demos v football matches?
One thing that i am curious about, and something that has been touched in passing a couple of times but never really discussed properly (or have i joined too recently?) is the policing of football matches compared to demos. I remember 15 or so years ago (less even) when football hooliganism was at it's height. It seemed that the police strategy of the time was to box everyone into separate compounds around the football ground, then slowly let them out at the end of the match. We had those huge fences in front of the pitch as well, then, so for many supporters it was similar to being held in a temporary prison for 30-60 minutes following each match. - Normally the 'away' supporters, if I remember properly.
But these tactics didn't seem to work. Hillsborough happened, so pitch-side fences went out; and the incidence of football hooliganism remained the same (or may have even increased!).
It wasn't until there was a change of tact that English clubs were readmitted to European competitions. The mass policing operations were cut back, the focus was switched to individuals and all-seater stadiums were provided so people didn't get crushed on the stands. I think this all made for a more enjoyable afternoon for the majority (though i know many miss the old stands). And the minority find it harder to cause trouble, whilst the people in the middle - those who would cause trouble if wound up but ordinarily are pretty reasonable people - do not need to get upset.
Why can't demos be like this (imagine T-square with a million chairs in it, all provided by the police!! - no, only kidding). Why can't the violent minority be targetted instead of trapping everyone inside a Section 60 cordon?? Cos i do agree there are some people who are bent on making trouble at these events - normally the ones wearing the namebrand clothing and eating MaccieD's for lunch.
You do not need as many police officers to encircle a crowd as you do to deal with a dozen smaller groups at various locations spread out over a wide area looting shops (as happened in the July 'protest').
posted by Brian
It would appear that the budget is not limited for many of the protests that participants here go on (I am talking mainly of London wide protests, such as Mayday or, currently, actions against Israel which are happening at multiple locations). Not only are there millions of cops (slight exxageration, I know) surrounding demonstrators, but there are loads more 'round the corner on the backstreets, hiding; and some people are even priviliged enough to receive their own personal police escort along the route of the demonstration!!! I have been to a number of ("legitimate") demos where the FIT (Forward Intelligence Teams) officers are attemting to convese with demonstrators on first AND second name basis. It isn't like the Met don't already waste a huge amount of money on peaceful protestors!
If you consider holding people and not letting them go 'attacking' them, then it has a different sense to my understanding of the word.
posted by Brian
I think we all know what "attacking" means. Although I wasn't there, like FTP I also know people who have described the Brixton demo in such a manner, and I
do believe them! However, from behind police lines, I can imagine that a line of cops encircling a crowd would not seem like an attack, merely "holding people." I gotta question, though, HOW DID THEY GET INTO THAT POSITION?? Like Mayday last year, I don't think a load of people walked into the middle of the road and then waited patiently for the cops to come and surround them - I think it much more likely there were 'directed' that way by individual police officers. This can definitely be perceived by some people as an attack.
Yes, I can understand how distasteful it must be for a group who are opposed to the police and 'the system' to negotiate with the police over a protest. Yes, I can understand that people want the fredom to protest when and where they like. Yes, I can understand the police being perceived as stifling legitimate protest. But the advantage I have is I have planned and organised many policing operations to handle marches, demonstrations and other large, what we call 'public order events'. I have not, and I have never experienced any other senior police officer, who has sat down to plan to stop legitimate "don't damage others" protest. We always plan to facilitate "dont' damage others" protests but we also need to plan for those criminals who want to operate under the cover of a legitimate protest, either to stock-up without going through the check-out or those who just want a ruck, either with the police or with an opposing group.
posted by Brian
And what happens when it is an 'illegitimate' protest??? For many who are involved in alternative politics, it is not (morally?) right to ensure the police are informed about demonstrations at least 7 days beforehand, as - I believe - the law requires. For some events, such as Mayday, there is wide publicity: leaflets and websites from groups involved, press stories and, of course, police scare stories themselves. I do not think police intelligence is actually quite stupid enough to not figure out where demonstrations will be this year, for example. For other events, such as a highly successful No War But The Class War demonstration on the day the US alliance started bombing Afganhistan, it is simply just not possible to predict when they are going to happen (Yes George Dubya did forget to include the anti-war protest machinery on his 'to contact' list prior to declaring war).
The policing of demonstrations is about balancing rights and freedoms. It is about balancing the right to protest with the rights of people to go about their ordinary day-to-day business without being disrupted e.g. woman with shopping and no bus. These are very difficult things to balance and it is very easy, if not inevitable, that the balance achieved is not the right one. Protestors will not be given entirely the freedom they deserve and the people affected by the protest will certainly have their freedom to go as they please disrupted. All I can say is, from my personal experience, the police genuinely try to be even handed.
posted by Brian
Well, I think from my/our perspective, the police still got a hell of a lot more "try"-ing to do. Perhaps it is useful to remember that protestors ARE trying to disrupt peoples' freedoms, whether it be by holding a march (blocking the traffic), a picket outside a work place (stop managements freedoms to exploit workers) or direct action against a factory, a transport sytem, 10 Downing Street or the Argentinian Embassy. However, this disrupting IS on a temporary basis, to raise awareness.
Think I have waffled on enough now. Bye!
MedicineMan
