Police feel the heat at the MPA, but no inquest for Ian Tomlinson’s family

The policing of the G20 demonstrations came in for yet more criticism today at the first public meeting of Met Police Authority’s civil liberties panel. But one family will be going away with no answers. There’s no news to whether the panel will investigate police spin surrounding the death of Ian Tomlinson despite a pointed question by Paul Lewis.

This issue has yet to be properly addressed by any of the previous bodies who have investigated G20. It’s simply not good enough that the police have been able to make totally fallacious statements about the death of a man and spread other misinformation about the nature of the G20 protests and get away with it. To establish itself as a body with teeth, the Metropolitan Police Authority must include this in its investigation. Police communications to the media and the general public are a critical part of this whole saga but no-one in a position of authority has made it an issue.

Accountability aside, the future at least looks a bit brighter. If HMIC’s final report on ‘Adapting to Protest’ develops as we hope, a sea change in policing of protest could be on the way. There was something of a consensus at this meeting that the police must change their ways. The following points were particularly prominent in submissions to the panel from members of the public and protest groups present.

Officers not displaying ID – There was strong agreement on this point. Police excuses that they are down to flimsy numerals are simply not acceptable. The ease with which Police ID can be removed is not only long overdue for altering but is an excuse for rogue officers to cover their tracks when overstepping their authority. As was seen clearly in the treatment of Emily Apple at Kingsnorth and with the officer who clubbed Ian Tomlinson it’s invariably those to have something to hide who are caught not wearing ID.

Kettling of Protestors - unsurprisingly this came in for another hammering from members of the audience as a utterly appalling tactic. In my view the members of the panel didn’t go far enough on this issue. At the meeting I asked them to specifically state that kettling should only be used as a last resort in situations of violent disorder and is never appropriate. It was not clear from this session whether they will make that recommendation.

Training of officers in public order - We saw from the Channel 4 dispatches documentary that police still train with petrol bombs, despite the fact that none have been used in a protest in 29 years since the Broadwater farm riots. The lack of conflict management skills evident in many front line officers at the G20 and other protests is something that members of the panel voiced considerable concern at.

‘Lawful’ and ‘Peaceful’ protest the distinction between these is crucial, as recent revelations about protestors being branded domestic extremists makes clear. It appears the view of the panel (and equally importantly Her Majesties Inspectorate of the Constabulary) is supportive of those who have questioned the view of some senior police officers that ‘unlawful’ demonstrations are illegitimate. An element of civil disobedience can be crucial in generating public pressure for legislative change. The suffragettes and civil rights movements illustrated this in the past and the environmental movement epitomises it today

The key question from all of this is whether the civil liberties panel will get its recommendations implemented. In meetings in April and May, Met. commissioners Bob Broadhurst and Chris Allison failed to give adequate answers to questions on everything from intrusive surveillance to the uniform review to containment. I remain to be convinced of senior officer’s commitment to change.