Policing Protests – is it effective?

I should probably qualify and clarify my policing background before commencing this blog around the policing of the `just stop oil` protest group. I worked the vast majority of my career as a uniformed operational officer and deployed on protests from 1980 through to 2010. In my last 8 years I was posted to the Public Order Branch and managed the Intelligence unit desk which deployed intelligence and evidence gathering teams on every major protest in London. I also worked as part of mutual aid resources with the same teams in many forces across the UK. I believe I am experienced enough to write and comment on the policing of any such protests and tactics used, together with the legal challenges faced by public order policing.           

In the last few weeks, the Metropolitan Police have faced the test of policing various protests by the `just stop oil` group. It is my belief and understanding from open-source material that there has been little co- operation or negotiation with the protest organisers. This makes it exceptionally challenging for the police to decide on resources needed, tactics to be used and areas for deployment. People do have a legitimate right to protest however there are some legal obligations on those organising any processions under Section 11 Public Order Act 1986. The Police rarely take legal action in enforcing the S.11 obligations however the `just stop oil` group tend to arrange assemblies which are covered under section 14 Public Order Act. The Police can impose conditions on such assemblies, but the speed and sporadic method used by the group means that by the time the Police arrive, they have already obstructed the highway and glued themselves to the road. Their objective is clear that they intend to use direct action by obstructing the road network to highlight their cause and affix themselves to the roads, so it takes longer to remove them. The legal powers currently afforded to the Police are of no use when your `assembly` has affixed itself to the roadway and is refusing to move.

I am not about to go into a legal assessment or explanation of the recent supreme court case judgement DPP v Ziegler, however there is a link to it at the base of this blog should you wish to read the sixty- one pages of legal explanation. In my personal summary of that case, it meant the Police must decide a `proportionality` test to any such protest involving obstruction and balance it against Article 10 & 11 of the Human rights act, the rights to expression and assembly. Bear in mind that case has been debated for hours by trained and experienced judges and they have then had time to consider their judgement over a much longer period of time. You may then understand the challenges faced by officers on the street and the command team, in deciding the proportionality test, and whether this specific action is one in which they can lawfully arrest and use force. You can be sure if they act illegally those same critics on non- action will be just as quick to criticise illegal action and all with the benefit of hindsight and a lengthy judicial review.

There has been much discussion and debate on many tv news shows and radio stations around the lack of action by Police when arriving on scene at one of these protests. The officers arriving are part of a much larger operation that has a well- established command structure and decision-making process. Each arrest is likely to require at least two officers and, in these protests, probably more to carry each protestor away. They refuse to comply or voluntarily stand and walk to waiting police vehicles, hence the need for four or five officers to safely remove them. The officers will also need suitable transport for each person arrested with caged vans possibly being required or minibuses for more compliant detainees. For every arrest you lose one or two of the officers deployed at the scene which reduces your capability to manage any ongoing protests or additional people arriving. There have been several suggestions for a more robust or forceful approach by the Police. This is at odds with the frequent complaints of Police being too heavy handed when forcibly removing protestors at other events and the criticism levelled at more direct tactics by Police public order units.

This particular group have evolved their tactics and protest methods from previous environmental groups who often used `lock on` devices to block roads and highways. They have recognised that carrying such devices gave a clear indication of their intentions and led to swift police attendance or even arrest before they could carry out their protest. Any liaison with Police about their intended assembly times and places meant a similar result with officers waiting to meet them and swiftly foiling any attempt to cause and obstruction. The other option is they `liaise` and then do something completely opposite to the intention communicated to the liaison teams. There appears to be now little or no engagement or liaison with `just stop oil` with the police although a few media outlets do seem to be able to be `on scene` exceptionally quickly. This suggests a degree of prior knowledge or liaison with some media outlets who appear content to allow the planned obstruction to take place and then critique time it takes police to react & remove them.

