State honey trap!

Try this on the attempt by Met police to entrap Colin Stagg:

“The most significant aspect of the woeful saga of Colin Stagg is not the the £700,000 he gets from the rest of us as compensation for having his life ruined when he was wrongly identified by the Metropolitan Police as the man who murdered Rachel Nickell.

“Its most important consequence is its effect on policing in Britain.

“That effect derives from the ringing condemnation of the police that Mr Justice Ognall, the judge at Mr Stagg’s trial, delivered when he considered the evidence gathered by an undercover officer who ‘befriended’ Mr Stagg.

“The judge called it ‘deceptive conduct of the grossest kind’, and he ruled all of it inadmissible. The prosecution decided that without the undercover evidence, there was no chance of convicting Mr Stagg, and dropped the case.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3561512/Colin-Staggs-shadow-hangs-over-undercover-police-work.html

Btw my local press is carrying this report:

“Police who had to abandon their vehicle after it was ransacked by student protestors yesterday were Sutton officers.

“The Sutton Police van was set upon by masked yobs who smashed its windows, set off a smoke bomb inside, sprayed graffiti and then stood on its roof during a march by Whitehall yesterday. . . ”
http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/news/8689487.BREAKING_NEWS__Sutton_officers__van_ransacked_during_student_protest/

Rusty old van is significant. If you were going to leave a van to be vandalised which one would you choose?

It is also significant the BBC reported in the evening news that the police said that damage to this van was their reason for blocking the route and starting the kettle but there did not appear to be sufficient time between the two events for this to be credible.

Helicopter video shows several other vans very carefully positioned close by to aid the kettle before the “bait” van was damaged.

The decision to stop and kettle solved the problem of what was going to happen further along the route – prevented a 30 Milbank type incident and strong police criticism.

But it has to be said that the protesters took the “bait” and damaged the van. Stupid of them as it turned a peaceful protest into one that justified controlling by force.

Even if the van was left there deliberately, the police didn’t force the protesters to vandalise it. That was their choice.

That is true Richard,

But, given the knowledge that a small minority could not possibly resist the temptation, isn’t deliberately leaving a fully marked up police van slap bang in the middle of their path to be vandalised somewhat irresponsible?

More profound than that, isn’t it an act designed to remove from the vast majority of peaceful protesters their important right to do so?

Without free expression and the right to peacefully protest we have no real democracy.

And that has been well demonstrated here. No doubt the protesters have some coherent ideas they wish to be debated. But do you hear them being debated anywhere? It is totally drowned out by debate about violence, vandalism and police tactics.

Is the UK still a shining example of democracy if the Police are taking effective steps to silence peaceful debate rather than defending the execution of our rights?

Of course the students are innocents abroad. They don’t understand the realities; the Internet is full of their cries of “police brutality!” attached to pictures and videos showing the police in far better light than you could snap any weekend at a football ground or a row of nightclubs. Even more ludicrous are the nice young people shocked at the lack of human rights when they illegally occupy university buildings and find the university refuses to provide them with toilets and food!

Well I suppose the real value of university has always been as a safe place to learn to grow up.

Oh my god they came near me with a horse! Police Brutality!! Evil news media stop focussing on all those pictures of fires, destruction, vandalism and missile throwing students! You are in the control of the state or biased owners!

Do they really believe the press should be focussing on the peaceful majority who did nothing, not even stop or shop those who destroyed the opportunity? The news is inevitably what their demonstration actually did, not what they wanted it to do.

These innocent virgins don’t understand the arena they put themselves in by participating in violent protest. Nor do they have the organisation or collective will to prevent being manipulated by the police or the loony extreme (or by the police manipulating the loony extreme).

The pain is that they have demonstrated to the public and the courts an apparent need for these police tactics. When the police don’t use them protesters smash the place up, when they do use them violence and damage are stopped.

The real victim here is not education funding, the proposals have more than enough political and popular support, sufficient to even allow the LibDems the luxury of abstaining.

The victim here is the ability to protest freely in future.

Of course the protest wont stop for a while, the violence and rhetoric will get worse and people will get hurt. But, to the public, it will be just those bloody destructive students learning lessons the hard way and it won’t even make the news.

And whose fault?

Rolo Tomasi @ 5,

People can only be manipulated for so long, it seems to me. Yes, these were virgin protesters, and consequently some, if not indeed many, will retreat from this confrontational form of politics. But they won’t forget.

Now they know what they are up against.

I am, frankly bemused, that the Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson, sees street policing as something to be bullish about. It would be far better to disperse than to kettle, I think.

This is the sort of confrontational policing that, it seems to me, made huge tracts of Northern England distrust the Police after the miners strikes because of the Police’s role – albeit unintended by them – in politics.

I do not want a politicised Police Force. They ought to be able to establish a distinction between political expediency and the genuine anger of citizens. For they ought to be our Police Force, not agents of the State.

They should certainly not be under the control of Westminster politicians. They should, perhaps, at this exegesis, be local, not national.

Dunno whether you agree.

