I saw the protesters being “contained” in Whitehall at about 1pm, and it was already cold then. I couldn’t believe it when I came back into London at 7pm and heard that they were still there.

I don’t see any other explanation than that this kettling was punitive. The numbskulls who manage the police evidently think that if you give first-time protesters an unpleasant shock it’ll learn them not to do it again. Actually, it’s more likely to radicalise them.

It’s collective punishment by another name. Something which I believe is outlawed by human rights legislation… but of course it’s for the protesters safety, so that’s alright, then.

“Kettling” is simply collective preventative action that elevates property rights above all else. It is justified by an unspoken subtext that one should not be out demonstrating and if you’re locked up, you “got what you deserved”. It arguably doesn’t work on a practical level.

There is an argument to be had about the value of property rights versus civil liberty (remembering that many would argue their liberty to enjoy their property is quite important). There is also the argument as to whether protestors have the right to impair others’ civil liberties. There is also a very good argument to be had as to whether kettling is the correct thing to do. But your argument here seems to assume that a protest is only kettled to protect property. I always thought there was a public safety argument: not sure if I believe it, but it needs addressing.

And as to rioters rarely causing death – so too does driving. I suspect there are far more deaths per riot, than death per car journey undertaken for example (and that both figures are way under 1). Perhaps a more realistic comparison would help. An uncontrolled demonstration is dangerous (perhaps more through crushes and the like than through riots), but then again so is a football match – and football fans are not kettled (and generally not contained that much). Would that help as a better comparator?

It’s obvious the author, fine points though he makes, doesn’t go to a football match very often.

Kettling goes on every bloody week, especially to away supporters, on nothing more than the precautionary principle. Indeed, it is with football crowds that the efficacy of kettling was proven, at least in this country.

… oh and Watchman too it seems.

Kettling school kids. Is there no depth to which this government won’t stoop? Mind you they may have just radicalised a load of kids and changed their view of the police, most people have a benign view of the police till they are nicked, or kettled and upfront, in your face.

Kettling is not just about protecting property rights either. It’s designed to make demonstrating as unpleasant and uncomfortable as possible without getting the CS gas out. The intention is to put off the demonstraters from demonstrating again.

On a big demo I can see kettling backfiring on the cops one day and they will deserve it. It’s cops that kill demonstrators not the other way round.

In general, the Law Lords found that police may use ‘containment’, or ‘kettling’ (it’s worth a read), but of course whether an individual use of containment is lawful or not depends on the circumstances. In 2009, in his review of the G20 protest and policing, HMCIC Denis O’Connor said that,

“the police need to think about changing their approach to policing protest. … The key issue is the starting point for policing protest. The starting point should not be defining protest as lawful or unlawful. Instead, the presumption should be in favour of facilitating peaceful protest, unless levels of disruption require the police to place legitimate restrictions upon them. …

“We live in an age where public consent of policing cannot be assumed, and policing, including public order policing, should be designed to win the consent of the public. Future events like the Olympics 2012 make change all the more critical. This interim report is intended to assist the police service to achieve this change.”

(You might be interested in the polls about the public’s view of the use of force on pages 28 and 29 of the full report).

‘Kettling school kids. Is there no depth to which this government won’t stoop?’

THIS government?

Kettling is (a) collective punishment, (b) imprisonment without trial, (c) a Hillsborough waiting to happen and (d) a legacy of the last government.

[4] footie fans aren’t corralled for hours on end are they? – mind you, the 96 deaths at Hillsborough occurred primarily as a result of lack of crowd control – even though senior police officers like Duckenfield lied about their role in this tragedy;
http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/history/taylor.shtm

@ 4 John Spence

As a football supporter who regulalrly attends games I can say it does not happen to away fans every week. Frequently now home fans and away fans are let out of the ground at the same time.

Also most fans, though finding it irritating know the rationale behind being kettled, it is to prevent fighting between fans which the majority of fans wish to avoid. For away fans heavily outnumbered it can be seen as a form of protection from home fans.

