Oh Dom; a really good analysis but as a former cadre officer, you do not seem to reference the presence of the ECHR. That means ALL police action has to be proportionate, legal, accountable and necessary. And the police have a duty to facilitate PEACEFUL, not LAWFUL protest.
Legal means there is actual legislation that you can point to banning the act. That’s easy to see.
Accountable means that it is subject to scrutiny by the public or their representatives. In this case the courts, politicians, old uncle Tom Cobbley and all…
Let’s run the arrest of Hizbollah-Ut-Tabrir through the ‘necessary’ lens.
Firstly, whilst you dismiss it lightly above, Jihad had does NOT necessarily mean fighting. A Muslim contact of mine explained years ago that there are many sorts of jihad. The highest form is your struggle against self-will, the lowest is to fight. Let’s see what Michael Mansfield, Imran Khan etc do with that speech in court? They’ll make a good case that there is no prima facie case here…
Link the speech with terrorism? Somehow I doubt that has legs but I may be wrong…
As regards PO… Was the action actually witnessed by police? Was anyone there actually offended? Was it recorded evidentially? Section 5 (or even 4) of the Public Order is a low-level offence. So how proportionate is wading into the crowd - probably batons flying and shields deployed - no doubt causing injury and further assaults on police that will then be subject to forensic dissection at other court cases (as well as by the CPS), where it is decided that the police were not in execution of their duty - against arrests for S3,4,or 5 of the PO Act 86? Even support for terrorism is a relatively minor offence.
How do you justify a riot to arrest for minor offences? How do we know there wasn’t a plan to make arrests subsequently? We are dealing with opinions at the final analysis.
I sincerely believe this is why the much criticised senior police office in Bristol did not step in to stop the vandalism of the statue of Edward Colston. He/she could not justify the potential for violence against the arrest for the relatively minor public order and criminal damage offences.
Now, back in the halcyon days of the 1990s that you hark back to, with ‘just’ PIRA to contend with, there was support in Kilburn for them. Yes, many said they didn’t, but when the Guinness flowed and the old songs were being sung and a collecting tin came round with no label on it, ‘for the boyos back home’ money got put in. I worked that area, then, and occasionally raids were made by SB to disrupt but largely it went unchecked. Plus, there were ‘Troops Out’ marches where some participants wore dark glasses, black roll neck sweaters, khaki slacks and black berets - as near an accepted PIRA ‘uniform’ as existed and frequently seen in Belfast at funerals of killed terrorists. No action was taken, even though it was offending against various statutes, because it was viewed as causing more problems than it would solve, so ‘appeasement’ is nothing new. In fact, it’s probably as old as the MOS itself and policing public order.
It’s easy to feel the CRS have it right - I often do myself when I see them on tv - but ultimately softly softly I believe works best.
Good points as usual, UH, especially regarding ECHR.... and yet I think my point stands. It's all part of the political terrain hindering policing. As for coppers double-guessing what a defence brief is going to say in court - I think that's a slippery slope. Let the courts and prosecutors do their job and the police do theirs. HuT were out of order. Besides, the judiciary letting people yell 'Jihad' in these circs go free might concentrate a few minds.
I agree about the double guessing Don, but that was happening back when I was a PC - and when I was at SO12 (where some low level ranks were calling the shots). Blame the introduction of CPS in 1986 and the removal of responsibility for charging decisions from the police somewhat later.
Personally I would like to see HuT hauled up and put before the courts , which may of course yet happen, but I genuinely believe that the offences would be minor and as such wouldn’t justify the kerfuffle potentially caused. Of course, it might be that actually the arrests could have been effected with no incidents but the nature of PO planning is such that worst case scenarios are usually anticipated.
I can’t really comment beyond that as I haven’t actually seen the film yet. I still think that criminalising the word “jihad” and trying to prosecute these idiots might cause more problems than it solves. It would make ‘martyrs’ of these fools who don’t currently have much currency even within the Muslim community that perhaps sympathises with ‘Islamist’ thought.
But as I say, what do I know? Nothing.