When I arrived in Whitehall, I saw the van and thought “why is that van there”? The Met is lying when it says that it blocked the southern end of Whitehall in response to the van being trashed. A police cordon was already in place. I’ve blogged this on http://buddyhell.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/postcards-from-the-barricades-part-4/

At this stage we don’t know who damaged the van and if they were incited to damage the van and by whom. During the miner’s strike and anti nuclear protests of the 80s Special Branch and the private security firms associated with the Tories used infiltrators both to spy on protestors and to incite violence to discredit the protests. Paranoid? Not when you’ve seen British police waving their overtime payments at strikers then clubbing them to the ground and not a word of it making it to the news.

I do find this all terribly amusing. Just recently here we’ve had a number of threads about rape.

And one of the lines about rape that you good little liberals so vociferously decry is that a woman who, wearing a miniskirt, perhaps a little drunk, wandering down an alleyway at 1 am, might in some manner be responsible for being raped.

And you’re right. She’s not responsible for being raped. The responsibility belongs to the rapist.

The logical difference between this and a police van parked in Whitehall that happens to get vandalised is what?

Quite. It’s not the responsibility of the van (obviously) nor of the people who left it there. The responsibility for duffing up the van rests squarely on the shoulders of those who duffed it up.

If you do want to say that those who left it there are in some way responsible then you’ve, in logic, got to similarly assume that the scantily clad maiden is similarly in some manner for her plight.

Can’t have it both ways: either those who commit crimes of violence are respnsible or they’re not, eh?

Tim

I don’t think that works very well, I don’t think trying to score a point like that on the topic of rape was very well judged. After all, you believe the responsibility lies with the rapist, but now you look like you’re trying to undermine that view. I don’t think deliberately leaving an old van for an excitable mob of protesters, including idiot youths and ‘anarchists’ etc., is a useful comparison to a woman wearing a short skirt in public.

The underlying logic is exactly the same. And I’m consistent in my logic. The blame lies with the perpetrators.

Sunny wants to be one both sides of the same logic.

Tim

well… I think it looks like you are either pouring scorn on those who believe that women ought to be able to wear what they damn well like and blame ought to lie wholly on rapists (a position you agree with – so you don’t mean to be pouring scorn on that) or you are pouring scorn on those who believe that leaving that van was a blatant act of entrapment on the part of the police. A position that seems perfectly sensible to me. So I’m not sure what logical inconsistency you have found. There’s nothing illogical in treating the two very different situations differently, and besides I don’t think Sunny is trying to argue those who smashed up the van have zero responsibility for what happened next …. surely you’re not trying to argue that the police have zero responsibility?

If somebody dropped a scantily clad woman and a crate of vodka into a Siberian labor camp for “Vory v Zakone”, your logic tells you that if we blamed that somebody for what happens next, we’d then be trying to “have it both ways” if we tried to blame solely the rapist in other contexts? don’t be daft.

#3 Rolo Tamasi: “Rusty old van is significant. If you were going to leave a van to be vandalised which one would you choose?”

There were dozens of those vans in the area (e.g. http://bit.ly/egILFr ) , most of the Met’s vans are the same age. ‘Rusty old van’ is a red herring.

Tim – The people who attacked the van are no less responsible but the claim, I think, is that it gave tha po’lice the chance to kettle lots and lots more people who’d never touched the damn thing.

Sunny certainly seems to be arguing that the police were somehow at fault.

Bait, eh?

Can’t you just hear the thug telling his lawyer….but she weren’t wearin’ nuffink, she made me do it!

Well, it’s a matter of fact that some things are more likely to inspire results than others. If a woman dresses in a certain fashion and walks through a certain part of town she might well be more likely to endure abuse. The abuser has enough autonomy that they deserve the blame but that doesn’t mean there aren’t measures the woman could have taken to make such events less probable.

The police, if this theory is correct, have wilfully made it more probable that their vehicle will be trashed. Sure, that doesn’t mean the vandals don’t still take the blame but the police would be responsible for kettling people they’re aware have done no harm. A better analogy might be a guy/gal who leaves their keys in an unlocked car and then claims insurance.

We cannot deny that kettling “works” as it stops criminality and prevents it spreading.

Dispersal spreads the trouble and makes police command and control ineffective. This is confirmed by the many websites advising protester on tactics stressing the importance of keeping moving and being unpredictable.

The problem with kettling is that creates many victims who don’t deserve the brutal summary punishment that it involves. It inevitably involves physical confrontation between the police and law abiding individuals, damaging the police/public relationship permanently. It give the appearance that the police are there to prevent protest rather than to defend peoples right to do it.

Also, as with many powers, the police heavily abuse it. For example I would be interested to hear if anyone managed to successfully refuse to give their details and be photographed when they left the kettle.

If you want violence just remember that the police totally out gun you and you will loose. The best you can do is to accept the inevitable injuries and criminal record and try to find a way of making a kettle a positive experience.

If you want to organise a peaceful protest you need to either make sure everybody behaves or to work with the Police to find ways they can effectively distinguish between the peaceful minority and the illegal minority.

No one should go on a group protest and expect individual treatment based on their individual behaviour.