Kettling of football fans also usually only lasts about 20 minutes. The longest I have ever been kettled (at a game with explosive potential) was one hour, back in the ’80s. Demonstrators, on the other hand can be expected to be kettled for up to seven or eight hours.

A bit off-subject, but does anyone know what the outcome was of this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacateurs

@ 8 shatterface

I said kettling school kids, which I have never seen before. Perhaps you have, please enlighten us.

I have frequently been kettled as a football fan. I also experienced kettling on a demo back in 1974 in the “Battle of Red Lion Square” an anti-NF demo during which Kevin Gately was killed by a cop. No one was ever prosecuted natch.

So this is one thing you can’t lay on to New Labour.

@4,

Well, I used to attend the Dundee derby, and walk straight out and mix with the bloody … (sorry – I’ve just realised the normal Dundee supporter (yes, it is a horrible thing to be) language for Dundee United fans might be construed as racist – as opposed to historical). Kettling (actually containment in the stadium or a holding area, normally chosen because it has toilet facilities) is not the same at football matches, if it is practised. And most police forces prefer to maintan seperation if they think there is a risk.

Anyway, even if you are correct that kettling is normal (you’re not a Millwall fan are you?) then it is odd that football fans do not complain about it in the same way as protesters. Which may tell us more about protesters than anything else, but still…

Watchman,

… it is odd that football fans do not complain about it in the same way as protesters. Which may tell us more about protesters than anything else, but still…

Is it really so odd? It seems to be that football fans may have grown used to it whereas protesters don’t protest every week so they are not used to it. Also, if it is true that protesters are kettled for longer than football fans, it seems to me protesters would be more likely to complain on that basis.

ukliberty,

Sorry – I realise it may appear I’m making arguments to support kettling. Actually, all I was doing was trying to get the debate from the original post onto slightly saner ground (comparing driving a car with protesting!).

I don’t like kettling, but to be fair I don’t like dangerous crowds either, so I was looking for a sane debate.

Watchman, I too thought the car analogy was “outlandish”.

Starting premise seems thoroughly wrong to me, on two grounds:

1. more-or-less equivalent stuff does actually happen to motorists, e.g.
http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Lorry-blaze-leaves-angry-M5-drivers-stranded-hours/article-707101-detail/article.html

2. large dense crowds are, if anything, rather more dangerous than motorway traffic.

Google ‘killed in crush’ and you get any number of incidents with bigger death tolls than any pile-up, topping out at 4 figures:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1135473.html

The real point is not the details of the police tactics, but the naivety of the belief that if your economic policy is aimed at impoverishing mass numbers of people, you are going to be able to cut police budgets, instead of the opposite.

A US-style economy necessarily implies US-levels of imprisonment (~3% of the adult population), armed police, probably the return of the death penalty, and so on.

I look forward to Nick Clegg endorsing those measures when they come…

Isn’t the footy analogy spurious? There seems to be an assumption that if it happens to footy fans it’s OK for protesters. That’s nonsense.

UKL and WM @ 16, 15

I think the driving analogy is perfectly apt. If the government of the day decided that it wanted to stop abhorrent behaviour on our roads and used similar tactics, there would be an absolute outcry. We have both the right to protest and drive cars, both activities take place on public roads and both activities attract nutcases that mar everyone else’s legitimate rights. However, the right to protest is ‘enjoyed’ by people of (mainly) one set of values whilst car driving is a wider-spread activity. No-one would attempt to indiscriminately detain thousands of car drivers without due process for seven hours. The fact that it is seen as both an ‘outlandish’ and ‘insane’ analogy is more to do with the concept that we would contain drivers than the ‘usual suspects’ of protesters.

On the rare occasions that the Right Wing, middle classes come onto the streets (Countryside alliance), they find the police tactics used, totally shocking.

The practice of kettling appears to be one of attempting to dissuade people from turning up on marches, than any reasonable action taken for safety reasons.

Can anyone tell me what actual ‘Law’ has been invoked to allow the police complete discretion to detain people on a street, without any legal recourse? Isn’t this just ‘false imprisonment? Have the Lib Dems allowed this Country to sleepwalk into a Police State? Isn’t there a single Lib Dem on this board or in the Country at large who has even a veneer of a conscience about this?

What’s the legality on another group of protestors surrounding the police line and kettling some of the police?

Jim,

No-one would attempt to indiscriminately detain thousands of car drivers without due process for seven hours. The fact that it is seen as both an ‘outlandish’ and ‘insane’ analogy is more to do with the concept that we would contain drivers than the ‘usual suspects’ of protesters.

As I wrote earlier, the lawfulness of ‘kettling’, or ‘containment’ (or similar) depends on the circumstances as of course it must, assuming there is a power that enables ‘containment’ – and there is such a power. There is also the question of whether it is practical. Now, I’m struggling to imagine circumstances where thousands of drivers would be contained – perhaps that’s my failing – but It seems to me the OP would be better off praying in aid something real, e.g. the unlawful detention of people at Fairford, rather than something made up. But that’s where is argument fails: for the very reason that it is not lawful in every circumstance.

The practice of kettling appears to be one of attempting to dissuade people from turning up on marches, than any reasonable action taken for safety reasons.

I don’t dispute it may have that effect. It seems to me that some police actions are intended to have a “chilling effect” or intimidatory effect (the loud noises and low flying at Kingsnorth, for example). I’m not sure how institutionalised these are. I would point you to that HMCIC report I cited earlier for evidence that perhaps not every high-ranking officer thinks identically.

Can anyone tell me what actual ‘Law’ has been invoked to allow the police complete discretion to detain people on a street, without any legal recourse?

Common law power to prevent a breach of the peace, if I understand correctly.

Isn’t this just ‘false imprisonment?

No, it isn’t “false imprisonment” unless the police acted unlawfully.

The first demo was not kettled. They rioted.

Actions have reactions.

@18 Cherub

“Isn’t the footy analogy spurious? There seems to be an assumption that if it happens to footy fans it’s OK for protesters. That’s nonsense.”

Er, so football fans have no civil liberties but demonstrators do?

I thought we’d got rid of the “all football fans are racist, violent neaderthals who deserve anything they get” sometime in the 1990s.

Apparently not.

And it wasn’t just the right who had this attitude. After the Hillsborough Disaster The Guardian had a report which just a more articulate version of the notorious Sun front page which blamed the fans and has led to a boycott of The Sun on Merseyside that lasts till this day.

I remember this because I wrote a letter in protest about the article which was the lead letter in the paper the next day

Still, you’re in good company Kelvin Mackenzie (Sun editor at the time) still believes Liverpool fans were to blame.

(I’m a Manc and Manchester City fan by the way, so have no axe to grind here).

@ 23 captain swing

“Er, so football fans have no civil liberties but demonstrators do?”

I think you’re jumping the gun here. I suspect Cherub meant that kettling was de facto bad and you couldn’t use one abuse of power as justification for the next one. Apologies if I’m wrong, Cherub.

I think kettling is more acceptable at a football stadium. Holding people for a short period to prevent chaos (not violent chaos necessarily, possibly just the chaos you get when hundreds of people try to go the same way at once) is a lot different to holding people for nine hours to punish them for exercising freedom of speech, which is blatently what this was about.

@2: It’s collective punishment by another name. Something which I believe is outlawed by human rights legislation.

Collective punishment is outlawed in wartime, but I’m not aware of it being specifically outlawed in peacetime.

When they got into power the ConDems said they’d roll back Labour’s breaches of human rights — it didn’t take long for them to show their true faces.

Isn’t there something peaceful and effective that kettled demonstrators can do by way of counter-kettling – A non-toxic way of giving off a collective odour that might sicken a police horse and puncture a kettle – after all the horses are only human – it’s those constabulary cavalrymen that are …erm . . . What’s the phrase I’m looking for? I’ll ask an old coal miner next time I see one.

@ 24. Chaise Guevara

‘I think kettling is more acceptable at a football stadium’

That was the point I was making @ 10.

Football fans don’t call it “kettling”, we call it ‘being kept back’, or ‘kept in’ and accept it and, as I stated it usually only last 20 minutes compared to the seven hours for demonstrators.

Cherub did not make himself very clear.

UKL @ 21

I’m struggling to imagine circumstances where thousands of drivers would be contained

Whether or not it is practical is not the central issue here, the point of the OP was to test the idea that such tactic would be tolerated in other circumstances. It is not unreasonable to assume that if the political willpower existed then the police could devise tactics to seal of a few exits of a motorway, impose a rolling and then a standard roadblock and implement a full search of the cars trapped, only releasing them after a seven hour wait.

We both know however, that is simply not going to happen, not because it is not ‘possible’, but because the political price would be too high. The point being that the police would not detain ‘motorists’ for seven hours in a completely random fashion.

Take another senerio. Imagine a high ranking police officer getting a tip off that there are ‘class A’ drugs being used in a certain nightclub. Let us assume that it is the week that the big bonous are paid out.

The police are NEVER going there mob handed, close all the exits and entrances, detain all and sundry within said establishment, whilst each and every patron is strip searched, examined, tested for drugs are they? No one would dream of such an act against the ‘great and the good’.

Common law power to prevent a breach of the peace, if I understand correctly.

The police cannot simply detain people in the street, without good reason, can they? I mean, if you were walking home one night and half a dozen coppers simply hussled you to a corner and kept you there for seven hours in order to prevent a ‘breach of the peace’ that would not be acceptable, would it? Soi why is two people any different? Or twenty, or Two hundred?

No, it isn’t “false imprisonment” unless the police acted unlawfully.

Again, what powers have the police got to detain people in the street without any reasonable grounds?

@23, 24

I wasn’t suggesting that kettling was OK for football fans or demonstrators. I was pointing out that the argument, regularly regurgitated by trolls such as @4, was spurious.

Another issue is the overall attitude of the police (or at least the front line). Someone who watched the news footage as it came in told me that they saw individuals approaching the police, calmly and non-aggressively, and trying to talk (not shout) to them. I don’t know what they were saying, but they could have been asking the cops to let them out because they had to be somewhere or had only been walking past, or asking them what their authority was to kettle people. The police response was to yell and push.

I’m really not one of those “fight the power” types, and I dislike the knee-jerk hatred of all cops shown by some people, but this really did seem like the police were deliberately punishing people for protesting. I mean, nine hours?

[28] “It is not unreasonable to assume that if the political willpower existed then the police could devise tactics to seal of a few exits of a motorway, impose a rolling and then a standard roadblock and implement a full search of the cars trapped, only releasing them after a seven hour wait” – true, Jim, in fact didn’t this sort of thing arise when the cops tried to prevent the movement of pickets during the miners strike?
http://www.the-villager.co.uk/Archives.asp?File=19950503002

Jim,

I’m struggling to imagine circumstances where thousands of drivers would be contained

Whether or not it is practical is not the central issue here,

I know it isn’t. My point about practicality was really about how difficult I am finding it to imagine a similar kind of containment in terms of vehicles as for protesters. As I say, that is perhaps my failing. Although soru provided a useful link.

the point of the OP was to test the idea that such tactic would be tolerated in other circumstances. It is not unreasonable to assume that if the political willpower existed then the police could devise tactics to seal of a few exits of a motorway, impose a rolling and then a standard roadblock and implement a full search of the cars trapped, only releasing them after a seven hour wait.

We both know however, that is simply not going to happen, not because it is not ‘possible’, but because the political price would be too high. The point being that the police would not detain ‘motorists’ for seven hours in a completely random fashion.

Well, the police must be in the wrong then. But in seriousness, I think I see the underlying, key issue here: it seems you assume the police are detaining people in a “completely random fashion”, or rather that there is no good reason for them to do so. The police of course claim the contrary and that is to prevent a breach of the peace.

Common law power to prevent a breach of the peace, if I understand correctly.

The police cannot simply detain people in the street, without good reason, can they?

That’s correct, they cannot detain anyone without good reason.

I mean, if you were walking home one night and half a dozen coppers simply hussled you to a corner and kept you there for seven hours in order to prevent a ‘breach of the peace’ that would not be acceptable, would it? Soi why is two people any different? Or twenty, or Two hundred?

