My letter of complaint to the IPCC - Bob Broadhurst must go!

Bob Broadhurst, the senior met officer in charge of the G20 operation (and public order operations in London) has been caught red handed misleading MP's in one of the key investigations around the G20.

PLEASE TAKE PART IN THE ACTION AT THE BOTTOM

Commander Bob Broadhurst, who had overall command of the G20 policing operation, told the home affairs select committee in May that "no plain clothes officers [were] deployed at all" during the demonstrations in the City of London.

It has emerged that 25 undercover City of London police were stationed around the Bank of England to gather "intelligence" on protesters on 1 and 2 April. Broadhurst stands by the evidence he gave to MPs, claiming the deployment of undercover officers was unknown to him.

.... Full Guardian piece,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BROADHURST MUST GO!
In the face of this misinformation, on top of the catalogue of mistakes and misinformation Defend Peaceful Protest has witnessed Met Officers Bob Broadhurst and Chris Allison supply to the Metropolitan Police Authority, how can we trust either the competancy or honesty of these senior officers commenting on their own operations!

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you about revelations in the Guardian indicating a senior Metropolitan police officer Bob Broadhurst has misled a House of Commons Select Committee.

After this recent news in the Guardian my trust and faith in our police force's honesty and integrity has been further dented.

The police Standards of Professional Behaviour set out the standards expected of police officers These include requirements to:

- Act with honesty and integrity
- Act in a manner that does not discredit or undermine public confidence in the police service.

I feel Bob Broadhurst has clearly failed to meet these standards of professional behaviour in his conduct in the investigations since the G20.

The IPCC is already investigating the Police media response following the death of Ian Tomlinson. As a concerned member of the public I am calling on the IPCC to investigate the misleading information provided to public bodies by senior police officer Bob Broadhurst. I would also like the committee to take into account the misleading information already documented below which senior Met Officers Bob Broadhurst and Chris Allision submitted

Yours Sincerely




xxxxxx xxxxx

(add your home address so the IPCC can log the complaint)

Further information on complaint:

Nature of incident:
Misinformation released on a number of occasions by chief officer Bob Broadhurst and his subordinates has made me lose all trust in the honesty and integrity of this officer and to some extent the police force as a whole.

Where the incident(s) occurred: There are several locations and teams which

1) Home Affairs Select Committee Hearing. Tuesday 19th May 2009 oral evidence hearing from Commander Bob Broadhurst, “Gold Commander” Operation Glencoe
Guardian Article*

2) MPA report, compiled by Bob Broadhurst and Chris Allison**



* Point 1) Bob Broadhursts evidence has been discredited by further evidence from city police here:

** Point 2) Bob Broadhurst and Chris Allison compiled a report which was riddled with inaccuracies, as documented here EV 42 - Q351 in the report

http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom-theme/ourkingdom/2009/05/01/the-met-must-stop-spinning-g20-policing

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.

A Human Rights based approach to policing ‘Domestic Extremists’

The past week gave a slightly schizophrenic picture of policing post G20. 'The recent Climate Change protest at Ratcliffe was met with relatively restrained policing compared to G20, continuing the trend from the Blackheath climate camp. Yet, six days later we find out that thousands of peaceful protestors are being logged as ‘domestic extremists’ for as little as attending demonstrations. It appears that whilst our law enforcers have been taking some pains in recent months to respect protestor’s rights, they are equally keen to collect their personal data and secretly label them extremists.

As Paul Lewis points out in his article on the future of policing, some senior figures in ACPO and the Met appear to be listening and learning after the G20 debacle. When the final HMIC report on ‘Adapting to Protest’ is released later this month hopefully we may see the foundations for real long term change from the excessive force which has characterised policing of political protest since the miners strikes and beyond. Senior Met Officers like Bob Broadhurst and Chris Allison, who champion the knuckle-dragging tactics we saw at the G20 and who were responsible for misleading reports in its aftermath look increasingly isolated.

However on surveillance of protests there appears to be no such enlightenment progress. News of the £9m scheme to log ‘domestic extremists’, raises the question as to whether elements of the Police want to suppress more direct action orientated protest entirely. Conflating language such as ‘lawful protest’ with ‘peaceful protest’ gives this impression by seeking to discourage any disruptive form of dissent. This is fundamentally against the principles of a ‘Human Rights based approach to policing and ignores the proud history of protest within our democracy where civil disobedience by suffragettes and the civil rights movement has worked for the benefit of millions.

There is a real need to end this Stasi-like approach to activists, logging their every move. Equally we need to continue to challenge this information gathering at the source by Police Forward Intelligence (FIT), a job valiantly done by FIT watch in the past few years. FIT squads are at the forefront of the type of pre-emptive policing which sees innocent people held on databases meant for criminals, environmental activists arrested for thought crime and re-branding of protestors as extremists.