My personal view is that the Met need to adopt a much more direct and robust approach when dealing with this particular group. Since 2009 and the `adapting to protest` report by HMIC was published, policing has been on the back foot when it comes to dealing with protest groups who refuse to engage or commence any dialogue about their intentions. The report was largely based on the presumption that most protest groups can `self- police` and will assemble and hold processions in a well organised and managed fashion. The findings were focussed on crowd psychology and the assumption at the time that public order policing was too forceful and needed to include much more dialogue and liaison so the protest groups could understand the police objectives and intentions. This works well if the dialogue and communication is a two- way process with both parties fully involved and honest with their intentions. In the MPS and many forces across the UK, this change led to more reliance on Police Liaison Teams and a reduction and withdrawal of intelligence and evidence gathering teams. The recognition and identification of groups and individuals likely to be involved in direct action is less evident these days, as the predominant units on protest are directed to liaise, as opposed to update the command team on known/recognised direct action groups. There is little pro activity towards those attending and a return to some more direct policing with intel teams directed to monitor and observe individuals and groups may have an effect. At the very least the command team may have an idea of the possible locations the group are heading towards based on the experience and knowledge of the intel teams.

The increasing calls for more positive police action has been steadily growing over the last seven days and the scale of protests today have escalated with a Van Gogh painting being criminally damaged and the revolving sign at New Scotland Yard suffering a similar fate.

In my view, this has now gone beyond the base public order policing tactic of just liaising and engaging in dialogue with individuals willing to commit acts of criminal damage and hoping they talk to you. Society, or possibly the more vocal minority asked that policing take a lighter approach when policing public order, allow them to protest, the `crowd psychology` will effectively manage any potential disorder. Although there are some merits in generally adopting an approach based on this theory, it does not fit all protests or groups. The Police listened and adapted their approach in dealing with protests, processions, and assemblies.

Is this now a case of be careful what you wish for?

1. DPP v Ziegler

Click to access uksc-2019-0106-judgment.pdf

• Adapting to Protest 2009

Click to access adapting-to-protest-nurturing-the-british-model-of-policing-20091125.pdf

Policing Needs Special Measures

Some may think I might have finally lost my senses or be starting to agree with the numerous critics of policing in politics and the media, not to mention several former senior officers. Policing needs special measures but not for some of the reasons recently highlighted and reported. Last week there were a number of leaks from a report being compiled by Her Majesty`s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMIC) about placing several Police forces into special measures. Public sector organisations can be placed into the `engage` stage when the inspectorate decides they are underperforming in a variety of roles and tasks. The country`s largest police force, the Metropolitan Police along with Gloucestershire, Staffordshire, Wiltshire, Cleveland, and Greater Manchester are all now in this stage. Greater Manchester Police had already been placed there in 2020 for a number of failings concerning the recording of 80,000 crimes.

If you believe all that has been written in the media, and reported on TV and radio, then the reason for the Met being in special measures is a litany of appalling behaviour and criminal offences from a minority of serving officers. Those high- profile cases including murder committed by a serving officer, offensive comments posted on a messaging system by members of one team at Charing Cross police station, and two officers taking pictures whilst guarding a murder crime scene, were all referenced in part in the leaked extract from the HMIC. The key aspect is they were not given as the fundamental `reasons` for the measures to be started, the truth of the matter is that together with the other forces named, the Met has been failing in its core business of basic policing. All six will now be required by HMIC to provide a plan to show how they propose to address those issues. They will face increased scrutiny and reporting, and they could be given targets to achieve.

In my view, it is the failure to meet basic policing responsibilities that is the requirement for HMIC to intervene. The failings are not because a minority of serving officers have committed acts abhorrent to most right minded citizens & unacceptable for anyone holding the office of constable.

The reasons for these forces being placed in these measures is reflected in policing across the UK. In relation to the Met, the HMIC reportedly commented about poor initial training, lack of effective supervision, issues with recruitment and having predominantly young and inexperienced officers in front line response policing. In addition, they also mentioned the Met had a substandard response to emergency calls, barely adequate crime recording and a backlog of child abuse referrals. Across the country, forces have produced figures showing a lack of effective investigation for crime types including burglary and a reduction in prosecutions for other offences. These are all basic policing objectives.

I welcome the announcement of the six forces being placed in these measures but not because of any `cultural` issues in policing, that many would have you believe exist. Nor is it to combat the sexism, racism or misogyny that is allegedly widespread in policing and the cause of all these problems. Policing is in dire need of special attention and measures because it has been largely ignored, under- funded and under resourced for over ten years by the government. It is in such a crisis because of government policy and a lack of criticism from senior police chiefs who have been silent against the cuts and in several cases have tacitly supported them.

Specifically in respect of the Met, it needs to go back to the previous structure of areas and boroughs with commanders and chief superintendents in charge. It was re-structured under Lord Hogan-Howe to make it more like county forces with thirteen larger command areas and a reduced number of senior officers managing front line policing. The pilot scheme in East London was an abject failure and those working there reported the problems and issues they faced. However, those in charge were keen to push ahead with their innovative scheme and it was rolled out across the Met. There needs to be a return to smaller command units and far more direct and effective supervision of police officers. The real crisis over the last ten years has been the retention of experienced staff and government need to finally accept and recognise the unique position police officers are in by having no industrial rights at all. The pay and conditions need to dramatically improve or the recruitment of suitable people to be police officers will continue to be a significant issue.

Policing needs to focus on getting back to doing the basic things right, answering emergency calls and responding to them, attending and investigating crime, but return to those primary objects of preventing and detecting crime. Officers are frustrated and angry with government policy around pay over the last ten years, they cannot take industrial action, and nor would I want them to, but that is a quid pro quo situation. That unique position needs to be reflected in their annual pay awards which have been non existent over the last few years and fallen far behind other sectors. They are also frustrated by a lack of support from senior officers who are often far removed from basic response policing and fail to acknowledge the crisis facing that key part of the organisation. Response officers and investigators need additional resources and supervisors must be given the time to effectively manage their officers and not attend endless meetings about targets and figures. The promotion system needs an overhaul as does initial training, innovative schemes like direct entry and degree entry courses have done little to attract and retain the right people for the job.

I think the officers working in the lower ranks should see this report from HMIC placing forces into special measures, as a reflection on the failure of government policy over ten years and a failure of senior management. It is not a reflection of their work which has increased beyond capacity and now encompasses far more roles than just preventing and detecting crime.

The decision to place six Police forces in special measures is a damning indictment of the state of policing in Britain. I would not be surprised if there are others who are close to joining them such is the crisis facing policing.

UK Response Policing is in Crisis

    

We have just had a national week to acknowledge Response Policing with a catchy Hashtag #responsepolicingweek on social media to highlight that aspect of Police work. For the uninitiated, response policing essentially means the uniform officers who answer 999 calls and 101 calls. They respond to emergency calls for Police to attend and deal with reports of crime and/or disorder plus it seems, a myriad of other reasons requiring Police in the modern world. I have seen numerous comments from senior officers in the last week recognising and acknowledging the work and risks faced by response officers. It was good to see their work being recognised and appreciated, but it was only for one week, and for many on the front line it does not come close to recognising and dealing with the real crisis in response policing.

Experience – the lack of operational experience in response policing has been reducing over the last few years. Most of my information is from contacts that cover the largest force in the UK, the Metropolitan Police, but I know from sources across the UK that the problem is replicated across the country, but on a slightly smaller scale. The average length of policing service on many response teams is now close to less than 4 years – when you consider that they spend on average, 4 months in initial training before they get on the streets and then two or three years doing their probation, then that is a frightening figure. Critical Incidents are being responded to by officers with minimal experience and front- line supervision is not blessed with significant levels of knowledge and capability. Many officers with years of response policing work are actively looking for alternative roles within or outside policing.

Resources – The main complaint from officers on response is the lack of numbers on their teams to answer the calls that come in. Response has always been the first place that any officers for public order aid are taken from or to create a squad or unit to deal with a specific problem. In my time in policing, we had various squads formed, vehicle crime squads, robbery squads, drug squads and many many more. Those officers are always taken from response teams, and it is usually the most experienced officers, meaning the teams are left short with less vehicles able to be properly resourced. That leads to another problem when managers decide it `looks better` to have more vehicles out and single crew response vehicles. Experience has taught me that on most calls for Police, you need two officers to effectively deal with the incident. That means two vehicles will have to attend each call and, on many occasions, the first unit is waiting for the second to attend, especially in more rural areas. A hashtag & supportive comment from senior managers does not help response teams trying to manage crime scenes, hospital guards and an incident list with thirty odd outstanding calls when they start their shift. The oncoming shift is often fully occupied at incidents within an hour or so of starting their tour of duty and there are no units to deal with any call that comes in. I suspect that most communities would be completely shocked to discover how many officers they have on duty in their local area, see what calls they must deal with and how long some incidents can take.

Demand – The demands on police time and resources has increased beyond comprehension and significantly more than officers of my policing era experienced. I worked in an area that had several mental health hospitals and facilities, and the most frequent call was usually to report a missing person when a patient just walked out the door. We occasionally dealt with mental health related calls in the street and even more occasionally we had to assist with mental health professionals as they took someone into a secure unit from a private address. These types of calls have increased massively as support services in mental health have faced significant cuts in recent years. Policing is often the service of last resort and often the only service available to respond to mental health crisis type calls, and often there is a distinct lack of professional help to attend and support the officers. This means the officers will spend much longer in providing help and care to those suffering from mental health type episodes and often hours waiting for an available bed in a suitable unit. Crime reporting has also changed in recent years after directives from police chiefs and politicians with more `priorities` being identified. Any suggestion of a domestic dispute now requires a crime report to be completed, any hint of a hate crime attracts the same time consuming and bureaucratic response, and these are just two examples where the demand has increased. Reporting these incidents takes time and officers will have to spend longer at each call.

Solutions/Support – Sounds easy but more officers on response teams and a review of the demands on policing. A return to the basics of preventing and detecting crime where Police officers focus on their primary objectives of being responsible for reporting and investigating crime. Senior managers could start this process by reviewing their non- operational units and teams in respect of numbers and make them available for response work on one day a week or a few days each month. Align them to response teams so they can be called upon to support those teams when demand requires or calls increase. Most police officers are capable to assist response teams with crime scenes, cordons or answer non-urgent calls yet they remain in their administrative roles whilst the calls pile up. Align some detectives to response teams so they can attend and take responsibility for investigating crimes reported by that team. There has always been an issue with the types of crimes CID units will take responsibility for and that situation has not changed in modern policing. The `value` of the offence would often be the deciding factor with little or no regard to the degree or extent of investigation required. Response officers have very little time to effectively investigate reported crimes, they may attend and take the initial report, but further investigations will inevitably take longer as the officers work through their shifts and the demands on their working time.

Summary – There is no easy fix to the crisis facing response policing, but it is the very foundation of policing. Most incidents start with a call to police to report an incident and it will be response officers who attend first and deal. Retention of experienced officers in front line policing is also key and can only be achieved by addressing the demand & role they face. For too long, being on a response team has been seen as the `punishment posting` in policing, officers on any specialised units are often told if they do not like their particular role then they can go back to team. The current mind set in policing seems to be to get through the minimum amount of time in response and then move onto a specialised unit as soon as you can.

Senior officers need to address this and do far more than spend one week using a hashtag to highlight the work officers across the country are doing every day of every week. It is often far from glamorous and would be unlikely to make an interesting TV show or recruiting advert, aside from the Bill! It is the very basis of policing and in my view, every police recruit should spend a significant period working in response to understand shift work and the demands in that policing role. Wherever possible, many officers should be mandated to spend some time each year of their service with a response team. The role & demands can change, and the exchange of knowledge and experience would benefit both the officers and the organisation.

A hashtag and one week will do very little to address the crisis facing the very core of British policing. It is arguably one of the toughest of roles in policing and can be one of the most demanding – those officers on response teams need and deserve more support and recognition from within policing and outside.                    

              

Metro One (Cressida Dick) – Dismissed with thanks?

Metro One was the call sign of every Met Commissioner I served under. Since the unexpected and surprise resignation of Dame Cressida Dick, there has been a great deal written about her tenure as `Britain’s top cop`. Every Police Officer serving or retired, will recognise the title as it’s a phrase every one of them wants to hear on any operational event when they are finally stood down from their duty. I doubt that Dame Cressida ever wanted to hear the words that would end her policing career, and not in the manner that appears to have taken place.

On Friday 4^th February she sent a message out to every Met Police officer and member of police staff, outlining her anger at recent unacceptable behaviour and poor conduct, and the damage it has had on public trust & confidence. This was a very strongly worded message and she made it abundantly clear that there was no room in the Met whilst she was Commissioner, for any type of hate or disrespect by members of her staff. The message urged everyone to do the right thing and not to let any behaviour or conduct, as we have seen reported in recent weeks, to continue. The phrase `not in our Met` was emphasised and the message concluded with a reminder of how serious this is and that everyone must take action to rebuild public trust and confidence.

