UK

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 13° London Hi 16°C / Lo 8°C

Police told: stop 'kettling' activists

By Chris Greenwood, Press Association

Police chiefs must rethink the controversial tactic of "kettling" participants of mass demonstrations, a report said today.

The practice of holding people in one place for long periods, widely known as "kettling", cannot always be justified, a committee of MPs found.

Members of the Home Affairs Committee said it is not acceptable to impose a blanket ban on movement and peaceful protesters should be allowed to leave.

They said frontline officers must be given discretion to allow some people to escape highly-charged events.

The findings were contained in a report published by the committee into the G20 protests in the City of London.

More than 35,000 people took to the streets as world leaders met over two days at the beginning of April.

The police have endured a barrage of criticism in the aftermath of the death of newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson who was pushed to the ground during clashes.

Independent investigators have launched several inquiries after footage of officers lashing out at protesters was caught on camera.

The Home Affairs Committee report said a small number of high-profile incidents could damage the confidence of the public in police.

Members criticised senior officers for several aspects of the huge £7.2 million policing operation involving several forces.

They said that overall the operation was "remarkable successful" with little disruption to the capital but added an "element of luck" may have helped police.

MPs said images of so-called distraction tactics, shows of controlled violence against hostile individuals, shocked many and could undermine public trust.

They added "urgent action" is required to ensure officers display identification at all times. Those who do not must face the "strongest possible" disciplinary measures, they said.

Members said they were concerned untrained and inexperienced officers were left in such a "highly combustible atmosphere" at the frontline of the protests.

The committee said police should not spend money on water cannons and other equipment to create distance between them and protesters. They said the money could be better spent on training and planning.

MPs added that police organisers must also work harder to communicate with protest organisers and the media.

The report concluded: "Above all, the police must constantly remember that those who protest on Britain's streets are not criminals but citizens motivated by moral principles, exercising their democratic rights.

"The police's doctrine must remain focused on allowing this protest to happen peacefully."

Keith Vaz, who chairs the committee, said police must consider whether to continue with tactics such as 'kettling' and to ensure untrained officers are not left on the frontline.

He said: "The basic principle that the police must remember is that protesters are not criminals - the police's doctrine must remain focused on allowing protest to happen peacefully.

"In many ways this was a large protest which passed off remarkably well. But it is clear that concerns about the policing of the G20 Protests have damaged the public's confidence in the police, and that is a great shame.

"The ability of the public and the media to monitor every single action of the police through CCTV, mobile phones and video equipment should mean they take even greater care to ensure that all their actions are justifiable.

"It is unacceptable for officers not to wear identification numbers at such events, and any officers found to be deliberately removing their identification should face the strongest possible disciplinary measures."

Chief Constable South Yorkshire Meredydd Hughes, a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said: "Every single public order event - from football games and festivals through to large scale protests, provides the service with fresh opportunities to learn and improve the way that we do things.

"Policing must be proportionate, lawful, accountable and necessary, and we accept that we will not get it right every time.

"What's important is that we take those opportunities, encourage debate and as a service, respond appropriately to criticism.

"The G20 was one of the largest security operations ever mounted in this country and we are pleased the committee recognises its overall success.

"Every weekend, many protests happen across the UK with little or no involvement from the police service - largely due to good communication between protesters and the police.

"What is clear is that there are concerns that we need to address as a service and we will study this report carefully alongside the other reviews and inquiries under way."

Paul McKeever, chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said officers need a wide range of tactics to deal with riots, demonstrations and public order situations.

He said: "We are the lawfully appointed authority designated to accommodate lawful protests but this must continue to be done whilst balancing the rights and needs of the majority to conduct their daily lives as uninterrupted as possible.

"Containment as a tactic allows for the protection of property, the minimising of disorder, the identification of offenders and the ability of others to go about their lawful business.

"We accept however that the employment of this tactic may occasionally result in the detainment of some people not involved in the protest, but what has to be considered is the alternative.

"By choosing a method such as dispersal and allowing groups of demonstrators to roam around areas at will you are allowing, at best, disruption to the lives of non-protesters and at worst serious disorder.

"We support the contention that containment must be proportionate to the circumstances and intelligence gathered. We also believe its use must always be balanced against the need to take measures against the potential for much greater disorder."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Filth
[info]oomigoolies wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 06:32 am (UTC)
"The Home Affairs Committee report said a small number of high-profile incidents could damage the confidence of the public in police."

What confidence can we have in a bunch of anonymous arrogant thugs with their thumbs in their shoes? I wouldn't dare even ask a policeman the time of day for fear of the unfriendly response I'd get. Policing demands the best people. Unfortunately in this country we too often have the worst.
Labours goon squads
[info]mike_spain wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 07:58 am (UTC)
I'm certainly with you here. There is very little confidence left with the police today for a number of very good reasons. Firstly their presence on the streets in mass numbers only occurs to police political protest, to ensnare car drivers over speeding, arrive mob handed over some trivial offence and generally poke their noses into some politically inspired 'social crime'. As far as stopping crime on the streets or burglaries they can't even attend crime scenes for the most part let alone prevent the crime. Add to this the savage beatings we've seen by certain legalized thugs in the force, why should we trust plod. The onus is on them to regain respect but to date despite many statements from CPO's they've had a strange way of showing it. There's a lot to be said for the French or Spanish police model. In Spain the local police or Policia Local are just that. They are paid for by the local town hall, accountable to the local citizens and are very obvious by their presence preventing street crime and burglaries. The National Police concern themselves with immigration and other national issues but are detached from the local accountable police. Finally the Guadia Civil are primarily to do with National security and trunk road policing. Unlike Britains politicised police force which is nothing more than Labours private force at all levels and geographic locations, we in Spain have local police for local issues. In France is very similar to Spain and the locals respect their local police unlike Labours goon squads acting like Mugabes henchmen.
What does this mean?
[info]theelectrician wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 08:01 am (UTC)
"...must be given discretion to allow some people to escape highly-charged events. "

I'd have thought that ANYBODY should be allowed to escape from a highly charged event. Why should people who have not broken the law be held in dangerous conditions against their will?
[info]climatewarrior wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 08:06 am (UTC)
"We accept however that the employment of [kettling] may occasionally result in the detainment of some people not involved in the protest, but what has to be considered is the alternative."

