It runs through society and no group is immune. However some groups have less immunity than others.
I think you are naive if you believe that officers on duty at these demos have any choice but to effect an arrest. There are clearly occasions where officers can choose not to arrest, to find another solution, but I donāt believe this is one of those. By the way, I am so glad Iām not one of those having to do duty at these demos.
1 Like
I agree that no doubt the junior ranks sent to the scene of these demos have been given strict instructions as to what to do. However, when I talk about police officers having powers of discretion, I include all officers including the senior ranks. Perhaps some of the senior commanders should be asking themselves the question as to whether making wholesale arrests is really in the greater public interest.
I expect that part of the problem is that the Met, due to itās historical funding and control by the Home Office, has also in a way always been the Governments private police force. Add in the fact that no middle ranking officer ever became a more senior one by questioning instructions from on high, and a culture develops of āYes Sir, three bags full Sirā.
At the end of the day my opinion remains that the current course of action by the Met is not only over the top, but also serves to exacerbate the situation rather than to calm it. The role of the police used to be about maintaining the Monarchās Peace rather than stirring up a hornetās nest.
1 Like
Isnāt the main issue about accusations of ātwo tier policing ā?
1 Like
Iāve not heard anything about that in this particular scenario. I have however noted that there do not seem to be any counter-protesters going along to Parliament Square to support the policy of death and destruction being rained down on Palestinians by the Israeli government. I wonder if a placard reading āI support Israelās genocideā would result in the holder being arrested for anything more serious than āConduct likely to cause a Breach of the Peaceā.
1 Like
Iām pretty sure you would hear a lot about it if the old Bill didnāt arrest people.
To be fair, weāre hearing a lot about them arresting 80 year olds in wheelchairs or on crutches, and elderly vicars who have just had serious surgery being dragged through crowds into police vans, so itās rather six of one and half a dozen of the other on the absolutely horrific optics stakes here. I know nothing of police public relations departments, but I imagine theyāre not enjoying life at the momentā¦
7 Likes
Sir Robert Peel is widely accepted as being the founder of modern policing. Back in 1829 he set out a number of principles of policing, a couple of which are;
The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder. and
The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Therefore, any incident which results in large scale arrests demonstrates clearly that the police have failed in their basic core mission to PREVENT crime and disorder and is certainly not something to be proud of.
Sir Robert Peel also wrote that āPolice must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the publicā.
So I am left wondering whether the police officers present at Parliament Square took the trouble to advise potential demonstrators as they arrived as to what said demonstrators could and could not lawfully do. Did they mingle with the crowd, or were they drawn up in an overtly confrontational line. Were they giving friendly advice as to what would be OK to write on a placard, such as āI support the de-proscription of Palestine Actionā, or āI support UK action in Palestineā for example.
I remain convinced that with a bit of thought and imagination these demonstrations could be handled in a much less confrontational way. The way things are being handled at the moment serves only to lower the respect of the general public for the police, and provide fodder for the media likely to result in an increase in the number of demonstrators at the next event. Just an increasing downward spiral.
5 Likes
Sorry, but you are just being silly now. Iāve attended demonstrations and you donāt quietly mingle with the crowd having a debate about the issues.
I canāt imagine any police officer taking it upon himself to give legal advice to protesters!
The poiny is that these daft pensioners etc wanted to get arrested. Itās difficult to see that their purpose was anything beyond making themselves feel better in the face of the horror of Gaza.
But intelligent people can be against what Israel is doing without supporting foolishness and pointless demonstrations.
I would suggest that they are both opposed to the actions of Israel and deeply concerned that the British government is trying to suppress dissent regarding their continued tacit support for Israel and a wider suppression of the right to protest. I see these are courageous individuals, not people who only post angry threads on forums.
No need to agree with me, the good thing about freedom of speech is that at least we can discuss this in a civilised fashion.
4 Likes
Not sure Emily Pankhurst would agree.
2 Likes
I donāt say youāre wrong.
The problem with the current method of protest is that it aims always to create the most disruption possible (often to the lives of ordinary people) - unlike the Suffragettes - rather than to win people to the cause.
But people sitting on their arses wringing their hands have no effect whatsoever.
4 Likes
Closing the M25 in the rush hour produces a lot of negative attention, and rightly so. But pensioners being arrested wrongly tends to produce sympathy except amongst the anti-Palestine, further rightwing individuals (who want the Islamic Palestinians tidied away quietly).
āā¦ have no more effect ā¦ā
I suppose weāll see. Will PA be de-proscribed? I doubt it in this parliament.
Really ! I have also performed duty at demos where we did exactly that and it worked really well. There is an opportunity to show that the uniforms contain thinking people who are not āthe enemyā. Also an opportunity to both commiserate with the demonstrators cause, and at the same time to explain the limits beyond which they should not go. There is scope to show that the police are not present in a confrontational manner, but rather to both defend the right of the demonstrators to demonstrate whilst at the same time ensuring that the rest of the public can go about their daily lives unhindered. It is possible to come to a reasonable compromise, but it does take a bit of effort to manage the situation in a way which allows the shields to remain in the van.
Itās not a matter of giving ālegal adviceā as such, but more a matter of explaining what is and is not acceptable. This is something that I have done many times. Itās a matter of trying to see things from their point of view and then explaining how the legalities of the situation fit in with what they wish to do. Invariably, one can come to some sort of compromise with most demonstrators if it is done BEFORE things get out of hand. Donāt confront them ā talk to them. They are people too you know. Anyway, the communicate and commiserate approach is easier than having to stand behind a long shield having bricks and bottles thrown at you.
7 Likes
I donāt think you can compare. The people at this demonstration wanted to be arrested and they committed an offence (sadly) by holding up a placard. That gives the police no room for manoeuvre other than to say to a supervisor: āI donāt think itās right that we should arrest these peopleā. That just isnāt going to happen.
You must have attended some pleasant demos. There wasnāt much debate at Wapping. Just avoiding missiles!
2 Likes
And thatās an arrestable offence,
1 Like
Unfortunately, for this particular placard, yes.