She had been tasked to produce a report outlining her proposal to deal with these issues and give it to the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, for his approval. I have heard from other sources that the report was a sound proposal, and the Commissioner was dedicated to ensuring strong action was taken which was supported by the above message to all staff. An unprecedented method and message by a serving Commissioner and the most strongly worded directive I have seen within policing. It shocked experienced Police officers but was the right action to take and I have no doubt that she would have ensured it was followed to the letter if she had remained.

On Thursday 10^th February she appeared on news radio and confirmed her intention to remain in the job and continue with her desire and commitment to improve the reputation of the Met. It would appear that while she was saying those words, Mr Khan had already decided he did not accept the submitted proposal & let it be known he had lost confidence in her. I have also heard that he wanted a greater say in some management decisions within the Met, which would clearly subvert her own authority and leadership and undermine her totally. If that is accurate then she would have been left with no choice but to resign which would explain the sudden and unexpected announcement on Thursday evening.

I have met her on a number of occasions, and I worked at Scotland yard when she was an assistant Commissioner in the 2000`s. She is very approachable and friendly and has that inherent ability of the best managers to remember people and conversations. I have been involved in Policing for over 40 years and I have never known a commissioner so well respected and liked by her officers and staff. Sir John Stevens is often referred to by many experienced officers as one of the best Commissioners the Met has ever had and Sir Hugh Orde as the best Commissioner the Met never had. They both had similar qualities that Dame Cressida has but she possessed and portrayed a much softer side in her dealings with colleagues and politicians. It may be the appearance of that softer side has played a small part in the approach Mr Khan has shown in his dealings with the Commissioner. You do not reach the level in policing she has without some inner toughness and that strength and resilience was shown last Thursday. She made the decision to resign, for the good of the service and for the job she clearly and demonstrably loved in every rank and role, for over 40 years. I know many who worked directly with and for her and they all speak in glowing terms about her leadership qualities and abilities as a Police officer.

It was her public portrayal that started and has led to her demise and the frequent criticism directed towards the Met but with the overall responsibility laid at her door. There are no doubts that some horrendous actions by serving officers have taken place during her time as Commissioner and she must take some responsibility for those. She had done this but many of the historic cases being quoted started during her predecessors’ time as Commissioner. It is no secret that when Dame Cressida took over in 2017, the Met had exceptionally low morale within its workforce and arguably one of the lowest in its history. Significant and devastating budget cuts had been imposed with little resistance or explanation by the then Commissioner who had been appointed by the Home secretary Theresa May. Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe initiated a re organisation of the Met and had a quite different management style to many of his predecessors. Many highly regarded and experienced senior police officers left the Met during his time in charge. By the time Dame Cressida took over, the Met was largely regarded as being in dire need of stability and required someone who knew and understood the operational demands of policing London. Yet from the beginning her history and involvement around the death of Jean Charles De Menezes set the tone for the media reporting of her role as Met Commissioner. Any opportunity to criticise the Met and question the ability or competence of Dame Cressida was seized upon and in the last two years, officers under her command have provided many such opportunities.

Policing has significant problems to confront if they are to regain some of the trust & confidence that has understandably been lost, but I believe that in Dame Cressida they had the right person to do that. The insurmountable problem she faced was that she had become the story and once that happens there is only one solution for the person involved and the Police service, and that is for them to step aside. I think she realised this and for the good of the Metropolitan Police and London she made the heart- breaking decision to stand down.

As for her successor, I hope that sections of the media and Political parties allow whoever it is to manage the Met as a senior police officer should be allowed to do. The resignation of Dame Cressida showed the line between the Mayor holding the Commissioner to account and actually interfering with managing the Met was likely to be crossed. Whilst Mr Khan is mayor, mine might be an aspirational hope, but the next Commissioner has an exceptionally fine line to tread whilst answering to both the current mayor and the Home Secretary. I would also ask that the next Commissioner is allowed to start with a clean slate, judge them on policies or activities that happen whilst they are Commissioner and not hold them responsible for historic events.

I doubt Dame Cressida will ever be dismissed with thanks by the London mayor with any degree of sincerity, but within policing and most definitely within the Met, the gratitude and thanks to her will continue long after she finally walks out of the revolving doors at New Scotland Yard.

