Society evolves. The Police have not. We're deluding ourselves thinking the Police wield real influence as to how society behaves. The Government/Courts decide what tools the Police have and how they should be used. You want me to mend your boiler? Why have you just given me a hammer then?
An example... The Police should take action against those on the march, who by their words or actions demonstrate Anti-Semitism. Let's brief on Anti-Semitism.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition (adopted as a 'working definition' by the governments of more than 32 countries, including the US, UK, France, Germany and Canada)
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” 11 examples are provided.
Heavy pushback however that the IHRA definition risked conflating legitimate criticism of the Israeli government with Anti-Semitism. The UK Labour party tied itself in knots over whether they should adopt the definition. The situation in UK universities was particularly strained. University College London's academic board declined to adopt it, saying that the IHRA definition could have “potentially deleterious effects on free speech, such as instigating a culture of fear or self-silencing on teaching or research or classroom discussion of contentious topics”. Education Secretary Gavin Williamson made the UK Government's position clear when in 2020 he said, the higher education regulator for England could be asked to take regulatory action including suspending “funding streams” if British universities failed to adopt the IHRA definition by the end of December.
There... sorted. Oh hang on, still a bit of confusion as to whether criticism of the Government of Israel is inherently Anti-Semitic, particularly with regard to Zionism and the 'Palestine situation'. In 2019, the IHRA definition’s lead author, Kenneth Stern, said it “was never intended to be a campus hate speech code” and complained that right wing Jewish groups had weaponized it in the US, thanks to President Trump including 'the definition' in an executive order amending the Civil Rights Act. Cases were being brought which attempted to criminalise speakers, assigned texts and protests, said to violate the definition.
Thought experiment... if we draw up a similar definition regarding racism against black people, should we say that criticism of affirmative action programs is inherently racist? Would that strike you as an attempt to suppress legitimate discussion? That's how the IHRA definition is being used, and this shit show is why we can look at the same incident and argue as to whether there's been Anti-Semitism.
Police shouldn't try to negotiate/interpret the political. It doesn't lend itself to decisive action. Those 'yes but', 'bigger picture' and 'what will 'community groups' say?', Senior Officers have got us to the situation we are in today... We have a simple job, where are the boundaries, enforce the boundaries. Our collective experience and knowledge should be directed entirely to the practical aspects of enforcement, not the political. Don't pick and choose which causes/views have enforcement, there must be equality of outcome, so a supporter of BLM or EDF taking the same actions face the same outcome. We arrest, the courts tell us if we've got it right.
Some might say 'but we avoided an outbreak of disorder'... well whoop y-do to you. Avoiding a negative outcome is easy, look at France's capitulation in WW2. Avoiding a negative is not a positive. Officers on the sharp end are not served well, legitimate protesters see extremists tainting their message, Anti-Semites are emboldened and the general public see an ineffective Police Service. That is not a battle lost in order to win the war, that is just another battle lost.
Having equated senior officers to the Vichy government, I might as well finish with an apposite quote from a Marxist.
He who fights, can lose. He who doesn’t fight, has already lost. – Bertolt Brecht
I resigned from the met 2 months ago after 15 years and am glad I'm not complicit. I'm appalled at what I've seen the last 6 Saturdays. Nothing to do with freedom to protest and everything to do with intimidation. It is an anti-british march and to me is what a Nazi brownshirt rally may have been like in 1930's germany. Last week was the 85th anniversary of Kristallnacht which has passed most people by. Do British Jews now feel like German Jews did? Here, in Britain in the 21st century? A senior Hamas chief living openly in Hendon, with counter terrorism Policing informed in 2020. Political wing proscribed around the same time. Policing has been two tier just as for the BLM disorder, a Rotherham 2.0.
