IT HAS been a difficult 12 months for the Metropolitan Police but the past few weeks – with the G20 demonstrations and the resignation of anti-terror chief Bob Quick – have added new and challenging twists.
There has always been a strong case for clearing up the multiple lines of accountability that govern the Met – the London Mayor, the Home Secretary and the police authority. However, through his actions over the removal of Sir Ian Blair and his antics over the announcement of Bob Quick’s resignation, Boris Johnson has, if anything, undermined that case, adding suspicion within the Met that there is an attempt to politicise operational policing.
Meanwhile the Mayor and his policing deputy, Kit Malthouse, have to explain their role in the handling of the G20 demonstrations this month.
The events surrounding these this month had the feel of a self-fulfilling prophecy about them. Lurid media stories predicted mayhem and violence. Various 24-hour media outlets devoted acres of live coverage of the demonstrations and the danger that violence and disruption would occur. Decisions affecting the lives of everyone on the planet battled for airtime with the actions of a minority of those demonstrating. Indeed, it was the fact that demonstrations were taking place – and whether there would be violence – that dominated coverage of the protests, not what the wide range of protesters were saying.
Then there was the terrible death of Ian Tomlinson and a more sober analysis began to emerge. The Guardian’s exposé of the circumstances surrounding his death during the G20 demonstrations is to be commended.
In the build-up to the G20 demonstrations, there seemed to be no strategy either by the police or City Hall to defuse the growing media storyline of impending violence. Failing to deal with this can only have had an impact on the tension felt by demonstrators and police alike. The temperature seemed to rise all week. We even had reports that the police were “up for it” if there was a confrontation. A media narrative was allowed to gain ground around these demonstrations that made little or no distinction between legitimate protesters and a small minority whose intention was to engage in criminal acts. This had the effect of elevating that minority and increasing tension for both police officers and demonstrators alike.
If there are lessons to be learned from how the media operation unfolded, then there are big questions about how the City of London demonstration was policed. Prior to this protest, the most high-profile use of what has become called “kettling” was on the May Day demonstrations in London in 2001, when the police prevented violence in Oxford Street by holding protesters for several hours until the possibility of serious criminality was over.
It was clear that there was a hardcore of mainly anarchist protesters who were openly planning violence and aiming to drag others – who had no violent intent – into their activities in order to heighten the impact of what they planned. There was no attempt to co-operate with the authorities. The approach taken was straightforward: people who wanted to take part in May Day demonstrations could do so by joining the lawful annual labour movement march organised by the trade unions. They were urged not to go near the Oxford Street actions which were being organised to give the police, transport authorities and others the run around in order to create mayhem. In these circumstances, with clear warnings given and a clear legitimate alternative offered, the Met were able to justify the decision to hold the Oxford Street demonstrators in order to prevent violence.
These circumstances did not apply at the G20. As the public were given no warnings not to attend or warned that it would be safer to attend another event, I do not think that “kettling” people in the way that happened can be very easily justified.
It raises significant questions for City Hall, which has now had nearly a year of Tory rule, during which time instability and cuts have been the order of the day for the Met. Hardly a month goes by without a new bad story for the Met, yet the Conservative administration gives the impression of chasing headlines or confirming its own prejudices instead of providing firm and coherent political leadership and support. And on top of this, the imposition of a real terms cut in the police budget is not a good way to run the police service. Although Conservatives like to see themselves as the party of effective crime-fighting, they have presided over a bad year for the Met.
