The whole Met should be held to account for Ian Tomlinson’s death, not just one Officer
Today’s announcement that PC Simon Harwood will face prosecution for the manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests is welcome. I and many others will wish to see Ian Tomlinson’s family get justice for their father, step-father and husband. It is only right that there should be justice for Ian Tomlinson.
But Simon Harwood was not acting alone. He acted in a way that most people I know who have been on a protest would think is entirely characteristic of the Metropolitan Police’s Territorial Support Groups. It is also characteristic of the Metropolitan Police’s approach to policing protests. Before the G20 protests the response of senior commanders when asked about potential violence said that they were “up for it.” This is a well know vernacular term indicating they were keen for a fight. I remember very clearly saying to a colleague on the day of the G20 protest that if the police went on attacking protestors, sooner or later someone would be killed. And so, sadly, it was.
Satirist Newton Emerson once said that Ian Paisley’s approach to Northern Irish politics followed a three step process. First predict trouble. Second, cause trouble. And third say “I told you so.” This is seems to me to be exactly the approach the Metropolitan Police have taken to policing protests.
This process is aided by the dependence of the mainstream media on the police. The media rely on police for a very substantial part of the media coverage. It only takes a quick glance at the papers to see how important crime stories are to the media. This means that journalists are quick to accept the word of police press officers. And those press officers are often fed information that is intended to mislead the media when things go wrong.
The Metropolitan Police shot Jean Charles de Menezes dead in cold blood. Despite being Brazilian, they thought he was an Arab. But the media were told that de Menezes was behaving extremely erratically. They said he was wearing a heavy coat on a warm day and had jumped barriers when neither of these allegations was anything close to the truth. The media faithfully reprinted this and it was only later that the truth emerged.
At every protest there is a process of building expectation of trouble. Commanders brief the press on the threat of violence. They talk up the threat of trouble. On the day of the protest the police will use the agreed route to set up “kettles” for the protestors. Once in a kettle protestors are held for a number of hours, refused food and drink, or access to toilets. Those at the outer edges of the kettle are beaten with police truncheons. The result is a frustrated, battered crowd likely to retaliate to police aggression.
And this gives the police a convenient set of images – angry protestors hitting back at the police violence. By using their symbiotic relationship with the mainstream media the police it allows people to conclude that the police were forced to use violence to contain or subdue protestors.
The process of “kettling” is itself pretty futile. The police claim that it allows them to contain a protest. The effect is to ensure that protestors are nervous and skittish. They avoid agreed routes where police will hold them for hours at a time. The Day X student protests was marked by protestors frenetically running all over central London trying to avoid “kettles.” It’s clear to anyone that “kettling” is not a tactic that delivers better public order. Instead it makes it more difficult to police protests.
As a response to protestors avoiding “kettles” the police have sent groups of officers to roam the streets. Some like Simon Harwood behave in an aggressive and provocative manner. Harwood had already been thrown out of the police for violent behaviour but was let back in. This reflects how seriously the Metropolitan Police take violent behaviour amongst its officers.
In most circumstances they have gotten away with having violent officers, because until recently most people didn’t carry a video camera around with them. It was only because a member of the public had a phone with a video camera on it that there was an inquiry into Ian Tomlinson’s death. It was inevitable that at some point a member of the public would be seriously hurt by these squadrons of pumped up police, but unlike before there would be video evidence of what happened.
Why do they do this? It’s not really clear. It may be that they are under orders from the Home Office. It may be that they just like a fight. Or it may be that this is a strategy to prevent protest. Whatever the reason, it is important that Ian Tomlinson’s death marks a turning point in the policing of protests by the Metropolitan Police. Because if we go on as we have been his death won’t be the last at the hands of the police. This is not a rogue individual. It’s a systemic problem. The Home Office and the senior commanders in the Metropolitan Police must recognise this and ensure that police tactics and strategy change fundamentally.
The wallpaperrs can bee downloaded quickly with one click,
but it takes a while to find one you like because you
have to navvigate through the images one by one.
Hence, pharmaceutical machinery manufacturers are facing a competition.
Hong Kongg makers of portable speakers aree improving the product’s external design and audio performance, the latter through higher power output, deeper base or other sound
enhancemjent technology.
The police across the world are being used as weapons of war by the global elite against the people and in the USA we have many recorded incidents of police killing civilians execution style as was the case with Oscar Grant.