These are the realities of where we are, there is little point in wishing it was otherwise, deal with it and use it to your best advantage.

Rolo Tamasi:
“If you want violence just remember that the police totally out gun you and you will loose.”

Ahistorical nonsense.

“If you want to organise a peaceful protest you need to either make sure everybody behaves or to work with the Police to find ways they can effectively distinguish between the peaceful minority and the illegal minority.”

How about tarring and feathering?

@16

They’ve got the guns but we’ve got the numbers.

Rolo Tomaski @ 16,

Thanks for the reply.

I’m not quite sure whether you see any change in policing tactics as a possibility or not.

You seem to me to be arguing for the status quo. Yes, I can see the argument against common criminals who may attach themselves to a demonstration. But to characterise all demonstrators as ‘people of interest’ to the Police seems to extend the authority of the state beyond reasonable conventions. Equally with ‘kettling’. It may work in the short term, but it is no solution in the longer term. There is going to be a fight back – in a legal sense – against this form of short term imprisonment.

As Terry Pratchett once commented, a policemans’ ideal citizen would be someone who stayed at home after work, preferably with their hands laid flat on the table.

Which you appear to be in favour of.

Would that be correct?

Rolo Tamasi,

Apologies for getting your name wrong.

I would have thought that with modern means of communication, there would be no need to bring yourself to the attention of MP’s by demonstrating in the middle of London. And besides, somewhere nearer the geographical centre of the country would make access much easier than travelling down to the Smoke. You could plan your march, inform the mass media and do it, without problems. In fact the mass media could have a permanent presence there. A few fields could easily be found in the Midlands. Some have been already tarmacked by the “travelling community”. Or alternatively, how about somewhere quieter in London. Isn’t Hampstead where all the lefty toffs live? They would bring out refreshments and offer you moral support. That is, if they approved of your cause.

@ 14 Tim

“Bait, eh?

Can’t you just hear the thug telling his lawyer….but she weren’t wearin’ nuffink, she made me do it!”

You’re completely missing the point, which is: 1) the police may have deliberately let the van be vandalised as an excuse to kettle a huge number of protesters, not just the vandals, and 2) if the police were there to keep the peace, why would they deliberately do something that seemed likely to lead to trouble, and what does that say about their motivations?

You’re absolutely right that whether the van was left as a honey trap is irrelevant to the guilt of the vandals, but it’s extremely relevant to the possible guilt of the cops.

No, I’ve got the point. Just not sure it stands up……

@7 buddyhell:
“The Met is lying when it says that it blocked the southern end of Whitehall in response to the van being trashed. A police cordon was already in place.”

When did they say that? It’s the Northern end of the kettle that’s in question, and your own blog shows you through that after the van was trashed.

Douglas Clark @ 20,

No it would not be at all correct, I am extremely critical of, and active against, police tactics and their abuse of the law. It is what interests me in this protest.

However, being against the police tactics does not mean you can ignore them when considering your protest strategy because they will apply them against you whether you like it or not.

What pisses me off is that we are playing straight into their hands and strengthening their justification of these tactics.

Jason Sands @ 18

No I’m not suggesting tarring and feathering. I’m just pointing out one of the simple facts of life, which aint going to change.

There are lots of naive people who think that they are immune from police action and prosecution because they did not actually damage anything themselves. They are wrong. Bear in mind that people have been found guilty of murder (and, in the past, hung for it) even though they were not the one pulling the trigger. A protest is a joint enterprise. If the protest turns illegal then everyone participating can be dealt with unless there is a clear distinction between those involved in the illegality and those not.

I’m not offering valued judgements about how you should behave, just pointing out some matters that those making these decisions for themselves should consider.

Jason Sands @25
“When did they say that? It’s the Northern end of the kettle that’s in question, and your own blog shows you through that after the van was trashed.”
This is an important point.

The Sky video shows the van undamaged with police close to it and protesters ignoring it at 12:48.

I’m sure from my memory of watching live TV helicopter footage that the police line to the North of it, blocking the agreed route, was in place very close to 13:00. (Although it may not have been immediately 100% effective).

Was the van damaged in the intervening 12 minutes? If it was did the police have time to make the decision to stop the protest, decide where was the best place to stop it and get sufficient resources in place to do it?

Personally I’m convinced that the decision was taken a long time earlier and the bait van was to provide the excuse. Whether it was actually damaged before the kettle was formed or later by people frustrated at being kettled was a detail that could be fudged in the fog of war if necessary. But it is a key bit of evidence from the protesters perspective.

Please can someone reply. Was it a conspiracy theory that a POLICE AWARE sticker was stuck to the top corner of the front of the van?

No, it was a real sticker, but it hadn’t been fixed to the van for it’s usual purpose, as it was under the riot grilles and had no writing on.

@Tim Worstall: apples and oranges. If some demonstrators damage a “rusty old police van” (as it’s been described), in the course of which no-one is hurt, then… no-one is hurt.

If a girl is raped, chances are, she is hurt very badly.

If one cares, above all, that people should not be hurt against their will, then the latter is awful whereas the former is not, even though it may be regrettable in other respects.