Trends in the policing of protest and disorder

ByPeter Joyce

Manchester Metropolitan University

This is based on

• The Policing of Protest, Disorder and International Terrorism in the UK since 1945.

• This is to be published by Palgrave later this month (November 2016)

What is protest ?• Protest is an umbrella term given to a wide range of actions

that seek to empower those who are participants to the protest

The following actions constitute protest:• Petitions• Demonstrations• Direct action (including civil disobedience and counter culture

protest)• Industrial disputes• Riots (there is debate as to whether these are purposeful

actions)

Why protest ?

• Protest is one way to ensure that the general public are able to exert influence over political decisions between elections

• Protest plays a key role in liberal democratic politics and the tolerance it is accorded sharply differentiates liberal democratic political systems from more authoritarian political structures

• Although protest is often identified as a mechanism to influence the conduct of public policy, it may also target commercial practices

The state’s response to protest and disorder

• The state’s response to protest and disorder is delivered through

• A physical response (usually delivered by the police)

• Surveillance and intelligence gathering, much of which is conducted by specialist agencies (especially the Security Service [MI5]) who are engaged in ‘political policing’

1945 – 1970 – the physical response

• Protests were generally genteel affairs and in the main the police adopted a laid back stance

• Their approach was governed by a concept articulated by Sir Robert Mark of ‘wining while appearing to lose’

1945 – 1970 – surveillance and intelligence gathering

• These activities were governed by the need to prevent subversion

• In this period, the term was fairly narrowly defined as (an act which contemplated the overthrow of the government by unlawful means)’ (Lord Denning)

• It this Cold War period, surveillance was mainly directed at the Community Party or organisations such as CND that were deemed to be ‘communist dominated’. The process of positive vetting (introduced in 1949) was based on intelligence gathered on organisations perceived as subversive

The state and protest 1970 - 1990

• The state’s response to protest becomes less accommodating

• The physical response becomes more robust• Surveillance extends to a much wider range of

organisations and individuals who use various forms of protest to further their political cause: the extension of such activities is based upon broader definitions being given to the term ‘subversion’

Why was this the case ?

• There are two main explanations –• Protest became more confrontational – Grosvenor

Square (1968) being an important watershed• The capitalist state was in a state of crisis,

evidenced by economic difficulties, political instability and industrial militancy: it thus required firmer leadership to cope with these problems and their consequences. Enter the strong state

The strong state

• This was defined as follows:• 'an increasingly restrictive legal framework; a police

and army unaccountable to the population and largely concerned with internal political control; secret intelligence services engaged in covert operations against a wide range of dissidents both internally and internationally; a press and media too fearful or too self-interested to protest; and a prevailing consensus that the state should not be questioned' (Ackroyd, et al,,1980: xviii).

Thatcherism

• The strong state and its associated policies pre-dated the election of the 1st Thatcher government in 1979

• However, developments associated with it proceeded apace after 1979 in association with the government’s free market policies

• It was argued that 'under this regime, the market is to be Free, the people are to be disciplined' (Hall, 1980: 5). The term ‘free market, strong state’ was applied to this situation. Accordingly ...

Consequences of the strong state• The resistance to the government’s erosion of what were

regarded as social rights were often confrontational and (from the government's perspective) necessitated a coercive response cloaked under the banner of the need to maintain law and order. Thus

• ‘Strikers whose actions eroded profit margins' and 'the rebellious underclass which jeopardised social harmony' were examples of groups 'whose actions were likely to be criminalised by the law, subjected to special attention by the police and treated harshly by the sentencing policy of the courts' (Joyce, 2001: 26).

• How was this ‘tough’ response to protest delivered ?

The policing of protest• Key developments occurred regarding the introduction of

equipment, weaponry, tactics and training, the centralised deployment of police officers under mutual aid arrangements [via the National Reporting Centre] and the management of crowd situations (the gold/silver/bronze hierarchy of command).

• These developments often arose in consequence of an event when police failings in such areas were manifest

• A key development was the publication in 1983 of ACPO's Public Order Manual of Tactical Operations and Related Matters which aimed to standardise the police response to protest

Paramilitary policing

• Changes affecting issues referred to on the previous slide have been dubbed ‘paramilitary policing’

• This has been described as ‘the application of (quasi) military training, equipment and organisation to questions of policing (whether under central control or not)’ (Jefferson, 1990: 16).