However, what I DO know is you have once again written a well crafted argument that is a pleasure to read and dispute, and again, I am certain the majority of your readers will agree with you and not my viewpoint.
I was intrigued by the police crowd estimate of ´100,000’. I thought police crowd estimates were not published any more. Has there been a change in policy?
It's been awhile since I was involved in that side of the business, but we used to. I find all organisers wildly overestimate their numbers, for obvious reasons. As one of the peons sent to guestimate, along with other colleagues, numbers at demonstrations I can say with my hand-on-heart we tried to be as fair as possible. I know the Met appears to have resumed the practice. I see no harm in it, although I imagine they might be pushed to reveal their methodology.
Mick Messenger.... halcyon days indeed. Some of the quotes I remember from that time, usually delivered before a particularly contentious public order event, 'this is eminently doable' and 'panic slowly'. Mr. Messenger had, if we are using footballing terms an ability to put his foot on the ball and slow the game down. Like the best footballers he always seemed to be several moves ahead of the game. Unlike today we did not have to deal with everyone walking round with a hand-held device that could stream HD pictures instantly around the world, neither did we deal with 24/7 rolling news and batshit crazy commentators to the same extent that the police have to deal with now.
The media and politicians can't ( or more likely won't) understand the complexities behind public order policing. I had about 5 years in when the Scarman Report came out. One of the findings was that keeping the peace is not the same as enforcing the law. You wouldn't get any thanks if you sparked large scale public disorder attempting an arrest for a minor summary only offence.
Charge centres, support staff and just resourcing the event as well the problem of dealing with various iconic locations are part of the 'permanently operating factors' the old Soviet Stavka used to refer to. No matter how much you wish them away you have to deal with them.
Finally we have to deal with the extremely hypocritical British attitude towards the use of force by police. Wear public order kit and one sector of the public will complain that it's too oppressive whilst the other side will complain that not enough force was used, mind you both XLW and XRW will see a simple push as outrageous and proof that the UK police are the most violent in Europe. ( Laughs in CRS and wonders how British demonstrators would cope with the French propensity to go ugly early).
I've got to come back to my idea of fantasy public order - 'Today you will be policed by the German Bereitschaft Polizei who are operating under their rules of engagement and using their own equipment, next week the Royal Marechaussee are coming over from the Netherlands. They have the admirable motto of 'als hop erop aan komt' or 'when it comes down to it'. None of that fancy Greek or Latin for them. As they're Dutch they're big boys and girls and you will no doubt be pleased to know that they water-cannoned 2,400 Dutch environmental protesters off the road in September as well as using water cannon, mounted branch and tear gas on football fans after the Ajax-Feyenoord match. Enjoy'.
On a serious note I do not envy any met senior officer, they have to deal with Suella Braverman who is a genuine dimbulb and Sadiq Khan who is a world class weasel. The job gets closer to being impossible to perform every day.
I remember in the dim and distant past the Met decided they needed a new motto. In a very democratic way they asked for suggestions from serving officers.. To this day I cannot understand why my suggestion of "Oderint dum metuant", a quotation of Lucius Accius was not accepted.
Spend quite bit time now among cops whose lives are being destroyed, literally, by PSD/ DPS inveztigations, that appear often to be illegal, vexatious,mercenary and vindictive. If i was still a front line cop, on a level 1 PO serial, i would be doing nothing without clear recorded orders and anythung i did do would be recorded in BWV and written notes asap. My overriding policy woyld be self preservation at all costs. If the gvt and job wants the peace kept and laws enforced then this current wave of purge like police discipline must end. The job is literally eating its own. 48% probationers in Met dont make it. With retirements, dismissals and resignations, the Met is losing more than it can recruit. So it will soon be accepting virtually anyone who can walk talk and write, and thats half of what got us in this quagmire of bovine excrement originally.
Excellent article Dom. Rather difficult to face the reality that yes, this many people actually do just hate the Jews when doing a risk assessment. Telling us to stay at home as the risk management plan has kind of been like when South Yorkshire Police told the women of Yorkshire to stay home because they couldn’t catch the ripper. Couldn’t agree more though with the classic line from the Yard this week that ‘The Commissioner has no intelligence’. It’s the gift that keeps on giving.