The extension of police surveillance of protesters, suggests the police force has still to fully recognise its proper role as servants of the citizen not guarantors of the status quo. A move away from disproportionate force alone is not enough. Only a more open, transparent and fair approach to surveillance can achieve this.

So the battle is by no means over. The Metropolitan Police Authority is holding a public meeting next week to conduct further research into the G20 and members of Defend Peaceful Protest are raising the intrusive surveillance issue with them as a matter of urgency.

G20 Policing: 27 Prosecutions, 256 complaints against police officers - call that a success?

So with the final belated prosecutions and court appearences happening it appears the sum total of the police prosecutions against G20 protests is 27. As stated before this figure should be put in context with the 256 complaints made against Police officers. What's even more disturbing is the news that police appear to be ‘making up the numbers’ on prosecutions with 11 rather questionable charges… (see below)

“ONE woman is dressed provocatively in a black bra. Another sports red high heels and stockings. Their long-haired male companions are dressed in scruffy blue boiler suits and the occasional riot helmet.

The costumes may look harmless, but for the Space Hijackers — a small group of part-time anarchists with a penchant for street entertainment — they have been enough to earn them charges of impersonating police officers...”

Source: The Times

At the first meeting of the new MPA Civil Liberties Panel it also transpired that Senior Met officers feel police who fail to show ID in Public Order situations should receive no punishment other than a talking to.

The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) said senior officers must ensure frontline colleagues can be identified.

Some officers were photographed without ID badges during April's G20 protests.
Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison of the Metropolitan Police said discipline may not be appropriate for officers who sometimes forget to attach their ID.

Source: The BBC

So protestors whose disruptive but peaceful protest are prosecuted for 'impersonating a police officer' whilst Police Officers are left unpunished for not displaying ID? Hardly bringing back trust in Policing is it?

Whilst I appreciate that some officers may inadvertantly lose their ID during operations and there may well be geniune accident its noticable that the ones missing ID at the G20 are also the ones under suspicion of violent or inappropriate behaviour. For example, the officer who struck Nicola Fisher and has just been charged was missing his ID.

The Met need to start owning up to the fact that there are bad apples who have been deliberately concealing ID in recent demo's. Senior officers current line seems to be its all a coincidence/accident, which is simply not good enough.

MPA Meeting: Britains policing problem remains unsolved

Two months have passed since the G20 and the brutal police operation against protesters in the City of London. Yesterday the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) met for the second time since the operation to question Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson. At the first meeting the Met showed no signs of having taken on board the serious and widespread criticism of their actions and at times actively mis-represented what had taken place in an attempt to spin themselves out of trouble. So it was with a fair deal of scepticism that myself and Anna Bragga of Defend Peaceful Protest went down to City Hall to put our questions to the Met once again. This time we asked:

1. Why did the police forcibly advance at the South end of the Climate Camp at around 7pm without warning if it was simply a matter of needing a containment to “prevent disorderly protestors from the Bank of England from joining” and, in particular, why did a line of officers use force to advance on the right hand side when there was access from Great Helens?

2. Given the evidence of Police ID concealment or accidental obscurement at the G20 and subsequent demonstrations, will the Police Uniform review look into placing numbers on the back and front of uniforms and protective gear rather than the shoulder so that Police ID on future demonstrations is more clearly identifiable and less easily removed?

3. Given the evidence submitted to MPA members prior to this meeting about inconsistencies in police statements, how are we as members of the public, and the MPA members, to feel confident in the facts as presented in Metropolitan Police Briefings thus far?

4. Defend Peaceful Protest are aware of five separate bodies investigating aspects of the G20 protests: The Home Affairs Select Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the IPCC, Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Metropolitan Police Authority itself. What effort is being made to ensure that all bodies are working together to collect evidence from protestors in order to make an effective inquiry into protesting policing at the G20 possible?

These questions raise serious ethical and constitutional concerns and require straightforward answers from the police without spin if the lessons of the G20 are to be learnt and public faith in protest policing repaired. Unfortunately, it seems both the MPA chief executive and the Met have no interest in answering inconvenient questions until Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary reports back on their enquiry next month. And the answer to question four suggests there has been no attempt to co-ordinate by the FIVE separate bodies investigating aspects of the G20 - hardly joined up government! A multitude of investigations with overlapping remits which are not sharing evidence is hardly conducive to the thorough and systematic investigation we need to ensure the mistakes committed on April 1st aren’t repeated.One small victory following the first meeting was the formation of a new civil liberties panel for the MPA. This will look specifically at aspects of policing which might infringe upon the rights of Londoners and those that protest within the city.