Nothing petrify's the met more then a charge of racism. Met bans an israeli hostage solidarity march through golders green. Happy to wade into a Sarah Everard vigil for the crime of... COVID breaches. Happy to police mean tweets for anything relating to trans issues. I believe met has completely undermined its own policing principles and so their own authority and legitimacy. If met were seen to be doing their job instead of standing by squirming while mobs chanting for the extinction of Israel, there simply would not have been any counter protests this weekend. When these white protesters 'far right'(?) came out, met suddenly remembered how to police, kitted up, batons drawn, 100 plus arrests. Of course 1,000 cops cannot police a crowd of 100,000 and I understand the concept of 'winning by appearing to lose' in public order policing. I've been there, policing JSO slow walks and seeing the look of disgust from the public so not intended to criticise the rank and file. An officer will be served gross misconduct papers for arresting someone for fare evasion these days! I am an Afghan veteran and former SO15 borders officer. I perceive in media, much talk and prominence of XRW, as if somehow equivalent and counter balancing to Islamic extremism. Attacks and the data do not support this. I believe the Met has lost a large section of law abiding majority over this and much else in the last 5 years.
Very well written but find myself at odds with some of the content.
If it’s down to the police to battle extremism & maintain social cohesion - alone the police will fail. A myriad of government & local organisations are also responsible for this. The police really are the antithesis of ‘tip of the spear’ on that one. Agree with half of point 4 but not with point 5. 2000 cops to police & deal with offences on a march of 100,000 plus? (I never believe organiser’s numbers). It takes a PSU good at crowd entry tactics to get a target as you know. 18 for one. And dependent on the offence arrested for - you won’t always get an 18.
Post incident arrests are usually more controlled & once in a subject’s domicile, there is better chance of garnering additional intelligence.
And if you ban it by saying no - you will have to have double the resources and not just on the streets. They will still turn out. More intel staff, crime, custody handling; the works. Whilst none of us dinosaurs are against such a response, these days it means more mutual aid (at costly rates) & the penny pinchers don’t like that.
Can’t process? Okay the organisers will hold assemblies along the entire planned route - focusing numbers on key targets.
It usually presents more problems than it solves.
Intelligence. My bugbear. Sorry to say it but I’ve sat in planning meetings where the threat assessment provided by ‘15 is clearly rehashed from a previous event with a sprinkling of open source information. If they were lucky enough, the command team to be would be honoured by a 15 rep, who sometimes let’s say let their side down through their non verbal communication; they clearly didn’t want to be there, as they would have to be working that event at the weekend.
As I’ve said before the demise of the Public Order Intelligence Unit after Millbank led to a dearth of intelligence going forward. Agreed it wasn’t perfect but it did poke & prod the bigger intelligence beast when needed. MO2 have gotten better over time as they realised if they weren’t providing the services everyone needed & not just for public order; they too would face more personnel cuts than they had already.
As an aside, I wonder if the FLA & other RW/XRW gents protecting cenotaph know just how much closer they are on the RW axis to Hezbollah, Hamas, HuT, AQ, ISIS? And as for Corbyn & the left...
“This is because the Met doesn’t overly concern itself with public order intelligence nowadays, instead relying on liaison with protest organisers and open-source material (during my service I saw first-hand how badly the Met’s capability was degraded).”
Interesting. The GOVERNMENT and COURTS decided that intelligence gathering against protest groups was a Bad Thing. The old SB SDS is long gone, seen (probably correctly) as invasive and not in keeping with civil liberties. The last years in the Job when I was actually a cadre officer, Public Order Branch checked open source for info, we termed it ‘Policing by Facebook’. However, given the above, what else could they do?
Secondly, I wasn’t on the demo and didn’t hear anything or witness anything, but to be anti-Israeli actions in Gaza does not NECESSARILY mean that one is anti-Semitic, or pro-Hamas. It’s as valid to criticise Israeli actions as it is to criticise the US Government or indeed HMG. It seems some sections of the media conflate Israel with Jewish people. Some chants and banners might be anti-Semitic (Such as the time-honoured “From the River to the Sea” chant that’s been trotted out for decades by PSC and BIG in their demos) but it’s not a given.
Personally the IDF can destroy every man Jack of Hezbollah, Hamas, AQ, and IS and I won’t shed a tear, but I do feel strongly about all those non-combatant Israelis and Palestinians who have been killed who just want to get on with their lives, but got caught in the crossfire. Indiscriminate bombing and killing is not war -by either side. It’s terrorism or a war crime and needs to be addressed.
Nothing changes. The problems the MPS are experiencing now are the same as in the 1990's. Any of the accusations made then about lack of impartiality are being made now. I don't see much hope for the future. Both XLW and XRW will play the victim card and everyone will hate the old bill.
Saturday could be interesting with it being an international break for the football and all the lads being at a loss for something to do.
I remember when I was a community inspector in Central London. There were two female ‘preachers’ who used to walk up and down outside gay venues preaching that gays were sodomites and sinners and bound for Hell, (that is a summary - it was pretty nasty stuff).
A PC of mine got a complaint from a gay man who objected to them as being offensive to people with same-sex attraction, but also a practising Christian who objected to their take on theology. The PC warned the pair under the PO Act ‘86, and nicked them when they continued. Both witnesses - and others - made statements and went to court.
Case dismissed - free speech. I sought advice from my CI who was a gay male and a strong advocate for ‘gay rights’ (and an excellent officer). He said that the court was correct, but he also had the right to go up and down saying Christianity was a load of rubbish.
Personally I disagree with both sides in that case.
The idea of what offends changes. That was twenty years back and I often wonder if they’d still be discharged if they were arrested now?
Other than that the ‘last word’ will be had in this case by the CPS or courts -which is as it should be in our society.
However, it also shows that evidence gathering and post event goes on, which was my contention. Whilst arrests at the demo are dramatic and newsworthy, they cause issues, raise tensions and deplete resources. That is the call for the officers at the scene in my estimation. As you say, it’s a matter on which two individuals may disagree.
Thanks for another great post and educational discussion.
Society evolves. The Police have not. We're deluding ourselves thinking the Police wield real influence as to how society behaves. The Government/Courts decide what tools the Police have and how they should be used. You want me to mend your boiler? Why have you just given me a hammer then?
An example... The Police should take action against those on the march, who by their words or actions demonstrate Anti-Semitism. Let's brief on Anti-Semitism.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition (adopted as a 'working definition' by the governments of more than 32 countries, including the US, UK, France, Germany and Canada)
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” 11 examples are provided.
Heavy pushback however that the IHRA definition risked conflating legitimate criticism of the Israeli government with Anti-Semitism. The UK Labour party tied itself in knots over whether they should adopt the definition. The situation in UK universities was particularly strained. University College London's academic board declined to adopt it, saying that the IHRA definition could have “potentially deleterious effects on free speech, such as instigating a culture of fear or self-silencing on teaching or research or classroom discussion of contentious topics”. Education Secretary Gavin Williamson made the UK Government's position clear when in 2020 he said, the higher education regulator for England could be asked to take regulatory action including suspending “funding streams” if British universities failed to adopt the IHRA definition by the end of December.
There... sorted. Oh hang on, still a bit of confusion as to whether criticism of the Government of Israel is inherently Anti-Semitic, particularly with regard to Zionism and the 'Palestine situation'. In 2019, the IHRA definition’s lead author, Kenneth Stern, said it “was never intended to be a campus hate speech code” and complained that right wing Jewish groups had weaponized it in the US, thanks to President Trump including 'the definition' in an executive order amending the Civil Rights Act. Cases were being brought which attempted to criminalise speakers, assigned texts and protests, said to violate the definition.
Thought experiment... if we draw up a similar definition regarding racism against black people, should we say that criticism of affirmative action programs is inherently racist? Would that strike you as an attempt to suppress legitimate discussion? That's how the IHRA definition is being used, and this shit show is why we can look at the same incident and argue as to whether there's been Anti-Semitism.
Police shouldn't try to negotiate/interpret the political. It doesn't lend itself to decisive action. Those 'yes but', 'bigger picture' and 'what will 'community groups' say?', Senior Officers have got us to the situation we are in today... We have a simple job, where are the boundaries, enforce the boundaries. Our collective experience and knowledge should be directed entirely to the practical aspects of enforcement, not the political. Don't pick and choose which causes/views have enforcement, there must be equality of outcome, so a supporter of BLM or EDF taking the same actions face the same outcome. We arrest, the courts tell us if we've got it right.
Some might say 'but we avoided an outbreak of disorder'... well whoop y-do to you. Avoiding a negative outcome is easy, look at France's capitulation in WW2. Avoiding a negative is not a positive. Officers on the sharp end are not served well, legitimate protesters see extremists tainting their message, Anti-Semites are emboldened and the general public see an ineffective Police Service. That is not a battle lost in order to win the war, that is just another battle lost.
Having equated senior officers to the Vichy government, I might as well finish with an apposite quote from a Marxist.
He who fights, can lose. He who doesn’t fight, has already lost. – Bertolt Brecht
Sorry! tidied up and reposted
I resigned from the met 2 months ago after 15 years and am glad I'm not complicit. I'm appalled at what I've seen the last 6 Saturdays. Nothing to do with freedom to protest and everything to do with intimidation. It is an anti-british march and to me is what a Nazi brownshirt rally may have been like in 1930's germany. Last week was the 85th anniversary of Kristallnacht which has passed most people by. Do British Jews now feel like German Jews did? Here, in Britain in the 21st century? A senior Hamas chief living openly in Hendon, with counter terrorism Policing informed in 2020. Political wing proscribed around the same time. Policing has been two tier just as for the BLM disorder, a Rotherham 2.0.
Nothing petrify's the met more then a charge of racism. Met bans an israeli hostage solidarity march through golders green. Happy to wade into a Sarah Everard vigil for the crime of... COVID breaches. Happy to police mean tweets for anything relating to trans issues. I believe met has completely undermined its own policing principles and so their own authority and legitimacy. If met were seen to be doing their job instead of standing by squirming while mobs chanting for the extinction of Israel, there simply would not have been any counter protests this weekend. When these white protesters 'far right'(?) came out, met suddenly remembered how to police, kitted up, batons drawn, 100 plus arrests. Of course 1,000 cops cannot police a crowd of 100,000 and I understand the concept of 'winning by appearing to lose' in public order policing. I've been there, policing JSO slow walks and seeing the look of disgust from the public so not intended to criticise the rank and file. An officer will be served gross misconduct papers for arresting someone for fare evasion these days! I am an Afghan veteran and former SO15 borders officer. I perceive in media, much talk and prominence of XRW, as if somehow equivalent and counter balancing to Islamic extremism. Attacks and the data do not support this. I believe the Met has lost a large section of law abiding majority over this and much else in the last 5 years.
I recall the new CC of PSNI once bellowing,"we dont need SB the cold war is over." Complete fool then. Complete tool now.
Very well written but find myself at odds with some of the content.
If it’s down to the police to battle extremism & maintain social cohesion - alone the police will fail. A myriad of government & local organisations are also responsible for this. The police really are the antithesis of ‘tip of the spear’ on that one. Agree with half of point 4 but not with point 5. 2000 cops to police & deal with offences on a march of 100,000 plus? (I never believe organiser’s numbers). It takes a PSU good at crowd entry tactics to get a target as you know. 18 for one. And dependent on the offence arrested for - you won’t always get an 18.
Post incident arrests are usually more controlled & once in a subject’s domicile, there is better chance of garnering additional intelligence.
And if you ban it by saying no - you will have to have double the resources and not just on the streets. They will still turn out. More intel staff, crime, custody handling; the works. Whilst none of us dinosaurs are against such a response, these days it means more mutual aid (at costly rates) & the penny pinchers don’t like that.
Can’t process? Okay the organisers will hold assemblies along the entire planned route - focusing numbers on key targets.
It usually presents more problems than it solves.