I also counted crowds back in the day. Two designated counters counting independently. Surprisingly accurate. I favour police publishing crowd numbers, as a public service.
As an addendum to my earlier comment about public perception I back this up by a comment from “The Knowledge” daily email I receive which looks at various stories in the news and précis them.
The Metropolitan Police said a protester filmed chanting “jihad” at a rally on Saturday had done nothing illegal. For context, says Ben Sixsmith in The Critic, here is a short list of things that British cops have in recent years found to be “more arrestable offences than demanding holy war”: silently praying near an abortion clinic; “misgendering” someone in public; misgendering someone online; calling someone a “lesbian”; burning a Quran; publicly denying that gay marriage is biblical; protesting against the murder of women; carrying rape alarms in a public place; and “making nasty jokes in a group chat”.
Another good read Dom, it’s a very complicated situation and I agree that having a Gold like Mike Messenger installed confidence from the top down and the briefings let everyone know what was expected of them led to firm but fair policing.
Now we have a stand off that isn’t solely due to numbers and the potential for massive disorder. There seems to be a lack of confidence for a confrontation when lines are crossed and a reliance that things will be done later quietly for a result. I think this leads to the police being seen as weak and emboldens the groups looking to spread hate and disorder. The public don’t understand the nuances of this and simply feel let down and feel the police are being weak in the face of certain groups further eroding their trust of the service.
I hear UC’s arguments and understand the points being made but overall agree with Dom the public want and expect a course of action and feel let down when they see these groups getting away with this while they are dealing with the thought police on SM for upsetting Karen on FB with their reasonable but unfashionable standards and comments.
Most folks don’t see the bigger picture of the whole Middle East area and who the real players are pulling the strings, causing the situation we are in now. They react, understandably, to the flash points in the news and the shocking images and stories of outrageous acts of violence and bloodshed. The Police are aware and have to take into consideration these factors but the bottom line is we need to hold that line.
Oh Dom; a really good analysis but as a former cadre officer, you do not seem to reference the presence of the ECHR. That means ALL police action has to be proportionate, legal, accountable and necessary. And the police have a duty to facilitate PEACEFUL, not LAWFUL protest.
Legal means there is actual legislation that you can point to banning the act. That’s easy to see.
Accountable means that it is subject to scrutiny by the public or their representatives. In this case the courts, politicians, old uncle Tom Cobbley and all…
Let’s run the arrest of Hizbollah-Ut-Tabrir through the ‘necessary’ lens.
Firstly, whilst you dismiss it lightly above, Jihad had does NOT necessarily mean fighting. A Muslim contact of mine explained years ago that there are many sorts of jihad. The highest form is your struggle against self-will, the lowest is to fight. Let’s see what Michael Mansfield, Imran Khan etc do with that speech in court? They’ll make a good case that there is no prima facie case here…
Link the speech with terrorism? Somehow I doubt that has legs but I may be wrong…
As regards PO… Was the action actually witnessed by police? Was anyone there actually offended? Was it recorded evidentially? Section 5 (or even 4) of the Public Order is a low-level offence. So how proportionate is wading into the crowd - probably batons flying and shields deployed - no doubt causing injury and further assaults on police that will then be subject to forensic dissection at other court cases (as well as by the CPS), where it is decided that the police were not in execution of their duty - against arrests for S3,4,or 5 of the PO Act 86? Even support for terrorism is a relatively minor offence.
How do you justify a riot to arrest for minor offences? How do we know there wasn’t a plan to make arrests subsequently? We are dealing with opinions at the final analysis.
I sincerely believe this is why the much criticised senior police office in Bristol did not step in to stop the vandalism of the statue of Edward Colston. He/she could not justify the potential for violence against the arrest for the relatively minor public order and criminal damage offences.