• Critics of this development assert that it makes for a more aggressive police response at public order events which is prejudicial to the expression of protest and dissent

Escalated force• Although there is academic debate as to whether paramilitary

policing always and inevitably resulted in a more aggressive response to policing (Jefferson 1987 v. P Waddington 1987/1993), it was the case that some protests met with robust policing.

• This is referred to as ‘escalated force’ whereby confrontational methods were used and the level of force was increasingly raised until the demonstrators dispersed or were coerced into conforming behaviour.

• The ‘high water mark’ of this style of policing arose during the 1984/5 miners’ dispute and the ‘Battle of the Beanfield’ in 1985

• Aggressive policing was underpinned by the knowledge that post-1979 Conservative governments would support police actions since these neutered the dissent arising from its economic policies

Surveillance • As noted above [slide 5], surveillance after 1970 was

considerably developed based on a broader definition of subversion and the ability to do so was enhanced by technological developments associated with telephone tapping and bugging in addition to more time-honoured methods such as placing informants in political organisations

• This enabled the security agencies to routinely amass – and, crucially, retrieve - information on a wide range of political activists

• It also enabled surveillance to target specific protests, in particular the 1984/5 miners’ dispute

Reforms to the policing of protest• The problem with escalated force was that it denoted a move away from

the use of minimum force that underpinned the principle of policing by consent and overly-aggressive policing harmed the image of the police

• Accordingly, towards the end of the 1980s a new approach towards the policing of protest was adopted, termed ‘negotiated management’

• This 'involved a greater respect for the 'rights' of protesters, a more tolerant approach towards community disruption, closer communication and cooperation with the public, a reduced tendency to make arrests (particularly as a tactic of first resort), and application of only the minimum force required in order to control a situation' (D Waddington, 2007: 10).

• It was underpinned by legislative reform in the form of the 1986 Public Order Act.

Accountability of the Security Services

• Public concern regarding the activities of the security services (articulated, for example by whistleblowers such as Peter Wright) (1987) led to reforms

• These included the 1985 Interception of Communications Act (which legitimised telephone tapping subject to a Ministerial Warrant) and the 1989 Security Services Act (which placed MI5 on a statutory footing) but the extent of enhanced accountability is debateable and the government was able to use the Official Secrets Act (amended in 1989) to prevent whistleblowers from placing material into the public domain that it preferred to keep secret

The contemporary response to protest

Where are we at now ?

The physical response to protest

• The police response to protest is not uniform but based upon a distinction drawn between contained and transgressive groups

• These two groups receive differential policing at protests with which they are concerned

Transgressive groupsThese are groups which• are unfamiliar to the police or have established a reputation for disruptive

behaviour; are unable or unwilling to reach agreement with police prior to a demonstration; employ innovative tactics that they do not reveal in advance to police; or are deemed likely to challenge police control of public space and engage in direct action tactics .... 'Bad' protesters include: professional protesters; those seen as pursuing abstract, diffuse or radical goals; and young protesters, who are believed to be ill-informed and easily manipulated by others (Noakes et al., 2005: 248).

• Protests conducted by groups that include the Global Justice Movement or anti-capitalists are likely to receive robust policing reminiscent of escalated force: the use of ‘kettling’ is one tactic used against protesters associated with such groups

• right wing organisations that include the EDL have also experienced policing that they may deem to be restrictive

Contained groupsThese are groups that • involve organisers and participants already familiar to the police.

Such people can be depended upon to negotiate all aspects of the proposed demonstration in advance, employ predictable tactics, and generally 'police' themselves in ways that discourage contraventions of prior agreements' Police perceptions of demonstrators will be all the more favourable where the latter are older in years, middle class and subscribe to political positions that are not 'diffuse or abstract' in nature (D Waddington, 2007: 17).