Intelligence. My bugbear. Sorry to say it but I’ve sat in planning meetings where the threat assessment provided by ‘15 is clearly rehashed from a previous event with a sprinkling of open source information. If they were lucky enough, the command team to be would be honoured by a 15 rep, who sometimes let’s say let their side down through their non verbal communication; they clearly didn’t want to be there, as they would have to be working that event at the weekend.
As I’ve said before the demise of the Public Order Intelligence Unit after Millbank led to a dearth of intelligence going forward. Agreed it wasn’t perfect but it did poke & prod the bigger intelligence beast when needed. MO2 have gotten better over time as they realised if they weren’t providing the services everyone needed & not just for public order; they too would face more personnel cuts than they had already.
As an aside, I wonder if the FLA & other RW/XRW gents protecting cenotaph know just how much closer they are on the RW axis to Hezbollah, Hamas, HuT, AQ, ISIS? And as for Corbyn & the left...
“This is because the Met doesn’t overly concern itself with public order intelligence nowadays, instead relying on liaison with protest organisers and open-source material (during my service I saw first-hand how badly the Met’s capability was degraded).”
Interesting. The GOVERNMENT and COURTS decided that intelligence gathering against protest groups was a Bad Thing. The old SB SDS is long gone, seen (probably correctly) as invasive and not in keeping with civil liberties. The last years in the Job when I was actually a cadre officer, Public Order Branch checked open source for info, we termed it ‘Policing by Facebook’. However, given the above, what else could they do?
Secondly, I wasn’t on the demo and didn’t hear anything or witness anything, but to be anti-Israeli actions in Gaza does not NECESSARILY mean that one is anti-Semitic, or pro-Hamas. It’s as valid to criticise Israeli actions as it is to criticise the US Government or indeed HMG. It seems some sections of the media conflate Israel with Jewish people. Some chants and banners might be anti-Semitic (Such as the time-honoured “From the River to the Sea” chant that’s been trotted out for decades by PSC and BIG in their demos) but it’s not a given.
Personally the IDF can destroy every man Jack of Hezbollah, Hamas, AQ, and IS and I won’t shed a tear, but I do feel strongly about all those non-combatant Israelis and Palestinians who have been killed who just want to get on with their lives, but got caught in the crossfire. Indiscriminate bombing and killing is not war -by either side. It’s terrorism or a war crime and needs to be addressed.
Nothing changes. The problems the MPS are experiencing now are the same as in the 1990's. Any of the accusations made then about lack of impartiality are being made now. I don't see much hope for the future. Both XLW and XRW will play the victim card and everyone will hate the old bill.
Saturday could be interesting with it being an international break for the football and all the lads being at a loss for something to do.
I remember when I was a community inspector in Central London. There were two female ‘preachers’ who used to walk up and down outside gay venues preaching that gays were sodomites and sinners and bound for Hell, (that is a summary - it was pretty nasty stuff).
A PC of mine got a complaint from a gay man who objected to them as being offensive to people with same-sex attraction, but also a practising Christian who objected to their take on theology. The PC warned the pair under the PO Act ‘86, and nicked them when they continued. Both witnesses - and others - made statements and went to court.
Case dismissed - free speech. I sought advice from my CI who was a gay male and a strong advocate for ‘gay rights’ (and an excellent officer). He said that the court was correct, but he also had the right to go up and down saying Christianity was a load of rubbish.
Personally I disagree with both sides in that case.
The idea of what offends changes. That was twenty years back and I often wonder if they’d still be discharged if they were arrested now?
Other than that the ‘last word’ will be had in this case by the CPS or courts -which is as it should be in our society.
However, it also shows that evidence gathering and post event goes on, which was my contention. Whilst arrests at the demo are dramatic and newsworthy, they cause issues, raise tensions and deplete resources. That is the call for the officers at the scene in my estimation. As you say, it’s a matter on which two individuals may disagree.
Thanks for another great post and educational discussion.
Another entertaining and informative article!