Written by Henry Hill | 10 August 2011
Posted in Comment - Britain

Photography: ukhomeoffice

The subject of riot policing in the UK has been covered by TSJ – by this author, amongst others – in previous months, and has demonstrated a tendency to divide opinion. Those whose sympathies lie with the perpetrators of civil disorder tend to the opinion that British policing is still too harsh – that every horse charge and baton swing is another example of unacceptable police brutality. Others, oneself included, feel that Britain’s ‘hands-off’ approach to riot policing allows criminals to take unconscionable liberties with both private property and public safety.

Whatever outside observers feel, the question remains: what it is that motivates the police authorities and the government to take the position they do? Does their claim to be policing ‘by consent’ stand up to scrutiny – and, if it does, is it still the right strategy in the face of the massive damage wrought by the riots of the past few days? Or is it simply a cowardly response; a willingness to let vulnerable communities pay the price to avoid lawsuits and bad press. One must stress at this point that such spinelessness, if present, is not on the part of officers on the street, but their superior officers and those who set policy, as this article in the Guardian makes clear.

Spokespeople for both the police and government are maintaining their mantra of ‘policing by consent’ in the face of increasingly incredulous queries about how the violence has been allowed to spiral out of control. There is much to be said for consensual policing, which tends to engender less resentment, less violence and greater cooperation between the community and law enforcement agencies. But collaborative policing requires certain conditions to work – a sense of trust and mutual respect, a series of perhaps intangible but important mutually agreed parameters between the police and the policed.

What happens, however, when these conditions are gone? The British police authorities appear determined to continue to use consensual policing methods against opponents who are playing by entirely different rules – and it’s ordinary people who get hurt.

Surely it is absurd to claim that a riot – a riot – could be policed ‘consensually’? When spokesmen for the Metropolitan Police claim that they’re avoiding tough tactics because they’re committed to policing ‘by consent’, or when Theresa May rules out water cannon (only yesterday night) because it is against the British way of doing things (despite regular use in Northern Ireland), whose consent are they actually after?

Anybody watching the response of the communities wrecked by the riots should be in no doubt that they – overwhelmingly – support tougher tactics. Not all their suggestions are good ones, of course, but the calls for the deployment of water cannon, baton rounds and riot-equipped soldiers being airily dismissed by politicians are emanating from the very communities whose ‘consent’ the relevant authorities are claiming to venerate while their neighbourhoods are allowed to burn. Instead we’re left with the ridiculous situation where it appears that the British authorities are awaiting the consent of the rioters themselves.

In response to a question from the Guardian newspaper, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police stated that ‘the priority is not to protect property but to protect life.’ Whilst a common sense priority for the police, it can be taken too far, with those sympathetic to the rioters claiming that those demanding a tougher response to unrest are placing mere property above the welfare of human beings, rioters or not.

Yet property should not be glibly dismissed as an expendable, despite how it might appear such by students who either don’t own much of it or have had it come cheaply to them. Watching the 24 hour news, this author has seen interviews with many people who invested their hopes for a better life, as well as their time and money, into local businesses that have been raided or razed to the ground. They haven’t been bruised or beaten up, but these people’s lives have been ruined more permanently than any of the usual victims of police force. Why should the supposed right of a rioter to walk away unscarred be more important than the defence of these people’s livelihoods?

Aside the principle of consent, then what else could motivate their limp-wristed police response? Overstretch is obviously a factor, although that doesn’t explain why it took the Metropolitan Police three days to draft their full available strength into action. Perhaps it is a product of the culture of victimhood, where any vigorous police action will be met with protests and lawsuits, driven by the usual ‘armchair radicals‘ in the commentariat. Both of these things say a lot about the way that legislators have conducted themselves in the past, and should be topics of urgent concern amongst our lawmakers in the coming months.

At the time of writing (the evening of Tuesday 9^th) it appears that the police are finally starting to get things in hand. Massively increasing numbers and so much as talking about the use of strategies such as baton rounds are having their effect - fear, that vital element of riot policing, is crawling slowly back into the hearts of the looters and arsonists. For many, this newfound vigour comes too late to save their homes, businesses and futures. Let’s hope that those ultimately responsible for the failures of law enforcement these last few days have learned their lesson, and it never happens again.

Comments: