I agree - see my earlier comments about how the police need to reassess their approach to protest and step back from their current approach which is way too much biased towards an assumption that most protest is likely to turn violent and hence needs to be ruthlessly policed.
greater manchester police seek water cannon
- Thread starter Pickman's model
- Start date
The criticism of which rather argues against the point some others have made ...
But the actions of police officers in preventing people going in certain directions, keeping them out of certain areas and containment were ALL part of an overall plan to prevent / reduce damage and violent disorder - they are not just done for the hell of it ... so seeing as you think the police should prevent serious damage when it is committed in front of them, I take it you would actually support preventative measures designed to stop it before it starts, yes?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Thing is though, most people who have been involved in protest have a very clear impression that police tactics are consciously intended to deter, by making protest as unpleasant as possible and by suggesting risks (e.g. 'we've got your details sonny, you can forget about a decent career now').
They may be able to produce a public order justification for kettling and even for intimidation by FIT and violence by TSG, but to those on the receiving end it's pretty clear that there is a concious intent to deter protest, any protest, no matter how peaceful, considerate of others or morally justified it might be (e.g the climate hippies.)
They may be able to produce a public order justification for kettling and even for intimidation by FIT and violence by TSG, but to those on the receiving end it's pretty clear that there is a concious intent to deter protest, any protest, no matter how peaceful, considerate of others or morally justified it might be (e.g the climate hippies.)
Striking the proper balance between the two objectives - maintenance of a reasonable level of public order and facilitation of a reasonable level of protest - is what the police need to review. I do not think they have it right at present and seem to have got into a mindset (organisationally) that they need to make absolutely sure that no sort of problem arises and so they use excessive preventive measures in too many cases.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I entirely disagree that specific, individual violence / serious damage to property can be justified / defended on the basis of generalised, non-violent things that may have happened. This may help explain why it done, it may be mitigation for what is done ... but it is not the police's role (nor should it be) to stand by and go "Oh, OK mate, yeah you've got a point - those bankers bonuses are a bit obscene, crack on and beat that random bank-related cunt to a pulp and set fire to the building. I'll hold your coat if you like ..."
You're misrepresenting what I said here. I specifically drew a difference between the protection of private property and the protection of people. I know of two people who were verbally abused and one spat at during a the 2001 protest - however, this compares with those innocent bystanders who were hit by the OB at other protests, specifically 2002 J-day, and obviously Ian Tomlinson this year.
Once again you're misrepresenting me - I never said I had an expectation that nothing bad would happen. Indeed, I would expect 'something bad' to happen, which would rather be the point - you would have a situation where those not involved in the bad thing and the police would have an interest in finding out who did it, rather than lumping all protestors in as potentially being the person/s who would do the 'bad thing'.
In doing so the police would retain moral authority and legitimacy across a wider breadth of the 'mainstream', and possibly even start to build some among the 'hardcore'. What's happening now is the exact opposite result - no one trusts the OB to police protests in a fair manner; this will only store up trouble for the future, and leads to the completely unsatisfactory result: that even when one follows the rules on DA and peaceful protest, the police will not abide by the same rules, so what is the point of following those laid out for protestors.
When it is used it should be made plain to those on the receiving end and others why it is being done. This may be difficult to communicate at the time via the individual officers on the cordons or whatever (though there is a lot that could be done in terms of changing the general mindset/approach of all officers generally in policing public order) but it should be made plain in public statements by senior officers as soon as possible afterwards - something like "We apologise to all those who were contained in Bishopsgate yesterday. We do not use the tactic lightly but we had specific, reliable intelligence that a number of people in the crowd were intent on ransacking Barclays head office and this was the only practicable means we had available to prevent that happening. ... (accompanied by general "We support the right to peaceful and lawful protest and will do our utmost to facilitate it" and "If any individual wishes to complain, here is how to do it" messages)
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I don't think it's just over-zealous public order enforcement. It has a strong appearance of concious deterrence, intimidation etc, albeit justified in public order terms, and that undermines the health of our political system. (as if it wasn't in a bad enough state with recent changes to the law regarding protest)
In my response I included both - I do not, and cannot, distinguish them - the police have an equal lawful duty to protect people and property (though I do acknowledge that the amount of effort exerted my properly vary)
There is a practical difficulty here - when a public order tactic - pushing back a crowd, clearing an area or whatever - is used it is simply impossible to guarantee that some level of force will not be used against someone in the crowd who is just standing there and not doing anything individually wrong. Unfortunately that is simply impossible to avoid - there is absolutely no practical way of carrying out what will usually be a perfectly lawful tactic without it happening.
