It seems to me like for a while after the ‘battle of the beanfields’ the police were either too ashamed (i would like to think), or in too high profile (more likely) to take part in such overt violence towards innocent members of the public, but for some reason recently have been finding their batons again. This is surely as much a part of the current governments fault as it is that of the police… Its seems obvious to me that any organisation give SO MUCH power over the public should be INTENSELY regulated to the point where this kind of abuse cannot happen!

I worry hugely that there is a culture within the police force that drops every brown-combat wearing pedestrian into their ‘Viscious rebel scum’ catagory and therefore gives them the right to randomly ‘Crack some skulls’.

I will say one more thing before i sign out of this comment… My first reaction, when watching the news on the G20 protest in London and seeing masked protesters smashing banks windows and climbing inside was ‘Idiots… They’ve broken the FIRST rule of protesting, what can the police do now but get violent’, but the more footage i watch and the more reports i read, the clearer it becomes that the police were there with the intent of ‘letting off some steam’, I would love to know more for sure about who STARTED what… a childish sentiment?? no. Its the only one that matters. Ghandi was right ‘Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.’ We MUST NOT be seen to be putting the police in which they ‘have no choice’ rather we must stand tall with our heads up… but never our fists! That way when the police react like this the case will be open and shut!

Anna Bragga of the Greens has written a very good and detailed report on the MPA meeting which mentions the discussion of the TSG:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom-theme/anna-bragga/2009/05/01/met-watchdog-critical-of-g20-tactics-0

Haha – good one chavscum! By “grow up” do you mean not question the status quo? Perhaps when you, chavscum, grow up you’ll realise that civil liberties matter. Maybe one day you’ll want to protest against something. And if you want to do it without “disrupting” people, do it in a field on your own and see how much effect that has.

tim f “The police can request demonstrators act in a particular way, but they should not be seen as a law unto themselves, and it’s perfectly reasonable for demonstrators not to do something purely because the police have requested it, but weigh up the pros and cons on their own terms.”

Agree completely. But if the police violated the proper procedure then that it is important too and should be looked at.

Sue “Did the TSG and their role get a mention at the MPA meeting? Is it on the agenda?” Yes several members of the MPA raised concerns of an aggressive culture within the TSG who it was feared may have become “battle-hardened” and hence desensitised to violence. We’ll post a proper report on the TSG soon.

Previous anti-capitalist, rent-a-leftie gatherings have become violent, so I can understand their planning. It seems that despite the hype of the Media the protesters were mostly whinging middle-class students and activists and they have been ignored by the disaffected that might have caused the Police serious problems.

There is no getting away from the fact the protest was organised to cause maximum disruption in a confined area of the City. The organisers of protests have a responsibility to police themselves and behave in a respectable way towards the public and property. If they cannot or refuse to, then the Police have a right to manage them aggressively, but without indulging in random violence (as with Ian Thomlinson).

As protesting has become a leisure pursuit for some people, perhaps organisers should in future apply for a licence and also provide stewards.

Isn’t the MPA full of lefties anyway?

‘Chavscum’ (lovely handle by the way) – as I understand it, the TSG’s own image of themselves, like that of the SPG before them, is of coppers who go sort out the real criminals. Like you, and perhaps even like some of them before the red mist descends, I’d much rather that they were nicking toerag scum instead of twatting hippies on Bishopsgate.

Even if they did, that doesn’t mean their action in clearing the camp violently is automatically ok. The police can request demonstrators act in a particular way, but they should not be seen as a law unto themselves, and it’s perfectly reasonable for demonstrators not to do something purely because the police have requested it, but weigh up the pros and cons on their own terms.

Agree with that completely (apart from the pathetic and pointless bit, which is purely vindictive), and I think there’s a lot of mileage for the left pointing out that while working class communities feel like there’s no point reporting anti-social behaviour and vandalism of ordinary people’s property to the police because nothing seems to come of it, hundreds of police in riot gear with dogs are supposedly needed to protect the property of huge financial organisations.

Uhh… economic growth just means more people getting more things that they need and want (which, can include things like cleaner parks and rivers of course). So it is not surprising you find it difficult to challenge it as an idea! It is just the sum of what people pursue when they aren’t being forced to do something else. Now I realise you associate some activities involved in economic activity with damage to the planet, but it would be nice if you tried, at least, to disaggregate some of that activity. Setting economic growth as whole up as your enemy is not a good strategy. Otherwise, a lot of people might conclude not to bother adapting their behaviour on the basis of “better dead than smeg”.

I’d like to ask the Met to get on with proper policing: preventing crime and catching the scum that burgled and trashed my in-laws place. Not wasting a huge number of personnel, resources and money on policing pathetic and pointless protests.

http://www.london.gov.uk/webcasts.jsp

Myself, Guy, Anna and Emma who just got back from the MPA meeting after submitting questions. Bit of a mixed message from the police really, at some points they were admitting that mistakes may have been made and that they needed to look at tactics. However at other points they were making inaccurate claims about the nature of the threat at the G20. They also claimed they warned members of climate camp with a loudhailer that they would be moving in to clear the protest. From all accounts i’ve heard this is untrue.

The good news is that most of the MPA members were concerned and supportive of our aims. However we need to continue to keep up the pressure on this, its absolutely crucial that people continue to defend their right to peaceful protest outside of events like the G20 to ensure when they might want to protest about something important to them in future, they don’t suffer the same abuses again!

Was told there was a live online feed of the meeting – if anyone finds this could they post it here I can’t see it up yet…

Keep up the good work people.

We will be getting in touch with the Countryside Alliance. I did mention their 2004 demo in the original version of this post. Similar police behaviour to that at the G20 it seems, just no camera phones.

Thanks for the Scarman suggestion – will check it out.

By the way, last time I checked (and it was more than a decade ago when I was sure, so things might have moved on) yr man is ‘silver commander’ not ‘silver star commander’. Also, if you say ‘riot police’ they’ll quibble. Called the, ‘police in a public order role’ and they’ll have to address the issues rather than quibble.

If I were you, and really wanted to make it broad-based, I’ll phone up the Countryside Alliance (remember them? bless) who had some genuine greivances about the way that their demo at Parliament was treated: they might want to be in the room too.

Check out Lord Scarman’s inquiry in Red Lion Square, as well as the one he did into Brixton. It fudged the main conclusions, but it’s the kind of thing that you should be describing.