Now, back in the halcyon days of the 1990s that you hark back to, with ‘just’ PIRA to contend with, there was support in Kilburn for them. Yes, many said they didn’t, but when the Guinness flowed and the old songs were being sung and a collecting tin came round with no label on it, ‘for the boyos back home’ money got put in. I worked that area, then, and occasionally raids were made by SB to disrupt but largely it went unchecked. Plus, there were ‘Troops Out’ marches where some participants wore dark glasses, black roll neck sweaters, khaki slacks and black berets - as near an accepted PIRA ‘uniform’ as existed and frequently seen in Belfast at funerals of killed terrorists. No action was taken, even though it was offending against various statutes, because it was viewed as causing more problems than it would solve, so ‘appeasement’ is nothing new. In fact, it’s probably as old as the MOS itself and policing public order.
It’s easy to feel the CRS have it right - I often do myself when I see them on tv - but ultimately softly softly I believe works best.
Anyway, great analysis and thank you.
Good points as usual, UH, especially regarding ECHR.... and yet I think my point stands. It's all part of the political terrain hindering policing. As for coppers double-guessing what a defence brief is going to say in court - I think that's a slippery slope. Let the courts and prosecutors do their job and the police do theirs. HuT were out of order. Besides, the judiciary letting people yell 'Jihad' in these circs go free might concentrate a few minds.
I agree about the double guessing Don, but that was happening back when I was a PC - and when I was at SO12 (where some low level ranks were calling the shots). Blame the introduction of CPS in 1986 and the removal of responsibility for charging decisions from the police somewhat later.
Personally I would like to see HuT hauled up and put before the courts , which may of course yet happen, but I genuinely believe that the offences would be minor and as such wouldn’t justify the kerfuffle potentially caused. Of course, it might be that actually the arrests could have been effected with no incidents but the nature of PO planning is such that worst case scenarios are usually anticipated.
I can’t really comment beyond that as I haven’t actually seen the film yet. I still think that criminalising the word “jihad” and trying to prosecute these idiots might cause more problems than it solves. It would make ‘martyrs’ of these fools who don’t currently have much currency even within the Muslim community that perhaps sympathises with ‘Islamist’ thought.
But as I say, what do I know? Nothing.
However, what I DO know is you have once again written a well crafted argument that is a pleasure to read and dispute, and again, I am certain the majority of your readers will agree with you and not my viewpoint.
Thank you again.
Cheers, I just think the way Al-Muhajiroun was managed was pretty effective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Muhajiroun
I was intrigued by the police crowd estimate of ´100,000’. I thought police crowd estimates were not published any more. Has there been a change in policy?
It's been awhile since I was involved in that side of the business, but we used to. I find all organisers wildly overestimate their numbers, for obvious reasons. As one of the peons sent to guestimate, along with other colleagues, numbers at demonstrations I can say with my hand-on-heart we tried to be as fair as possible. I know the Met appears to have resumed the practice. I see no harm in it, although I imagine they might be pushed to reveal their methodology.
Mick Messenger.... halcyon days indeed. Some of the quotes I remember from that time, usually delivered before a particularly contentious public order event, 'this is eminently doable' and 'panic slowly'. Mr. Messenger had, if we are using footballing terms an ability to put his foot on the ball and slow the game down. Like the best footballers he always seemed to be several moves ahead of the game. Unlike today we did not have to deal with everyone walking round with a hand-held device that could stream HD pictures instantly around the world, neither did we deal with 24/7 rolling news and batshit crazy commentators to the same extent that the police have to deal with now.
The media and politicians can't ( or more likely won't) understand the complexities behind public order policing. I had about 5 years in when the Scarman Report came out. One of the findings was that keeping the peace is not the same as enforcing the law. You wouldn't get any thanks if you sparked large scale public disorder attempting an arrest for a minor summary only offence.
Charge centres, support staff and just resourcing the event as well the problem of dealing with various iconic locations are part of the 'permanently operating factors' the old Soviet Stavka used to refer to. No matter how much you wish them away you have to deal with them.
Finally we have to deal with the extremely hypocritical British attitude towards the use of force by police. Wear public order kit and one sector of the public will complain that it's too oppressive whilst the other side will complain that not enough force was used, mind you both XLW and XRW will see a simple push as outrageous and proof that the UK police are the most violent in Europe. ( Laughs in CRS and wonders how British demonstrators would cope with the French propensity to go ugly early).
I've got to come back to my idea of fantasy public order - 'Today you will be policed by the German Bereitschaft Polizei who are operating under their rules of engagement and using their own equipment, next week the Royal Marechaussee are coming over from the Netherlands. They have the admirable motto of 'als hop erop aan komt' or 'when it comes down to it'. None of that fancy Greek or Latin for them. As they're Dutch they're big boys and girls and you will no doubt be pleased to know that they water-cannoned 2,400 Dutch environmental protesters off the road in September as well as using water cannon, mounted branch and tear gas on football fans after the Ajax-Feyenoord match. Enjoy'.
On a serious note I do not envy any met senior officer, they have to deal with Suella Braverman who is a genuine dimbulb and Sadiq Khan who is a world class weasel. The job gets closer to being impossible to perform every day.
I remember in the dim and distant past the Met decided they needed a new motto. In a very democratic way they asked for suggestions from serving officers.. To this day I cannot understand why my suggestion of "Oderint dum metuant", a quotation of Lucius Accius was not accepted.
Spend quite bit time now among cops whose lives are being destroyed, literally, by PSD/ DPS inveztigations, that appear often to be illegal, vexatious,mercenary and vindictive. If i was still a front line cop, on a level 1 PO serial, i would be doing nothing without clear recorded orders and anythung i did do would be recorded in BWV and written notes asap. My overriding policy woyld be self preservation at all costs. If the gvt and job wants the peace kept and laws enforced then this current wave of purge like police discipline must end. The job is literally eating its own. 48% probationers in Met dont make it. With retirements, dismissals and resignations, the Met is losing more than it can recruit. So it will soon be accepting virtually anyone who can walk talk and write, and thats half of what got us in this quagmire of bovine excrement originally.
Excellent article Dom. Rather difficult to face the reality that yes, this many people actually do just hate the Jews when doing a risk assessment. Telling us to stay at home as the risk management plan has kind of been like when South Yorkshire Police told the women of Yorkshire to stay home because they couldn’t catch the ripper. Couldn’t agree more though with the classic line from the Yard this week that ‘The Commissioner has no intelligence’. It’s the gift that keeps on giving.
I also counted crowds back in the day. Two designated counters counting independently. Surprisingly accurate. I favour police publishing crowd numbers, as a public service.
As an addendum to my earlier comment about public perception I back this up by a comment from “The Knowledge” daily email I receive which looks at various stories in the news and précis them.
The Metropolitan Police said a protester filmed chanting “jihad” at a rally on Saturday had done nothing illegal. For context, says Ben Sixsmith in The Critic, here is a short list of things that British cops have in recent years found to be “more arrestable offences than demanding holy war”: silently praying near an abortion clinic; “misgendering” someone in public; misgendering someone online; calling someone a “lesbian”; burning a Quran; publicly denying that gay marriage is biblical; protesting against the murder of women; carrying rape alarms in a public place; and “making nasty jokes in a group chat”.
Another good read Dom, it’s a very complicated situation and I agree that having a Gold like Mike Messenger installed confidence from the top down and the briefings let everyone know what was expected of them led to firm but fair policing.
Now we have a stand off that isn’t solely due to numbers and the potential for massive disorder. There seems to be a lack of confidence for a confrontation when lines are crossed and a reliance that things will be done later quietly for a result. I think this leads to the police being seen as weak and emboldens the groups looking to spread hate and disorder. The public don’t understand the nuances of this and simply feel let down and feel the police are being weak in the face of certain groups further eroding their trust of the service.
I hear UC’s arguments and understand the points being made but overall agree with Dom the public want and expect a course of action and feel let down when they see these groups getting away with this while they are dealing with the thought police on SM for upsetting Karen on FB with their reasonable but unfashionable standards and comments.
Most folks don’t see the bigger picture of the whole Middle East area and who the real players are pulling the strings, causing the situation we are in now. They react, understandably, to the flash points in the news and the shocking images and stories of outrageous acts of violence and bloodshed. The Police are aware and have to take into consideration these factors but the bottom line is we need to hold that line.