29th March 2011
Running Battles? Rather, a Wonderful Example of Good Policing
Mark Hanson
In some parts of the media there is an assumption about the democratic right to protest: it should be thoroughly stamped on as anarchist rebellion. The reports in the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph over the March for the Alternative appear to follow this assumption, and seem to have already overshadowed one of the greatest expressions of democracy and good public order policing seen for many a year.
The reports of running battles, anarchist mobs and terrible damage to London’s landmarks threatens to cower the police into a grave return to the heavy-handed tactics that have already been widely condemned by most level-headed and informed people. It would be a shame if that were to come to pass. Indeed, Theresa May, the Home Secretary, has already indicated that the police may be given more powers.
The March for the Alternative has been hailed as a striking combination of good organisation by the TUC and good policing by public order officers. Even the police reported that “today's TUC March for the Alternative has been peaceful and well-stewarded.”
The police had deliberately decided to take a softly-softly approach in order to not raise tensions. Bob Broadhurst, who usually oversees major public order policing in London, was sidelined to a communications role, according to later reports (initial reports suggested that he had been heading the operation).
The police were called to a number of incidents, however, which seemed to take place after a splinter from the main march started to run amok. This series of incidents appears to have been orchestrated in the sense that the perpetrators were dressed in red and black and had their faces covered by scarves. They numbered approximately 500, according to the Guardian live blog that followed the events through the day.
The other event of note was the occupation of Trafalgar Square. Here peaceful protesters planned a long-term sit-in protest, calling it “Tahrir Square” after the centre of demonstrations against Mubarak in Egypt. The police stormed this peaceful protest once the situation had become tense and there were minor skirmishes between protesters and officers. It has been reported that the “Battle of Trafalgar Square” had not been fully resolved until late into the night.
There are conflicting reports as to how the trouble in Trafalgar Square began. Bob Broadhurst insisted it was because police entered the square to arrest a man defacing the Olympic Clock and that following this the police had come under “sustained attack”. Yet Laurie Penny, writing in the New Statesman and who was present at the protest, writes:
“That is not what happened. Instead, I witness the attempted snatch arrest of a 23 year-old man who they suspect of damaging the shop front of a major chain bank earlier in the day.
“It starts when a handful of police officers moved through the quiet crowd, past circles of young people sharing snacks, smoking, playing guitars and chatting. They move in to grab the young man, but his friends scrambled to prevent the arrest being made, dragging him away from the police by his legs. Batons are drawn; a scuffle breaks out, and that scuffle becomes a fight, and then suddenly hundreds of armoured riot police are swarming in, seemingly from nowhere, sweeping up the steps of the National Gallery, beating back protesters as they go.”
Whatever the reason for the police moving into the Square in small, unaggressive numbers, the person who was being arrested chose to resist arrest with the help of a number of the protesters. This seems to have sparked an intense confrontation involving many protesters and many police.
Earlier in the day there were reports of clashes around Oxford Circus. Many of these clashes between police and “protesters” appear to be the result of violent disorder by the red and black brigade who had started hijacking the planned Oxford Street protest by UK Uncut. Many reports suggested that the violent disorder was part of UK Uncut, yet took place before the direct action group’s planned start time, and in an assertive response to such reports UK Uncut writes:
“The UK Uncut actions were fun and friendly and organised to work in tandem with the 'TUC March for the alternative' in order to make space for people wanting to engage in civil disobedience as their way of expressing opposition to the cuts. It was positive. It was in solidarity. We celebrate the hard work of all involved, the unions, their branches and all the individuals who built the TUC march into the huge success that it was. We were not in any way seeking to grab headlines; we did what we always do, creative sit-down protest. We are all in this together.”
The so-called “anarchists” did seem to be there only for a riot, which, contrary to most reports and seemingly accepted by the Home Secretary, did not, by and large, take place. Yes, much damage was caused, but the numbers involved in violence appear to be miniscule. Compared to an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 present, disorder can be attributed to approximately 500 hard core rioters.
But the general impression remains: a wonderful example of good policing. Despite the reports in the mainstream media, and the protestations of the hardcore, this should be hailed as the way forward in public order policing. Further lessons to need to be learned, yet the possibility of completely eradicating violence at a demonstration of this size would involve such draconian measures that it cannot be countenanced.