Although the setting up of this panel is good news since up until now no body has existed to look at the civil liberties impact of policing in London, Defend Peaceful Protest still have significant concerns as to what strength the panel will have in actually effecting change. This concern was echoed by Labour Assembly Member Joanne McCartney, Lib Dem Dee Doocey and Jenny Jones of the Greens who also questioned whether the panel would be adequately resourced to take on a proper investigation into the G20 policing which would be a huge job.

So it looks very likely the enquiry by the MPA is not going to provide proper answers for many protesters. We’ll wait and see for the report back from HMIC at the next meeting, but in all probability this will gloss over protesters’ concerns and conclude that police tactics, including the practice of aggressively kettling peaceful protesters, were justified.

If this is the way government holds the police to account it might explain the reason a number of protest groups and activists who were present at the G20 have not even engaged with the MPA or other enquiries: they’ve simply given up on what is a laborious and often fruitless process. It’s time we saw an end to the impunity that has built up amongst the police which permits them to get away with serious and persistent violations of civil liberties that damage the health of our democracy. In the meantime we’ll do our best to try and ensure these investigations at the very least hear the concerns protesters have with the current state of policing.

A brief report on the UCAPV rally Sat 23rd May.

On Saturday at 3pm I went along to observe the police tactics deployed against the march and demonstration against police violence organised by group United Campaign Against Police Violence.

Two other DPP members joined me walking with the demo in order to film and observe the tactics of police. It’s worth noting that it was always going to be a tricky one for the police since this demonstration was specifically for those concerned about violent Police tactics! However given recent media coverage I didn’t really expect even the most aggressive police officer to step out of line and thankfully we didn’t see any repeats of the events at the G20.

The march began at Trafalgar Square, headed down past number 10 Downing Street and turned right at Parliament Square towards Scotland Yard. Here there were speeches and the march organisers planned a kettle of Scotland Yard. Police were in attendance along the whole route of the march and at Scotland Yard. The visible police presence was a mixture of Met Police in normal gear (not riot police), a sizeable group of FIT officers and a number of police vans no doubt with riot police in reserve.

The good news:
All police officers present appeared to be wearing ID, which was an improvement on the Bank of England Protests on the 1st and 2nd April where a number of examples of lack of ID were documented. A Silver Star commander was present and for me at least he was reasonably accessible to approach and communicate with. worth noting here that unfortunately there was no attempt at dialogue with the police by the UCAPV demonstration organisers prior to the beginning of the march, due to anger around the way some groups within the coalition have been treated in the past demonstrations (G20, Gaza and Bush demonstrations). There was also no attempt at kettling by the police, although in a turning of the tables demonstrators did briefly form a cordon around Scotland Yard as a symbolic act.

The bad news:
The only really poor element of policing of the demo happened at quite an important point when the relatives of those who had died in police custody were reading out a roll call of names. In a fairly provocative and unhelpful move the Police decided halfway through this they would start their own announcement ordering people to move from the road. Have interrupted one of the bereaved family members a number of demonstrators moved over to van and began remonstrating which then left the announcement entirely inaudible to most of the demonstration.

At this point (16.30pm) some officers began getting into protective gear and looked ready to impose a cordon. Despite being 10ft away from the Van I actually had to approach the police commander and asked what the announcement had said. Apparently it was to stop blocking the entrance to Scotland yard and the road outside or risk facing arrest under S14 of the Public Order act and for violation of ‘access and egress’.

Both of these of course are legitimate concerns but considering the demonstration had only been there a short amount of time, the way the announcement was made was not only inappropriate, interrupting a bereaved family member but also entirely inadequate in terms of informing the demonstrators. In addition the use of access and egress to Scotland yard as an excuse to move people on was on dodgy grounds since despite Silver Stars assertions that there was only one entrance to the building I checked and there was a totally unaffected second entrance around the corner…

Other than this confusion over announcements, individual police officers also proved to be pretty unhelpful in terms of any form of dialogue. Before managing to find the Silver Star commander I asked 3 other officers what the announcement had said and all declined to officer any explanation. For instance officer KD54 of the FIT team when approached and asked what the announcement had asked demonstrators to do simply refused to give me any information and walked way from me saying he did not wish to speak to me. Two other officers also acted in this way, one ignoring me entirely and the other saying he had not heard the announcement but not offering me any advice as to who to speak to. I then moved a little further away to the officers who had come through as back up and they had no knowledge of what the announcement stating ‘we were round the corner so didn’t hear it’ Although in the end the situation calmed down and the police did not appear to deploy excessive force to clear the road at the end of the demo.

I think this does give another example of the problem at climate camp: The police claim to have informed people the demo is being shut down yet the method of informing people is woefully inadequate. Not only in terms of the announcement but the fact that officers either refuse to explain it or don’t even hear it themselves. Combined as it was at the G20 with use of excessive force this lack of communication creates real problems. I appreciate its not always easy, but its vitally important that our front line police officers actually be educated that they need to be accessible to both the public and protestors, even if they disagree with the nature of the protest. In the case of the FIT officer mentioned above, there is no excuse since they are supposed to engage in dialogue with protestors as part of their job (although presently all they seem to do is film them).

