a cordoned-off area protects property from being damaged and violence from breaking out. But those of us who are concerned with the use of the “kettle” technique feel it is unfair to restrict innocent people’s movements to the degree that they cannot get home, or access food, water or a toilet. What do constituents think? Is there a “right” way to police protests? Is police heavy-handedness justified to prevent potential damage to property? How can police facilitate protest instead of trying to prevent it?
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by John Law, 10:39, Wed 19 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
"But those of us who are concerned with the use of the “kettle” technique feel it is unfair to restrict innocent people’s movements to the degree that they cannot get home, or access food, water or a toilet." It's not just unfair it's a violation of basic human rights, and illegal!
People before property: you get a glazier or builder in, (I think in other circumstances we'd call this economic stimulation) there's no brining Ian back.
Posted by Anne Carroll, 11:07, Wed 19 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
I live in this country and have a democratic right to voice my opinion, whether that takes the form of voting, contacting my MP or protesting. There should also be a democratic right to be heard.
The way that the G20 protests were hyped in the media by the police was appalling. A week before the march BBC News interviewed a senior policeman who said they were expecting all kinds of trouble, Met police leave was cancelled, extra police officers were being bussed in and that while they accepted that most protesters were peaceful the 'rogue' element was keen on destruction and mayhem.
This worst case scenario was repeated all week with the result that several of my friends were too scared to attend. Combined with the events of the day, the kettling and the killing (with the resultant media whitewash afterwards) I know of people who will never protest now. Politicians are forever moaning about voter apathy but if our government is doing something we don't like we have a right to let them know.
While it may not be easy for the police to be confronted by thousands of protesters, holding people against their will for hours on end is morally wrong. Our whole system is being turned on its head and we are all presumed guilty before a crime is even committed. It disgusts me to the core that in the end, the rogues were from the establishment - who indeed, look likely to get away with murder.
Posted by Robert Pendar-Hughes, 11:20, Wed 19 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Undoubtedly there are elements amongst the protesters who relish the prospect of causing as much indiscriminate damage as possible and goading the police into violence to be captured by the media. The Metropolitan Police vaunts itself is a professional body and as such they should be skilled enough to weed out those types of individuals allowing peaceful protest to continue without hinderance or intimidation. The Met's spokesman was unapologetic about their antics at the G20 disturbances - this is a very old school reaction. Tactics like 'Kettling' should be investigated fully and independently - I'm sure there were many infringements of people's civil liberties (if we even have such things any more!) by the police that day.
Posted by Steve Pagett, 01:19, Mon 24 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
The G20 killing, Kettling and subsequent inaction on the part of Central Government to significantly change the way the police operate reminds me of the justification for the NO2ID campaign. http://www.no2id.net/
Obvious misuse of authority, and corrupt and immoral behaviour by those in authority in this country highlight how vulnerable individuals are in the current civil society. We have a duty to society to support peaceful protest on these issues until the police get it right, the government get it right, and civil liberty is restored and supported.
The culture of fear maintained by statements like "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" do not protect the innocent. Freedom and social responsibility protect the innocent. Poor policing only erodes our freedom and social responsibility. Real changes must be made to stop police action from "accidentally eroding liberty and justice".
How can the police regain support from peaceful protests otherwise?
Posted by Adam Di Chiara, 13:36, Mon 24 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
On a Demonstration against Israel's attack on Gaza, on 10 Jan 2009, the media and Police reported that violence was instigated by protesters. I witnessed the following and I have a friend who has video footage of the event:
A phalanx of riot police started to "warm up"– this is at the very back of the demo. The back of Demo's is you should know usually comprised of people with kids, like my family, (pregnant) wife, child and I, elderly or disabled people, who may find it difficult to walk, and lets say the less militant elements of the demo.
The riot police formed up into 2 groups of about 12 officers each, they then started to make runs into the back of the demonstration. Pushing people out of the way, and being very intimidating.
I watched from the side as this happened a few times, Police rushing unsuspecting protesters from behind then retreating, and then doing it again.
A phalanx started off, and an elderly gentleman, turned around to confront them, waving his hands in the air asking them to stop barging into the crowd. He was first knocked down with a shove, by the first Police officer in the phalanx and then subsequently, stomped over by the rest of the group. Fortunately he appeared to be relitively undamaged, but he was noticibly shaken.
There was no need for this, yet I know from personal experience and the experiences of my friends that this is how the Police and in particular the London Met operate.
They think they are above the Law, and when you see them investigating themselves and the outcomes of those investigations, you'd have to conclude that they are?