• The manner in which the 2000 Fuel Crisis was policed demonstrates the difference in approach between these and transgressive groups

The G20 Protests (London) 2009

• These protests took place on 1 and 2 April 2009 in connection with the G20 Summit meeting. These were composed of 'a wide variety of groups with diverse agendas that included economic policy, the operation of the banking system and bankers' pay and bonuses, climate change and the war of Terror' (Joyce and Wain, 2014: 126).

• The policing of these events (captured by numerous ‘citizen journalists’ using mobile phones) was a source of concern

Adapting to Protest• Numerous reports were written following these events, two of which (using the same

title) were written by HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Denis O’Connor• He argued in his first report, that the police needed to demonstrate explicit

consideration of the facilitation of peaceful protest throughout the planning and execution of the operation or operations

• He argued that the starting point for the police response to protest was the presumption in favour of facilitating peaceful assembly

• In his second report he argued that the future policing of protest should reflect the core values of British policing

• These were identified as an approachable, impartial, accountable style of policing based in minimal force and anchored in public consent whose key purpose was ‘to ensure the safety of the public and the preservation of the peace within a tolerant, plural society’

The sum total of these arguments suggested that the depiction of groups as transgressive and the use of escalated force against them should not be a matter of first resort

Intelligence gathering• Technological developments have provided enhanced capabilities for intruding into individual

privacy• It has been argued that 'every cell phone tower you pass, friend you keep, article you write, site

you visit, subject line you type, and packet you route, is in the hands of a system whose reach is unlimited but whose safeguards are not' (Snowden, cited in Baraniuk, 2014). This has led to a situation whereby pretty much everything you do can be tracked now .... 'Everything involves a computer.... Everything you do online, everything you do on your phone, everything you do that involves any kind of payment system' (Schneir, 2014).

• Much of this monitoring is conducted by commercial concerns such as internet providers but the government may seek access to it

• The government’s pretext for securing such information in addition to that which it collects through its intelligence agencies is to combat terrorism which is now viewed as the key subversive act

• In late 2015, the government announced an extension of its strategy to counter extremism by launching a drive against the infiltration of public sector institutions (such as schools, colleges, local authorities and the civil service), businesses and charities by Islamist and other extremists. This entails enhanced surveillance performed by a number of state agencies in addition to the police, posing a further threat to individual privacy and the freedom of thought and speech

References• Ackroyd, C., Margolis, K., Rosenhead, J. and Shallice, T. (1980) The Technology of Political Control. London: Pluto Press.• Baraniuk, C. (2016) "Microsoft Reveals Details of Windows 10 Usage Tracking". BBC News 7 January. [Online]

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141027-the-hidden-ways-youre-tracked [Accessed 16 January 2016].• Hall, S. (1980) Drifting into a Law and Order Society. London: Cobden Trust.• Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) (2009a) Adapting to Protest. London: HMIC .An online version of this report

can be located at www.hmic.gov.uk/media/adapting-to-protest-20090705.pdf

• Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) (2009b) Adapting to Protest: Nurturing the British Model of Policing. London: HMIC. An online version of this report can be found at http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/adapting-to-protest-nurturing-the-british-model-of-policing-20091125.pdf

• Jefferson. T. (1987) “Beyond Paramilitarism”, British Journal of Criminology, 27, pp 47-53.• Jefferson, T. (1990) The Case Against Paramilitary Policing. Buckingham: Open University Press.• Joyce, P. (2001) Crime and the Criminal Justice System. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. • Joyce, P. and Wain, N. (2014) Palgrave Dictionary of Public Order Policing, Protest and Political Violence. Basingstoke:

Palgrave/Macmillan.• Schneir, B. (2014) quoted in Snowden, E. (2014) quoted in C. Baraniuk "Surveillance: The Hidden Ways You're Tracked". BBC

News [Online] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141027-the-hidden-ways-youre-tracked [Accessed 18 January 2016].• Waddington, D. (2007) Policing Public Disorder: Theory and Practice. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing. • Waddington, P. (1987) “Towards Paramilitarism ? Dilemma in the Policing of Public Disorder”. British Journal of Criminology, 27

pp 37 – 46.• Waddington, P. (1993) “The Case Against Paramilitary Policing Considered”, British Journal of Criminology, 33 (3), pp 353-373.