And there we have it from the mouth of a senior trade union rep. It appears that he considers it is perfectly acceptable to kettle those involved in a protest.

The trade union rep should note what Mr Vaz said, "The basic principle that the police must remember is that protesters are not criminals", and ensure that his members take note too. Any who don't take note should be sacked.

Confidence, ...what confidence.
[info]neil639 wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 08:14 am (UTC)
They talk of damaging the public's confidence. I would suggest that a large section of today's society, including "Middle England" has little, if any, confidence in the police. On the very, very rare occasions they are seen patrolling the streets the Police I see are dressed and equipped like some sort of aggresive private militia, and they appear to be totally unapproachable. The Police themselves do little to dispel this perception, and appear to consider themselves a class apart.
[info]jonpaulr wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 08:58 am (UTC)
Can the home affairs committee suggest an alternative that would ensure that the police and public aren't hurt,as if they can't and a p.c is hurt then I call on the police to try to strike,whether the home affairs committe thinks its not acceptable doesn't men its not legal
[info]climatewarrior wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 09:51 am (UTC)
"Can the home affairs committee suggest an alternative that would ensure that the police and public aren't hurt"

This implies that the police and the public were not hurt by kettling. However, we know that is not the case, members of the public were certainly hurt by the police. Being clubbed with a bit of wood or a shield does hurt, as does being jumped on be several masked black clad thugs and there is plenty of evidence of all that on the web.


taking liberties & on the verge & police provocateurs
[info]ukcannonfodder wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 02:31 pm (UTC)
two films that show the state of play for peaceful protesters.

TAKING LIBERTIES:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3351275215846218544&ei=xsxISs-MJJvp-AbY7-T9Bg&q=taking+liberties&client=firefox-a

TAKING LIBERTIES is a shocking but hilarious polemic documentary that charts the destruction of all your Basic Liberties under 10 Years of New Labour



On The Verge:
http://www.schnews.org.uk/schmovies/index-on-the-verge.htm
The film that the police tried to ban & then repress about collusion with EDO weapons manufacturer to silence peaceful protesters.


G20 police 'used undercover men to incite crowds'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacateurs

FTA: An MP who was involved in last month's G20 protests in London is to call for an investigation into whether the police used agents provocateurs to incite the crowds.

Liberal Democrat Tom Brake says he saw what he believed to be two plain-clothes police officers go through a police cordon after presenting their ID cards.
Re: taking liberties & on the verge & police provocateurs
[info]ukcannonfodder wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 02:36 pm (UTC)
P.S. FTA: "They said front-line officers must be given discretion to allow some people to escape highly-charged events."

so the police get to choose who to let out of the kettle but are still allowed to kettle!

sensationalist headline


Terrorists, terrorism, swine flu, paedophiles, pirates, al-qaeda. BE AFRAID PPL!

Freedom of speech under threat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGA9ZUEa3ZY&feature=PlayList&p=1C5F0FF4E4F424EC&index=0
America is Laughing Quietly
[info]jager6863 wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 11:59 pm (UTC)
Dear Cousins, We don't understand why it is necessary to deploy 3,000 police officer to deal with 1-2,000 protesters? We see the shoving matches between the police and the crowds and we just have to laugh. Let people be free to express their opinions and protest. Protect what needs protecting with concrete barricade and fences, backed up by armed police. If protesters do things you don't like/want, deploy tear gas and take out the leaders with bean bag rounds or rubber bullets. Arrest people who commit violent acts and give them harsh sentences. The great majority or people are non-violent and will not appreciate being tear gassed because of the violent actions of a few. Protests with the potential for violence will shrink in size to manageable levels after it's know that you will get gassed if people misbehave. In the U.K. you all have so few civil rights anymore than I'm sure the government could wiretap the leaders and detain them without trial, so they can't join the "people" on protest days. Just something for you all to think about. Your American Cousin.
Re: America is Laughing Quietly
[info]reiksares wrote:
Tuesday, 30 June 2009 at 12:07 am (UTC)
Using tear-gas and rubber bullets on "people who do things you don't like"??? Get your stinking yankee butt out of here buddy - we don't need more Guantanamo Gulags in Europe, y'all.
[info]lady_icedragon wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 06:23 am (UTC)
"By choosing a method such as dispersal and allowing groups of demonstrators to roam around areas at will you are allowing, at best, disruption to the lives of non-protesters and at worst serious disorder."

So, it's OK for the police to catch non-protesters up in their containment areas, because that's better than them being 'disrupted' by the protest? Does that even make sense?

Containment should be the absolute LAST resort, only when it is clear that the protest would cause significant damage or harm should it be allowed to continue to march. We should not need PERMISSION to stand up and protest. We should not be satisfied with a police force that thinks that it's in the best interest of ANYONE to take several thousand people and "contain" them for hours in the street without food, water or toilets. Even the non-protesters who were caught up in the area were subjected to the same inhumane conditions. But, the alternative, allowing protesters to march, is the "worst serious disorder". This is wrong!

Most popular


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date