Defend Peaceful Protest - Part1 video appendix to MP select committee written evidence

Full report to follow, but here is a useful video archive. Please add to it by posting your comments and video links below to both the G20 and any other subsequent demo's where you see police misbehaving:

Who guards the guardians?

APPENDIX 1
Section 1: Police ‘kettling’ operation at Climate Camp
(Location, European Carbon Exchange, Bishopsgate)

Section 2: Use of specialist squads
(Police Dogs at Bank of England and Taser Raids at locations in Whitechapel)

Section 3: Freedom of the press
(Location: Bank of England)

Section 4: Police concealment of ID
(Location: Various)

Section 5: Death of Ian Tomlinson
(Cornhill, near Bank of England Protest)

1. Police kettling operation at climate camp
From 1.37 minutes into this video you see the concerted attack on demonstrators by police as they attempt to clear part of the climate camp. Appx. 7.10pm on 1st April,

Riot Police deployed against peaceful protestors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t244-zEENSs&feature=related
10.50pm Second climate camp charge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBNxIOfW5F4&feature=related

Attacks with repeated beating of riot shields on demonstrators – after 11pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR27Qehxw4w&feature=related

2. Use of specialist squads
Police Dogs
As police try to move protesters in the City of London on 1 April, a police dog bites a man who is turning away from officers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovVLpwQjKVI&NR=1

This happened on Threadneedle Street outside the Stock Exchange building and Pavarotti's cafe. Four police officers with aggressive alsatian dogs were facing east, and this guy ran up to them. One of the dogs was brought forward by its handler and jumped up at him and bit his arm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGGf-Ev5a1E&feature=related

Taser raids
Police raid the day after April 1st 2009 G20 demo. Taser held (visible if paused at 24s) in entry to building and to threaten group of protestors sitting down holding hands in air. Police have since admitted using taser as threat weapon in this raid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP5I82I3n5E

Corroborating video ‘On April the 2nd the sleeping spaces where protesters were staying were raided. Many of them had been ‘kettled’ in on Bishopsgate until after the tube stopped the previous night, so had no-where else to stay the night. Note the second officer who enters at 0:49 is ARMED’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmqdE0lXcxk&feature=related

Video showing build up to raid, over 100 riot police in attendance and about 20 FIT officers. No attempt made by police to respond to protestors attempts to negotiate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYNrf2GIRO4

3. Freedom of the press
Met Officer warn press photographers that they will be arrested under S14 if they stay in the area. The force later apologised for using this measure on some journalists and photographers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0-g01kwi1k&feature=related

Al Jazeera reporter is caught in a police charge at Bank of England.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpcVDu1GPfI&feature=related

4. Deliberate concealment of ID by police officers
G20 Demo. Two videos in the Ian Tomlinson section [5] show officers not disclosing their ID numbers. Here are two further examples of officers directly asked for ID and refusing to give it.

Bank of England vigil, 2nd April
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1cieO-34Yc

Bank of England Kettle, 1st April
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ysKLt3duo&NR=1 (34s)

Tamil Demo – ID concealment still occurring

Police continue to conceal ID at Tamil Demo – Friday 17th April, 16 days after G20 demonstrations and after Sir Paul Stephenson gave direct order to stop concealment of ID by police at demos.

Guardian Report:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2009/apr/17/boris-g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson3

Evening Standard: Photo evidence:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23677372-
details/Police+should+be+punished+for+covering+up+ID/article.do

5. Death of Ian Tomlinson & Assault on protestor at vigil next day

Ian Tomlinson Death – Initial Police Interview

The original police statement claims ‘the police came under sustained fire from missiles’. ‘paramedics came to help and they also came under fire’ The latter part of this video and subsequent videos in this section show actual events which totally contradict the original police version of events.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4OfBcg9xy0&feature=related

Obstruction of ambulance by Police
7.37pm, Corn Exchange. Police line obstructs ambulance – the original police press release about the incident claimed that demonstrators had been the ones blocking the ambulance reaching Ian Tomlinson. The police blocked the ambulance going to Ian Tomlinson for about 3 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f0S6PPLI8Q&feature=related

Original Guardian footage of Ian Tomlinson assault by police officer
The Guardian obtained this footage of Ian Tomlinson at a G20 protest in London shortly before he died. It shows Tomlinson, who was not part of the demonstration, being assaulted from behind and pushed to the ground by baton-wielding police

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECMVdl-9SQ&feature=related
Women assaulted at Ian Tomlinson Vigil

Thursday 2nd April – Nicola Fisher slapped and batoned by police officer at peaceful

Ian Tomlinson video, location: Bank of England
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V23PGWd46MM