Thread on police tactics at protests. 1/12 When you avidly tweet an image of what you think is an act of violence by a protester you are not only distracting from the power and importance of #BLMLondon you are failing to consider the effect of violent police tactics at protests.
The police are not neutral observers at protests. I have written about the effect of police tactics at the 2010 anti-fees protests where the police charged peaceful static crowds with horses, used batons to their heads and kettled them, including on Westminster Bridge, for hours.
Protesters were then charged with the serious offence of violent disorder. Those who pleaded not guilty were almost all acquitted, showing the police lied about what happened at the protests, including in relation to another incident involving a horse... theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
The assumption that individuals attending protests have either peaceful or violent intentions is false. Protesters react to police practices e.g. kettling, use of batons, agents provocateurs and dispersal techniques such as horse charges. See theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Crowd behaviour researchers, e.g. @DrChrisCocking have shown that the behaviour of police affects the crowds they are policing. Violent policing has been shown to increase so-called "disorder" as individuals transform into collectives defending themselves against police violence.
The situation has not been helped by the ECHR judgment in the case of Austin v UK that ruled the kettling of protesters and passersby at the 2001 May Day demonstrations did not deprive them of their right to liberty, protected under Article 5 ECHR.
The Court accepted the UK gov’s argument that the kettle needed to be prolonged due to a violent minority after the kettle's formation, but at no point did the Court consider that the violence entailed in creating and maintaining the kettle might itself have caused the violence.
There is little sense in the judgement that the kettled protesters were exercising their right to protest (protected by Art 10 and 11 ECHR) or that governments might have a vested interest in suppressing dissent.
Had the Court considered this point, it might have avoided the wholly inappropriate analogies which it drew in comparing police actions at protests to the policing of a traffic incident. See theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
The absence of accountability of police officers responsible for violence against protesters is almost total. No officer has yet been held accountable for causing Alfie Meadows' brain injury at a 2010 anti-fees demo, despite the existence of footage of the event.
Instead, the ‘violence’ interrogated is that alleged to have been committed by protesters. The effect is to undermine political struggle by depoliticising it and presenting it as disorder rather than as legitimate political contestation. Don't fall into this trap.
If anyone would like to read more about this, I'm happy to send along my chapter, “Innocence charged with guilt”: The criminalisation of protest from Peterloo to “Millbank” in D. Pritchard and F. Pakes, Riot, Unrest and Protest on the Global Stage (Palgrave, 2014).