In the UK we have the case of Ian Tomlinson’s death who was murdered by a policeman for being in the wrong place at the wrong time but with the elite owning the justice system lock stock and barrel many of the perpetrators of these crime against “We the people” are allowed to walk away scotch free by the courts and that’s if the case makes it to court.
Hollie Greig, who is a downs syndrome girl was systematically raped whilst under the protection of the British establishment charged with protecting a vulnerable child.
Hollie’s mother Mrs Ann Greig would like to see some justice for member of the establishment, who through their positions were given access to this little girl and abused her as their own personal little sexual play toy. The reason Mrs Greig has never had the opportunity to have her day in court is because the accused paedophiles include British lawyers, police and a local High Sheriff.
Various request under the freedom of information act (FOA) have been ignored and several people including her mother and Mr Robert Green have been silenced using gag orders including the BBC’s Panorama documentary channel in an effort to keep the story out of the public domain and the establishments have even gone so far as to make legal threats against Google.
This fight to bring justice for Hollie has been raging for several years and despite millions of people knowing about the case, it still seems that the British justice system is unable to live up to its name Mr Cameron is hereby put on notice that ‘we the people’ demand this case should go to trial in open court where both sides may present their case.
Time we took to the streets and took back our freedoms and the corrupt justice system because it is clear to a blind man that the game is rigged and the elite will stop at nothing because we are not worthy to be in there presents.
The problem is that the police don’t stop the violent protesters that smash things up, but have a one size fits all approach that treats every protester as a violent protester. When the protests are too big, the violent protesters (and there are some, though the number is very small) can intermingle with the peaceful protesters. The police, not being able to stop the violent protesters but at the same time not wanting to admit they can’t stop them therefore have to arrest some peaceful protesters to make up arrestee numbers. The police need to find a way to tackle this problem without infringing on the rights of peaceful protesters.
One idiot threw a fire extinguisher off a roof. He shouldn’t be the yardstick we judge protesters by and neither should PC Harwood be the yardstick we judge every officer in the MET by. Thankfully the number of these people is small, on both ‘sides’.
Unfortunately, the nature of marches/demos these days seems to be that they are increasingly factionalised with groups roaming and popping-up all over the show, making policing extremely difficult. I don’t know what the answer is, it would be great if everyone marched peacefully, put our message across and we all went home safe at the end of a fun day but it doesn’t seem to be like that and people being people, things will go a bit Pete Tong at times, establishment sites being trashed, banks, McDonalds, occupations here and there etc. Quite how these things can be policed in a low-key fashion while a lid is kept on things is a tough nut to crack.
Just think what a problem would have been caused had that fire extinguisher landed on a policeman’s head and killed them…
And if you think the MET are up for a fight now, you should have been round my way during the miners’ strike in ’84-’85. And on the Poll Tax demo there was plenty of aggro aimed at the police and it seemed out of control at times and a member of the police ending up dead knot out of the question at times – I remember a couple caught in cars and almost not getting away…
Good post Peter. I’d thought of writing something similar, but you said it so well you saved me the trouble.
The police have a tough job. I really don’t believe they make it any easier for themselves by failing to address shortcomings.
I want a police service I can cheer for, not one that’s determined to make the same mistakes over and over again.
No, I’m not advocating that sort of policing. Of course I’m not.
But there’s an area between no policing, as you suggest, and what the Met do. It appears that in their own words the Met are “up for it” – they want a fight.
So is it really a surprise when you get a fight? I’m quite sure if I went out on the street now “up for it” I could find someone to fight with me. On the other hand I go about my business every day without ever getting into a fight.
The coverage of Ian Tomlinson’s tragic death shows how a Met officer behaves. He attacked and individual at random, hitting him with a truncheon and then pushing him to the ground. If I were to do that, I’d expect a violent response.
So let’s have policing at protests, but don’t let it be provocative. Surely you can see a difference?
Just had an idea.
How about if there were no police in any of these marches and protests?
And that all the movements endorsing these marches promised to pay for damages caused to buildings and economic losses cause incurred if trading has to be ended? How about you, Peter, put all of your assets up as surety that no protestor will cause damage or no business needs to stop trading? If you still have all your assets at the end of the day they you have been proven right and there is no need for a police presence at these protests.
I did note the lack of kettling etc at the first anti-fees/cust march.
And a building entrance was occupied and protestors lit bonfires, smashed windows and acquired papers/a fire extinguisher from somewhere to chuck off a roof.
So is that the type of protest that you are advocating?