Sure, the police should only use force to achieve their objective if other alternatives such as verbally requesting the crowd to move away haven't worked (or aren't practical, e.g. because of some urgency) ... but I don't think anyone would expect the vast majority of crowds to comply (but, even so, that does not mean it shouldn't be tried first and maybe that is something the police need to review - do they try enough alternatives or just assume they won't work and go for the direct use of force approach?)
Reality check - the vast majority won't get involved (they won't get involved in being witnesses to "ordinary" crime so this is no surprise). But the fact is the police would be severely criticised (and probably acting unlawfully) if they allowed significant offences to be committed on the basis "Well, it lets off a bit of steam and we can always come back and nick them later" - not least because they would have absolutely no guarantee that no-one would be (deliberately or accidentally) seriously harmed or killed during the offences (e.g. trapped in a building or car set on fire). Where they can (e.g. with offences committed against them and their property rather than others) the police DO tend to take this approach - police lines will soak up quite a lot of violence, things being thrown, etc. before resorting to other tactics - but they cannot justify putting other people's lives and property at risk.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Maybe you need to start doing so.
And that's different from the current situation how?
I can see how it looks like it is being done for some wider, political purpose (and there have been examples where that has happened - e.g. the policing of the demonstration in The Mall during the Chinese (?) State Visit a few years ago) ... but I never saw any evidence of that - it is all coming from over zealous public order policing (in a context where protest has become ever more challenging / difficult in more and more areas) - I don't believe the police are trying to dissuade protest (generally or in any particular area). If they wanted to, they could close down an awful lot more protests very easily ...
I fail to see how removing someone's livelihood, by looting their shop (in the case of private owners) or burning down that of their employer (in the case of big chains), or by destroying, perhaps without any compensation if they have not been able to afford full insurance cover, their biggest asset by setting fire to their car can possibly be argued to be something that the police should stand by and allow to take place ...
They are now being criticised for trying to do their job.
They would then be criticised for failing to even attempt to do it.
The latter is very much different from the former.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Slight overstatement there, don't you think?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Problem is that even well-trained users sometimes "forget" that the round is supposed to be deflected off the ground into the crowd, and not shot directly at them.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I agree, and I'd also say that the overt political partisanship displayed by the police on some protests (one of the more delightful legacies of Thatcher) doesn't help "the people" to feel that the police are acting in a disinterested manner or in the best interests of all, rather than in the best interests of "the system".
I suspect that if the current tactics continue, it'll feed into the creation of a narrative where it's not a minority who see the police as a partisan tool of social control, but a majority who've slowly come to realise that anyone who dissents, however honourable their reasons, can be classed as a threat to the status quo and submitted to intimidatory policing practices.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
that's practically biological warfare
Yep. Horrible thought, isn't it?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Yep, and when the only choices available via the ballot box are two slight variations of neo-liberal capitalism, protest is more and more relevant ...
That is the massive danger which is faced ... it has been recognised in senior police circles and how to move public order policing back from what it is perceived to have become is a constant topic of debate. Denis O'Connor's report (http://inspectorates.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/docs/ap/) constantly returns to that theme.
I consistently argue that the police should NOT be political and worry that they are constantly becoming MORE political (something I trace back to Maggie's blatant political deployment of the police against the miners but which is still here (witness Boris Johnson and Kuit Malthouse's blatantly political removal of Ian Blair...). This is perhaps the area of policing where it is most apparent and most worrying.
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
I entirely disagree that specific, individual violence / serious damage to property can be justified / defended on the basis of generalised, non-violent things that may have happened. This may help explain why it done, it may be mitigation for what is done ... but it is not the police's role (nor should it be) to stand by and go "Oh, OK mate, yeah you've got a point - those bankers bonuses are a bit obscene, crack on and beat that random bank-related cunt to a pulp and set fire to the building. I'll hold your coat if you like ..."
This I quite agree with. It's why I have very little time for demonstrators smashing stuff up for no apparent reason. It's not that I have any sympathy for the stuff getting smashed, I just think it's invariably counterproductive. The tactics employed by the G20 protestors, ie ruthlessly behaving themselves and refusing to be provoked despite the heroic efforts of the police to do just that, appear to have been among the most successful used in this country in recent times.
Although I'd add a caveat to that, in that I consider it equally foolish to indiscriminately defend someone else's property as it is to indiscriminately attack it, at least if that defence requires disproportionate violence, or to put it another way, any violence at all.
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
I've seen it happen but never mind.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
The problem is proving it. A citizen's arrest of the suspected provocateur, with the whole incident end-to-end recorded on video maybe?