2, 20, or 200 people are different because of their number and the other circumstances (e.g. their behaviour, their environment, other people) of the situation. It’s explained in that Law Lords judgement I linked to earlier; please at least read paras 3-10 for an example of circumstances that led to a seven hour ‘containment’.

No, it isn’t “false imprisonment” unless the police acted unlawfully.

Again, what powers have the police got to detain people in the street without any reasonable grounds?

Oh dear – this is not the question you asked earlier. The police do of course need “reasonable grounds” to detain people. This confirms my suspicion that your premise is that the police don’t have “reasonable grounds” or a “good reason” to detain people at protests.

I missed this bit from your previous question: “without any legal recourse?”

People do have legal recourse – unfortunately it is expensive and time-consuming, but the Fairford coach passengers eventually won.

Chaise,

Another issue is the overall attitude of the police (or at least the front line). Someone who watched the news footage as it came in told me that they saw individuals approaching the police, calmly and non-aggressively, and trying to talk (not shout) to them. I don’t know what they were saying, but they could have been asking the cops to let them out because they had to be somewhere or had only been walking past, or asking them what their authority was to kettle people. The police response was to yell and push.

The police may have yelled “get back” and pushed them to get back – they may require a particular distance from the crowd. I do not know, I am speculating.

I’m really not one of those “fight the power” types, and I dislike the knee-jerk hatred of all cops shown by some people, but this really did seem like the police were deliberately punishing people for protesting. I mean, nine hours?

Seven hours seems excessive, let alone nine.

I wonder if the police were stung by criticism of their failure to curtail the demonstration that trashed Millbank and were determined not to allow a similar trashing. If no kettling had occurred, would there have been similar violence by irresponsible protesters?

@ 34

Quite possibly, but that’s not an automatic justification of the police’s behaviour. I mean, one way to keep the streets safe would be to put everyone in jail. Telling them “someone who wasn’t in jail broke a window yesterday, so we’re locking you up” as you do so. Sound fair?

I’m fully aware that policing large protests must be difficult, and dangerous, and the police risk criticism if they’re too soft almost as much as if they’re too heavy-handed. But this really sounds excessive.

Here are some protesters interfering with the freedom of movement of shoppers.

@ 36

I realise we could go down to the basic principle here, but not letting someone into a shop =/= not letting someone go home, get food or drink or grab a jumper in cold weather. Just sayin’.

Ever thought that the tactics the police used during the second protest might just be because one of the protestors almost killed policemen during the first protest?

Chaise,

I realise we could go down to the basic principle here, but not letting someone into a shop =/= not letting someone go home, get food or drink or grab a jumper in cold weather.

I know. I didn’t say the shoppers were detained.

When police kettle, their ostensible claim is that they are preventing/controlling social disorder. In the case of moderating football supporters leaving a stadium, the argument has merit.

When protestors (or football fans, as has been observed in the past) are kettled for a sustained period, the argument diminishes. At some stage, the protestors have to be allowed to disperse. If the crowd is permitted to go home after seven hours but was prevented after six hours, the police thus have to justify that particular hour of detention.

Some press reports mention children phoning their parents and being permitted to leave the kettle in escort. So if some people are allowed out, why not others?

Wooly laws permit creation of a short term kettle. No UK laws permit long term kettles unless there is a continuous disorder threat.

Get out your pro forma Freedom of Information request forms and ask questions.

a&e @ 31

Ah yes, the miners. The ‘State’ uses powers against people it doesn’t like in the full knowledge that the State is virtually untouchable when their victims are painted as evil. Look at the vast array of weapons used against miners, from confiscating assets to restrictions of movement and everything else, but fast forward to the fuel protesters. The State where ‘unwilling’ to use any of these powers.

@ 38

“Ever thought that the tactics the police used during the second protest might just be because one of the protestors almost killed policemen during the first protest?”

Well, yes, because that’s why they did it. So because someone who looks like you beat me up, I’m gonna lock you in a freezing room for seven hours. Cool with that?

@ 39 UKLiberty

“I know. I didn’t say the shoppers were detained.”

Crap, apologies. Missed the point you were making.

UKL @ 32

Hang on a moment, though. This ‘group’ is not a single entity, nor can they reasonably be considered as such. I doubt anyone here would argue ‘common enterprise’ in this case. That group of 20 or 200 (etc) people is made up of individuals, each of whom has rights within the law. It cannot be right to treat them as a single entity, simply because some people in that group may have spray painted a police van, for example. How can the police have reasonable grounds against, say 200 people in a crowd that they may cause a breach of the peace? You can say that about anyone walking down the road.

To suggest the police have the right to ‘detain’ everyone within a group merely by a unilateral declaration of a potential ‘breach of the peace’ is outrageous. I am genuinely shocked that the civil liberties agenda has moved so far that otherwise decent minded people are unable to see the huge infringement in basic rights that this practice implies. Had these people been arrested, charged or even questioned under caution, then they would have rights, but the police have done nothing like that; they have bypassed the entire legal framework. When the police are given ‘carte blanche’ like this, then in my view, they cease to be police as I understand the term and become a junta. We are living in a de facto Police State.

It now appears that we have given the police powers to detain on the public highway people for hours on end for no other reason than they are judged to be a ‘fucking nuisance’ to the State.

Jesus wept, we have now moved to a position where the police can set up impromptu dentition camps anywhere in the Country without a single amendment to the laws of the Country and that appears to fine. Tell me that is not a police state.

CS @ 38

Unfortunately, the police cannot ‘make it up as they go along’, they, like the rest of us have to follow the law and up until now. The police have never been given the powers to detain people on a whim. The ‘Why’ is not relevant here, the ‘how’ is.

Chaise, thank you, and no worries.

@Peter Ede, what law do you practice?

Jim,

How can the police have reasonable grounds against, say 200 people in a crowd that they may cause a breach of the peace? You can say that about anyone walking down the road.

For at least the fifth time, it’s about the individual circumstances of each particular situation. You’re being too general. Not all protesters are kettled – why not? Not all uses of the power to detain people in such situations have been found lawful – why not?

I am genuinely shocked that the civil liberties agenda has moved so far that otherwise decent minded people are unable to see the huge infringement in basic rights that this practice implies. Had these people been arrested, charged or even questioned under caution, then they would have rights, but the police have done nothing like that; they have bypassed the entire legal framework. When the police are given ‘carte blanche’ like this, then in my view, they cease to be police as I understand the term and become a junta. We are living in a de facto Police State. It now appears that we have given the police powers to detain on the public highway people for hours on end for no other reason than they are judged to be a ‘fucking nuisance’ to the State.

Jesus wept, we have now moved to a position where the police can set up impromptu dentition camps anywhere in the Country without a single amendment to the laws of the Country and that appears to fine. Tell me that is not a police state.

There are quite a few things wrong in that paragraph but I’ll address the main problem, as I see it: we do not live in a police state; as I thought I’d showed, in linking to the two judgements, the lawfulness of the use of the power depends on the circumstances; in other words, the police don’t have carte blanche. I don’t know why you’re ignoring this.

That the police have the legal power is unarguable and it’s nothing new. Again, hopefully for the last time, what is arguable is whether in particular circumstances the use of the power was lawful (and I already said seven hours seems excessive). In this thread I have linked to two judgements: one where the use of the power was found to be lawful (also worth reading the Court of Appeal judgement for additional detail), and one where it was found to be unlawful. They are worth reading if you are genuinely interested in this: AFAICS they address all the things you have mentioned (except ‘police state’). You’ll learn from paras 29-32 on page 2 of the latter judgement, for example, where this power at common law comes from (I didn’t know until reading this), and you’ll also learn that we all have this power (again, I didn’t know this until reading it). There is further info on WikiCrimeLine (a very good resource).

Another clue that we don’t live in a police state: HMCIC told ACPO to update its ‘guidelines’ (iow rules) on how to police protests.

Good night.

Is it proportionate and justifiable to take 4000 drivers and hold them collectively for 7 hours on the M1 in the freezing cold, without food or water, until they all ‘calm down’ and this risk has passed?

Rioters rarely cause death: speeders do. Look at the mangled wreck of a car with bodies inside and tell me there is less of a social imperative to justify kettling here than in a protest.

Just watch the Channel 4 programme ‘Coppers’ tonight.
It’s about the EDL, UAF and the police in Bolton this year.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/coppers/episode-guide/series-1/episode-5

Planeshift. Glad to be called a ‘concern troll’ for saying this.

Oh, news just in: people arrested for public order and criminal damage offences at Lewisham Town Hall.

There is an argument to be had about the value of property rights versus civil liberty

No there isn’t. Stuff is irrelevant; freedom is vital; and anyone who’d rather have stuff than freedom deserves neither.

“No there isn’t.”

Yes there is. You may not agree with the importance of property rights but that doesn’t mean other people don’t. It’s about finding a balance. People should be free to protest but should not be allowed to damage peoples’ property.

@ 49

By that argument, I’m ok to smash your windows because it’s quicker to go through your house than around it. Of course we have to have property rights, and of course that restricts freedom to a small extent.

Also, I like the way you claim there isn’t an argument to be had and then proceed to argue.

@42. So you wouldn’t support similar tactics being used against the next EDL protest then, because this time it not be violent? Of course not, they have gained a reputation for violence, as did the students when they smashed one guys head with a brick and tried to squash others with a fire extinguisher thrown from the roof tops. The same organisers protesting about the same issue are going to attract the same people who are likely to do exactly the same actions if they are allowed. Especially given the amount of gloating that went on from them about there actions on this site and others. This wasn’t about property damage, it was about preventing violence.

Either memories are pretty short on this thread, or people are remarkably ill-informed. I suppose it’s just about possible they are allowing their judgement to be clouded by a determination to find fault with the government whatever it does.

“When they got into power the ConDems said they’d roll back Labour’s breaches of human rights — it didn’t take long for them to show their true faces.”

“I look forward to Nick Clegg endorsing those measures [US levels of imprisionment/armed police/return of the death penalty] when they come…”

“Have the Lib Dems allowed this Country to sleepwalk into a Police State? Isn’t there a single Lib Dem on this board or in the Country at large who has even a veneer of a conscience about this?”

Achievements/efforts to date include:

1) ID cards abolished.
2) CCTV to be regulated
3) Indefinite storage of unconvicted people’s DNA abolished.
4) Control orders being reigned back.

Back to kettling. Much of the comment on this thread implies kettling is a new and nasty appoach to policing, but it has been around for a while. Including during the last Labour government’s tenure. So no sleep walking.

To get back to the difference between driving and protesting, it’s pretty straighforward. Drivers are going about their lawful business. So are most people on demonstrations but some, either before the demonstration starts, or during its progress, form an intention to break the law. The difference is clear. How far the police are entitled to take preventative action of course depends on the circumstances.

@49 “Stuff is irrelevant; freedom is vital; and anyone who’d rather have stuff than freedom deserves neither.”

Problem here is that one attribute of “freedom” is the right to own property and not have it destroyed by others. See (for example) Protocol 1, Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights which enshrines the right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions. Unless of course you believe that all property is theft; but that idea is not remotely liberal by anyone’s definition.

It’s nice that you’re relaxed about the property rights of other people. I wonder how relaxed you’d continue to be if somebody’s democratic protest involved trashing your house.

@ 52

“So you wouldn’t support similar tactics being used against the next EDL protest then, because this time it not be violent”

I certainly wouldn’t support them being trapped for seven hours with no charge and no care provided, no.

@53 I think you’re missing a crucial point: kettling (at least as applied at the G20 demo in 2009 and in Whitehall the other day) looks punitive, even vindictive, from the outside and feels very oppressive from the inside. If the police are simply trying to contain a few troublemakers (at most 2% of the protesters at the first, huge student demo according to most estimates) for the good of everybody, why are they so reluctant to let single people out even when they are pretty obviously inoffensive and (in some cases) weak? Why do they club people? (Do they really assume that all the troublemakers will be right at the front?) And does anyone know what the outcome of this was: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacateurs

I have to say that the van left in Whitehall seems very fishy to me. Given the forces at their disposal, was it really beyond the wit of the police to retrieve it if they genuinely wanted to? How much does a van like that cost? And yet if it was left there accidentally-on-purpose so that some reckless youths could, predictably, trash it to the delight of the Daily Mail, it would seem to me to be almost criminally irresponsible of the police. What if some young idiot had tried to torch it, in the middle of the crowd?

In case anyone believes that the police were simply overstretched, have a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMFtCf8__sg Why does it take a dozen or more coppers to arrest one non-resisting student? Unless you think that the police are totally paranoid, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that their intention here was clearly to intimidate and humiliate. I find it very disturbing.

Huw,

I think you’re missing a crucial point: kettling (at least as applied at the G20 demo in 2009 and in Whitehall the other day) looks punitive, even vindictive, from the outside and feels very oppressive from the inside. If the police are simply trying to contain a few troublemakers (at most 2% of the protesters at the first, huge student demo according to most estimates) for the good of everybody, why are they so reluctant to let single people out even when they are pretty obviously inoffensive and (in some cases) weak? Why do they club people? (Do they really assume that all the troublemakers will be right at the front?)

Can I refer you to the judgements I linked to @46?

In case anyone believes that the police were simply overstretched, have a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMFtCf8__sg Why does it take a dozen or more coppers to arrest one non-resisting student? Unless you think that the police are totally paranoid, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that their intention here was clearly to intimidate and humiliate. I find it very disturbing.

There aren’t a “dozen or more” officers arresting him – the uploader counted a half dozen.

The question on my mind is whether any action regardless of how violent it might be is justified in the name of protest and whether it actually helps anything or anyone or changes things.
For example I saw one protestor yesterday smashing his fist on the side of a police van and was asking myself what possible point was it supposed to prove and what message does it send out?
Does it say anything about the unjustification of pricing thousands of working class youngsters out of university? Does it really demonstrate the full scale of the anger of people towards the Con-Dem’s cuts?
And what was the motivation of the young man who was thumping the police van with his fist? Was it to demonstrate his anger towards the government or the police or was it just because he wanted to fight with someone (prefrably the police) and get his mug noticed by the TV cameras?
I suspect that the most violent protestors (ie: the police man punching protester) are NOT ordinary working class students or people but wealthy young men who feel they smash things and fight with the police because they know that although they may be arrested they will have the financial ability to hire expensive lawyers to fight whatever charges may be leveled against them.
I agree with tthe protests but it seems there are many supporters who are under the illusion that those demonstrators who are smashing windows and fighting with coppers are all motivated by some kind of altruism and some are blinded by a sheer hatred of the police that they always see them as being in the wrong and those fighting with them as being one hundred per cent in the right.
Many of the far-left parties and groups (ie: the SWP) are opposed to a police force altogether and will always see police men and women as the bad guys no matter what.
The idea that every protester who’s been arrested by the police were just standing around minding their own and was suddenly battered around the head and carted off in a police van surely a bit far fetched.
Of course saying all this gets you castigated as being against the protestors and the cause, you get told if you don’t agree with everything they do you must not sympathise with their cause. Rubbish!

A couple of observations: On kettling being the legacy of New Labour. Much as I’d love to pin this on them, unfortunately kettling was a fairly common occurrence in my Reclaim the Streets Days 1993 to 1997 when John Major was prime minister. I never heard it called kettling until the late 90s however.

I was accidentally kettled around 2000 – happen to be cycling past a large demonstration in Trafalgar Square when I found myself being encircled by the police. they let the cars out, but not me on my bike. this alone makes the use of kettling unjustifiable – why should an innocent bystander end up losing 5 hours of their evening without food, water or toilet facilities in order to prevent hypothetical crimes of others. Incidentally in this case the kettling seems to have occurred about an hour before the demo was due to end anyway, protesters were already clearly leaving to go home and instead the police decided to punish these people by holding them long enough to miss the last train home.