15th December 2010
The Fall-Out From
the Student Protests Mounts
Mark Hanson
Since the last article on the WebPaper concerning the student protests, some of which was tongue-in-cheek, there have been numerous developments, some of great importance.
As I am writing, a protest against the hospitalisation of Alfie Meadows, who was allegedly beaten with a police baton, has taken place, and with great restraint by all it has passed off quite peacefully.
Yet the situation we now have, of a continuing disparity between views and accounts, is deeply worrying. This brings Cameron’s Broken Britain into stark focus.
There appears to be a running commentary by the police, who admittedly had a difficult and some would say still have an impossible task. The line that they are promoting is that they were faced with a large level of violence, although they have toned down their rhetoric. Previously claiming in a statement by Superintendent Julia Pendry that:
“The Met is extremely disappointed with the behaviour of protesters. It is absolutely obvious that people have come to London with the intention of committing violent disorder, not coming for peaceful protest.
“That can be proved by the fact they have deviated from the agreed route.”
That line has been accepted by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, who has told the Commons that the violence was caused by "an organised group of hardcore activists and street gangs". The police, however, are now saying differently. Detective Chief Superintendent Matt Horne said: "What struck me is the number of people arrested who did not go that day with necessarily any intention of committing any violent action."
Of course, the change in tone need not necessarily be sinister, but the result of information the police had not previously had available. There needs, however, to be questions asked as to why reports of certain sections of the media such as TV stations are considered a good basis for statements, whilst on-the-ground journalists and protesters are ignored.
The Metropolitan Police have also announced an internal investigation into allegations, first made to the Guardian newspaper on the day of the tuition fees vote, that one protester suffering from severe cerebral palsy was twice pulled from his wheelchair, the second time in a seemingly unprovoked attack by a police officer who dragged him across the ground for several yards and left him lying on a pavement. The announcement of the investigation came only after video footage was placed on YouTube and picked up by the Guardian.
In the video footage, once the attack has been complete, the other police officers can be seen to drag the police attacker away. Jody McIntyre, the protester concerned, says that the police officer was the same one with which he had had contact before. That the Met did not initiate an investigation despite newspaper reporting of the incident, but did as soon as the video footage was released, is also of great concern.
The TV footage that has been prevalent may suggest that there was anarchy on the streets of London. It must be borne in mind, though, that though unacceptable violence did take place, the majority of the protests were peaceful, if rather chaotic and noisy. The disorder that did take place seems to have been largely targeted at property, such as the statute of Winston Churchill and the Treasury windows. The event involving Prince Charles and his cohort has claimed much attention, yet has over-shadowed more positive news, as well as more concerning news, and is being used to criticise the police for being too lenient!
The now routine use of kettling by the police needs, desperately, to be challenged, and it is with gladness that news has come that lawyers for five of the protesters have begun a legal challenge to the use of kettling, arguing that it breaches human rights legislation. From the viewpoint of many, it was the prolonged imprisonment of large numbers of hitherto peaceful protesters in freezing temperatures that prompted much of the unrest.
Phil Shiner, of Public Interest Lawyers, who represents one of the protesters, said: "My clients are very concerned that the Metropolitan police are now using kettling as a stock response to all public protests and appear to have authorised kettling in advance of this particular protest." He said that kettling is an infringement of articles 5, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 5 covers liberty and security; article 10 covers freedom of expression; and article 11 covers freedom of association.
Yet there have now been reports that the police may seek a complete ban on protest marches in London by the students. Freedom of assembly used to ensure that the police could not legally prevent people gathering together in large numbers. The law was changed by the Conservative government of John Major in 1994, however, after which any substantial gathering of people required prior permission from the authorities. The police are said to be considering whether to ask Theresa May to ban marches in London.
In perhaps the most comforting development, the Home Secretary has said that the use of water cannons has no legal authority in England, according to the Guardian, yet in a recording of her comments made to the Home Affairs Select Committee the following day it can be heard that she stumbles slightly in confirming this, saying that the police have a list of measures they are permitted to use, with “water cannons not ye... not being one of them”.
A further development is that the BBC has received a deluge of complaints over an interview it broadcast with Jody McIntyre. Ben Brown, conducting the interview, used a cross-examination approach more suited to a court of law, or a seasoned politician, than a possible victim of a crime carried out by the police. It is indicative of a wide-range of disinformations perpetrated by the establishment of government, police and the media moguls. The BBC has said that it is treating the significant number of complaints as organised lobbying, with its only response being a blog post by an editor.