You'd have to get really solid video documentation of the provocation bit, and ideally have a bunch of MP's and High Court Judges (and possibly Mother Teresa or the equivalent) as witnesses, otherwise they'd just say he was a brave undercover cop kidnapped by evil anarchists with the Daily Mail conjuring up visions of his head being sawn off as part of an anarchist terrorism jihad, and they'd chuck everybody involved in jail.
You ignore the fact that a significant number of the G20 protestors were NOT ruthlessly behaving themselves and it can easily be argued that it was the activities of those that weren't which "provoked" the police to use the tactics and force which has been criticised.
Whilst the police need to remember that not all (and usually, in fact, not many) protestors are intent on causing serious violence and damage, it is equally important for critics to recognise that some are, otherwise their criticism loses much of it's value. You portray the situation as being that the police simply provoked and attacked an entirely peaceful protest for absolutely no reason. That is, quite simply, bollocks.
I agree that the use of force to protect property should be carefully considered, I would certainly NOT agree that no force at all should be used to attempt to prevent serious damage. People are entitled to the protection of the law in the protection of their property.
With the wall to wall CCTV / video coverage of every protest for the last decade, if such instances were as commonplace as alleged at least one would have been captured on film in sufficient detail and to sufficient extent to prove it's existence by now ...
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
IMO that's somewhat disingenuous, because it implicitly assumes that protesters (or, at least, some protesters) would have access to the sort of technology that would allow them to identify such provocateurs, beyond access to CCTV and video footage.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I don't see that at all. You have to prove both ends of it and the only people in a position to do that are the police. What I mean by both ends is this:
Suppose for the sake of argument that this guy chucking stuff through the RBS window ...
... was actually a cop. We have evidence of him doing illegal stuff sure, but how do you prove he was a cop?
Presumably if the guy in the picture was an undercover police officer going about his duties, at least some other cops would recognise him.
Would any of them blow the whistle though? Is there a comparable case (in the sense of police whistle-blowers in general) which would give us any reason to believe that any might? I don't know of one and I'd imagine that there would be a certain amount of 'he must have had his reasons' involved in any soul-searching about publicly identifying an undercover policeman as a criminal.
To prove it any other way, you'd have to identify him as a cop without the help of the police, which means he'd have to be documented as being a policeman some other way. Maybe a former FIT officer who'd been photographed by FITwatch? Suddenly it looks a whole lot less likely doesn't it?
Even more so when you consider that a copper involved in criminal damage and inciting riots would have to be a complete incompetent not to keep his face covered while doing so.
No it doesn't, at all. It simply suggests that if these instances are so widespread, when someone sees one happening the chances of it being caught on film are massive. I was referring to the question of how any such instance could be "proved".
If you are suggesting that no-one has actually seen any of these things happening then I suggest they are what I first said: urban myths.
You asked how to prove something from a standpoint of knowing (somehow) it was a cop (perhaps the going through the police line showing ID thing that was mentioned).
There have been cases of police officers involved in public disorder (many football related but also others I think) being identified by other officers and arrested / charged / dismissed.
You are confidently asserting that undercover officers commit offences of incitement, etc. so I assume you have examples of such situations where you know (somehow) that that is who they are ...
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Sure but in such a case, while that may suggest that they're cops, how do you prove it? At a minimum, you have to have solid evidence (e.g. a picture like the one above) then you have to find out the officer's name etc. Then you have to show they're the same person. In practice though, it seems quite unlikely that a competent undercover policeman would smash a window while allowing about 30 photographers to take his picture with his face uncovered. So both ends of proving any such thing solidly enough to force official action to be taken about it, become to say the least, problematic.
Hence I would argue that your reasoning for saying in effect 'if such a thing were happening CCTV/video would have caught someone at it by now' is flawed.
I'm certainly not saying it couldn't happen, but it doesn't seem to me to be so likely that they'd be caught, even assuming the practice were widespread, that none being caught in the UK so far means there never were any.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Of course, sometimes they do get caught. Here's a highly amusing example from Canada.
As far as I can find out though, the police PR version of events 'they were undercover officers acting lawfully' was maintained despite one being filmed with a big rock in his hand and numerous accounts from witnesses to the effect that they'd been trying to start some violence only moments before being caught on video. Again it comes back to the question of proving two difficult things simultaneously. In this case they managed to out them as cops, but not to prove that they'd acted illegally, at least to the degree that any form of official action was taken about it that I've been able to discover.
As far as I can find out though, the police PR version of events 'they were undercover officers acting lawfully' was maintained despite one being filmed with a big rock in his hand and numerous accounts from witnesses to the effect that they'd been trying to start some violence only moments before being caught on video. Again it comes back to the question of proving two difficult things simultaneously. In this case they managed to out them as cops, but not to prove that they'd acted illegally, at least to the degree that any form of official action was taken about it that I've been able to discover.
Similar threads
