Brown suffers further set-back as Lord Malloch-Brown resigns

The Prime Minister - trying his utmost to get the Labour party shipshape for the coming General Election - has suffered a serious set-back as it was revealed today that another minister has announced his resignation and will leave at the summer recess. Lord Malloch-Brown, who was enobled and brought in as part of Mr. Brown's "government of all the talents," puts his decision down to "personal and family reasons". Of the five ministers brought in on that occasion, just three remain following the departure of Lord Carter last month.

News of Lord Malloch-Brown's resignation will not have been welcome to Gordon Brown's ears.

Malloch-Brown, one of the PM's closest allies, has previously undergone close examination when it emerged that he had taken advantage of a grace-and-favour flat once used by John Prescott. He also courted controversy when he battled with President Bush's administration, causing a break with the White House shortly after beginning his time with the Foreign Office.

The departure of such a close friend and ally will further weaken Mr. Brown's already-precarious position at the head of his party. The PM will surely be very disappointed to enter the run-up to the Election without the help of the man who was largely responsible for the success of the G20 summit, an event which dramatically improved his reputation on the world stage.

Police criticised over G20

The police - and the tactics they employ - have been heavily criticised as part of the investigation into their handling of the G20 protests in London earlier this year which led to the death of an innocent passer-by after he was attacked by officers who, it has emerged, were authorised to utilise "reasonable force" just before the incident.

"Kettling" (seen here during the G8 protests in Edinburgh), a tactic used by police to herd protestors into and contain them within a confined area, is one of the controversial public order methods used during the G20 protests.
Image by Sam Fentress, taken from Wikipedia, used in accordance with GNU Free Documentation and Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 licenses.

Chief Inspector of Constabulary Denis O'Connor also said that the police public order training manual is "inadequate for the world police are operating in" and that police operations had concentrated on containing the protestors and preventing disorder rather than protecting and facilitating what he referred to as the "very precious freedom" of peaceful public protest.

He went on to say that those officers filmed by the public and seen to have removed their identifying badges from uniforms had "no excuse." The badges, which list the officer's number, are meant to be worn by all uniformed officers at all times so that they can be easily identified if a complaint is made by a member of the public. There is a widespread feeling that any officer who removes them does not wish to be identified and as such is almost certainly planning to act unlawfully.

Mr. O'Connor also highlighted the fact that there is no information available on the risks of injury resulting from the police practice of using riot shields as a mobile barricade with which to herd protestors. Shields are used when police use controversial "kettling" techniques which enable them to force large crowds into confined spaces so as to contain and control them. During the protests, he said, officers were unclear over whether or not they were permitted to use their own discretion when deciding to allow individuals - who may have been distressed or in need of medical attention - to leave these areas.

Liberty, the human rights and civil liberties organisation, have welcomed the report but state that further investigation into the tactics used by the specialist police Territorial Support Group, which they describe as "militaristic," is needed.

Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Chris Allison denies that senior officers are unaware of the human rights aspects of operations such as those at G20 and similar incidents. "As a police service," he says, "we have clear duties under the law: to facilitate protest, minimise the impact it has on others and maintain peace on our streets."

However, the heavy-handed approach adopted serves only to further erode public confidence in the police, with many otherwise law-abiding people now openly suspicious and even hostile towards them. During Thatcher's time as Prime Minister, the UK verged on becoming a monetarist society in which finance mattered most. This culminated in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill of 1993 under John Major's Government, Part V of which substantially changed the law and police powers related to public protest, legislation that resulted in a widespread fear that the public's right to protest against moves, practices and entities they thought unjust. Since then, there has been a marked change in popular opinion leading to a return to more human values which has in turn led to a belief that human and individual rights and freedoms are more important than those enjoyed by corporations - this includes a conviction that the right to protest must be protected and that, as Mr. O'Connor realises, that right is precious.

Acid Rabbi himself (in those days, a painfully right-on anarcho-communist student with the badges and Crass albums to match) attended the protests against the Act, and was shocked by the aggressive tactics employed by the police as they moved to break up a peaceful crowd that had gathered at the end of the march and was enjoying a party atmosphere in the summer sunshine. If you have ever been crammed with a few thousand other people (some of them dreadlocked crusties...on a hot day...) into a tiny, dead-end street where there's not even room to park a couple of cars, you will know what "kettling" is like when you find yourself on the receiving end. The public - whom the police are supposed to protect and serve - no longer believe that all protests must be prevented; the Internet and citizen journalism has brought too many miscarriages of justice, undemocratic companies who would ride rough-shod over public rights while polluting our environment with poisons and the human rights abuses made possible by the changes in the law since the WTC attacks for that to have remained the case. Public feeling has changed in favour of peaceful protest - the police are our servants and must recognise this so that they can update their tactics and serve their masters as their masters wish.

Met. Police face further probe over death of G20 Tomlinson

The Independent Police Complaints Commission will hold a further investigation into the Metroplitan Police's conduct following the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests in April this year, it has been announced. This will be separate from existing enquiries into his death and police conduct during the protest.

Mr. Tomlinson, 47, was returning home from his job as a newspaper vendor when he was hit with a baton and pushed from behind by officers, an incident that was captured on video and has been instrumental in probes into harsh police actions during the protests. There has been no evidence that he was in any way involved with the protests. He later died of internal injuries.

