English
Dutch
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Catalan
Chinese (S)
|
06 May 2011
Posted in
Comment -
Britain
Policing a major event is always a difficult balance to strike. Too soft and violent protesters run riot and the television is full of burning Christmas trees, smashed shop fronts and flares. Too hard and you elicit the inevitable cries of ‘fascism’ and cheap Orwell analogies. In general, British policing tends heavily towards the soft. During the recent string of protests the police have largely tried to avoid confronting violent protesters to avoid “escalation”. They have also shied away from the use of dispersal agents – despite their being better for law enforcement, the protesters and bystanders than containment – because dispersal carries a bad press. Compared to the treatment they would receive in much of the rest of the world, the British protestariat has little to complain about when it comes to how they are policed.
For the royal wedding, on the other hand, the police and security services took no risks. Armed police officers, supported by troops, worked to make the capital as secure as they possibly could. This involved enacting some security policies which have proven unpopular in certain quarters, most prominently banning anti-royalist protest inside the capital on the day of the wedding itself. To some that seems like the draconian action of a police state. To me, given the realities of the protests that the Metropolitan Police have had to handle in recent months, it was a regrettable but necessary precaution.
The widely accepted truth is that at each of the major protests in recent months there has been a “violent minority” who ‘hijack’ the event to occupy buildings, break windows, attack the police and generally cause trouble. Despite this, protesters continue to expect to be policed liberally, assuming that as long as theydisavow the flare-wielding rioters the police can have no possible justification in changing the way the bulk of the protest is handled. The police have generally tried to police marches on a liberal basis, kettling where necessary but not directly combating those who attack shops, and refraining from deploying any advanced riot equipment or strategies. Even for a general protest, policing in such a way as grants the violent minority such leeway is generous. When the Head of State, the Prime Minister, the cream of the British political class, hundreds of foreign dignitaries and millions of spectators are at risk, however, it would be a criminal dereliction of duty.
The fact is that if a peaceful protest had been permitted – as it normally is in this free country of ours – it would almost certainly have been hijacked by a committed, violent minority hell-bent on disrupting or ruining this great national occasion – again, as is normally the case. It could also – not consciously or willingly, but nonetheless – provide cover to radicals and terrorists who would genuinely seek to harm the Monarch, the guests or any number of civilians. Moreover, policing a protest in such an atmosphere would risk catastrophic consequences: if trouble-makers were operating out of it civilians would be put at risk of being hit by the police, who were operating (quite rightly) on shoot-to-kill orders against threats throughout the day.
Ordinarily, the violent wing of the British protest movement is granted significant leeway to do damage by the police in order to allow the great bulk of non-violent protesters to go about their business peacefully. However, the organisers of the various mass rallies and marches cannot forever operate under the delusion that they can always be completely divorced from the violent minority within their ranks. There are occasions where there is no margin for error, and the violent minority cannot be afforded protection. On occasions such as this, “better safe than sorry” is a just motto.
The royal wedding was a major national event with an incredibly important guest list and would have been a very tempting target for all manner of people seeking to disrupt or damage the wedding, the monarchy or the nation. The police were quite right to play it safe, and for one day of the year to eschew the liberal policing style that is their usual modus operandi. The complete absence of trouble throughout the union of Prince William and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, and the enormous popular support the event received from tens of millions of people throughout the day, is testament to the justness and effectiveness of this policy.
Comments:
Facebook
TSJ Comments| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Henry Hill
Henry Hill studies Journalism in Manchester and is a Contributor at TSJ. He is the 8th ranked Conservative blogger in the UK.
Follow @Dilettante11
Comments
I would answer your first point thus: I believe that riot policing here is altogether too liberal given the inevitable violent outcomes. The fact that the rest of the world is tougher is simply supporting evidence. Water cannons do have a role in riot policing - and the British police have them - but they are primarily distance-management instruments. None of the late round of protests have required them.
Ian Tomlinson's death was a tragic and isolated incident that stemmed from complications of being pushed over by an officer, it is hardly an effective charge against British policing in general.
On your latter point, the fact is that recent protesters have not shown themselves willing or able to respect lines drawn by police. A mob is made of individuals, after all. Let one through and more come through, they group, others are emboldened and people are put at risk. The only way to ensure no trouble was the completely effective zero-tolerance approach taken by the police on the day.
Firstly, you mention that Quote:
- simply because other countries have more illiberal policies, does that mean that we should be grateful that we are not governed in the same way? Surely we should we looking at what Britain has stood for, as far as I can remember; a 'multicultural' country, giving people an opportunity to speak up and stand up for what they believe in. Just because other countries use water cannons, which are quite dangerous by the way, does not mean that we should do the same.
- Ian Tomlinson died as a result of the actions of the actions of a British policeman. That's a pretty major complaint..
Secondly, you say that Quote:
Not having protests was, for me, a minor concern. The date was chosen specifically to counter the wedding and regardless of anything else, protesting just to disrupt a wedding is simply not that great a thing to do. Protesting against the monarchy can happen any day. To be honest, I would have preferred if they had the day after, at least there would have been something on the news! Anyway, I divert. What I mean to say is that there is a difference between protesting through the streets and having smaller groups.
One person was simply going to speak out and was pre-arrested, that is arrested on the assumption that he may disrupt the wedding. Many others were also pre-arrested - is this not something to worry about?