Ian Tomlinson, who was not involved with the G20 protests, was struck and
pushed to the ground by police officers. He later died of internal injuries.

CCTV footage showed that he had earlier approached a police cordon and appeared to ask to be allowed through so that he could continue making his way home, but permission was refused. A City worker also supplied photographs showing Mr. Tomlinson earlier in the day talking to officers after a police vehicle had come into contact with him - however, this has been referred to as a "gentle nudge" and is not thought to have contributed to his injuries.

During the inquest into his death, police made no mention of their earlier contact with the man leading many to accuse them of either deliberately misinformed the public or failed to make information available. IPCC deputy chairman Deborah Glass has said that both members of the public and MPs have raised serious concerns about the "state of knowledge" that police had concerning the incident.

If found guilty of either charge, the investigation will come as a serious blow to the Met's reputation which fallen steeply in public eyes since the events in question, with many people feeling angry over accusations that officers purposely obscured their badges - allowing them to commit unlawful acts without risking identification - and incited violent actions amongst members of the public, thus enabling them to react with greater force than would otherwise have been deemed acceptable, which is likely to bring about further enquiries and calls for a reform of police powers and regulations.

Did the police incite violence at the G20 protests?

You need to know about this.

Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) has gone on record to claim that he saw plain-clothes police officers deliberately inciting protestors at the G20 Summit demonstrations to commit acts of violence, according to a story featured by The Guardian. He will raise the issue during a Parliament joint committee on human rights this Tuesday.

"When I was in the middle of the crowd, two people came over to me and said, 'There are people over there who we believe are policemen and who have been encouraging the crowd to throw things at the police," says the MP. His report on the incident includes statements from eye-witnesses including photographer Tony Amos, who was with protestors at the Royal Exchange. "He [one of the alleged officers] was egging protesters on. It was very noticeable," Amos claims in his statement. "Then suddenly a protester seemed to identify him as a policeman and turned on him. He ­legged it towards the police line, flashed some ID and they just let him through, no questions asked."

The Independent Police Complaints Commission has received 256 complaints relating to the protests, but states that none of them have been reports of officers encouraging protestors to act unlawfully.

Brake, who was held within a corralled crowd for five hours, says that just a few people were allowed to leave the group duing the time he was in it and as a result it should be a simple matter to examine video footage of the incident to gather more information.

If it is proved that this is the case, what does it mean? Obviously, it would demonstrate that the police are guilty of using entrapment. It would also mean that they deliberately provoked violence, possibly in order to allow them to attack British civilians. This incident must be looked at very carefully, and if the police are shown to have acted in this way then there needs to be major changes - the foremost purpose of the police is to protect and prevent harm to civilians, not to protect businesses and their property. In nations less complacent than our own, revolutions have started over less than this.

Were you at the G20 protests? Did you see anything untoward? Leave a comment - people need to know.

Police "must wear badges" says Chief Constable

Cambridgeshire Chief Constable Julie Spence tackled public concerns over police tactics during the recent G20 protests in her latest podcast. Several people were injured in the protests and one man, Ian Tomlinson, died after being hit and pushed to the ground by an officer. The incident was filmed and clearly shows that he was not acting in an aggressive manner. Eye-witnesses have claimed that the officers had obscured their identification -to me, the video does not appear to confirm this, but the officer seen striking Mr. Tomlinson can clearly be seen to be masked.

"Your judgement of us, on the other hand, may be based on something as simple as appearance," says Mrs. Spence. "All of this counts - and is one reason, I suspect, that people seemed so concerned about officers failing to display their numbers at the G2o summit protests, and why our decision in Cambridgeshire to put full names on epaulettes seems generally welcome. It demonstrates, in my view, an openness and fairness in policing."

Well bugger me - a copper who talks sense!

Well, bugger me - a copper talking sense, that's something that you don't come across too often nowadays (if indeed you ever did). She's quite right, too - the police force's reputation has taken almost as much of a hammering as poor old Mr. Tomlinson in recent years, what with the Stephen Lawrence Enquiry's findings and Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian shot seven times by officers using hollow-point dum-dum bullets (which are designed to incapacitate a target with a single successful hit) on the London Underground. Many people now fear the police and are hostile to them, which is bad news for all of us - fear is not the same thing as respect; and the police desperately need to regain our respect.

To do that, they must be 100% open in everything they do, they must be entirely honest and each and every officer must be accountable for his or her actions. A police officer who obscures his or her identity, unless doing so is part of an activity that requires it such as an undercover investigation into drug dealing, has something to hide. Something for which he or she does not want to blamed - in other words, something that he or she should not be doing and which is in all likelihood illegal. Why have they been allowed to get away with doing this? Why are they allowed to get away with wearing masks?

Famously, when the police break the law, there is no law. That's a quote that can be read in two ways - it can mean that when an officer breaks the law, prosecution will not result; but it can also be taken to mean that when an officer breaks the law, law and order begins to break down. The police must not be allowed to act in this way. If the uniforms need to be redesigned to prevent identification from slipping off (see that last link) then so be it - the cost is unimportant, it is a necessity that all officers can be accurately identified by any member of the public.