Sorry seems to be the hardest word – Clapham

A popular song by Mr Elton John, but it seems some politicians and people in positions of authority seem to have a problem with acknowledging when they are wrong and using this word.

An independent review into the Met Police handling of the Clapham vigil was published this week and vindicated the Mets handling and actions on the day. I had no doubt this would be the outcome once the full facts and background were examined in the cold light of day. Officers body worn video and verbal accounts showed the level of hostility and confrontation once a minority group started to protest. The vigil had been respectful and dignified for over 6 hours with a minimal police presence and with female officers predominantly being used in the area. One officer was permitted to give media interviews where she gave a factual and concerning account of the type of abuse she and her colleagues were subjected to in the latter stages of the gathering. It was clear the vigil had now become a protest, with speeches being given and open hostility directed towards the police officers present.

I worked many events in the Met special operations room for major public events and know there would have been a lengthy discussion    between the event commanders as to what action to take. Decision logs would have been completed with the reasoning for adapting the strategy and tactics by Gold and Silver, discussions around intervening, withdrawing, or taking no action at all. Legal powers would have been debated and the safety of the officers and all those attending taken into consideration. The inevitable `what if` questions would be outlined on the whiteboards with everyone taking an active part from loggists to tactical advisors and ultimately Gold and Silver. The Gold commander has their own room or suite which is adjacent to the Silver commander’s suite. Essentially it is a large room with whiteboards on the walls and tv screens which can show live feeds from CCTV or the Police helicopter, plus access to the radio communications from the Bronze commanders on scene managing the police units.

Once it was clear that the mood and demeanour of some of those present had changed then in my experience the Police had a very difficult decision to make but they had to make a decision. The liaison teams would have been reporting that tension was rising, and a small antagonistic group was now present. Placards were now being waved with `ACAB` on them, a clear reference towards the police `all coppers are bas***ds. As this started as a vigil, then I doubt many intelligence teams or evidence gathering teams would have been part of the allocated resources. On other events one part of their job is to recognise and report any change in tension or attendance of identified hostile individuals or groups. Once that type of information is received then ideally, the Police will publish social media updates and provide media briefings that the situation at an event was changing. This can go some way to negating subsequent criticism if Police decision making is outlined by setting the rapidly changing scene. The report highlights the lack of an identifiable and effective communications strategy on the day. This is an area that policing needs to urgently address as once a narrative is out in the public domain it can quickly become the accepted version of events irrespective of facts that may later be established.   

The choices they faced were to intervene, withdraw or take no action at all. The implication of each option was probably debated but the final decision rests with the event command team after considering the pros and cons from all those present. If I had been present, I would probably have argued for withdrawing the officers to the periphery and standing by to deal with any confrontation. In essence, let those intent on conflict with the police make the first move towards the police lines. It would then be much clearer to those watching exactly who was initiating any resulting disorder. Regardless of personal opinions or views once the decision is made by the Silver commander then officers must follow those directions. The event command team have an overview of the whole area whereas officers on the ground are only aware of what is happening in front of them. If individual officers or units decide to ignore the instructions to disperse a crowd in a certain direction, then that could compromise the safe and controlled dispersal of the crowd across the whole area. 

The decision taken on the day would be based on facts provided by those on scene and what the command team were informed of and could see. The choice they made was to intervene at the bandstand and disperse the crowd who had started to encroach to hear speeches being given. As the police moved in confrontation started with some disturbing visuals being widely recorded and distributed by some of those present. Public order policing is often fast moving and dynamic but whenever there is confrontation it is never pretty or easy to watch. The Police are working within the law in respect of using force against some who are mainly non-compliant and others who are openly hostile.

It is widely acknowledged that the images of officers restraining individuals, in the main females, were distressing, concerning, and shocking. That would have been the last outcome any officer on scene or in the control room would have wanted. No officer works on a public order event like this and wants to have physical confrontation with anyone. Immediately after those videos and images were being shared there was widespread condemnation of the Police and calls for the Met commissioner to resign. Cressida Dick stood her ground and welcomed the independent review into the policing of the vigil. I have met her on several occasions, she understands policing and specifically the challenges of public order policing. She empathises with the officers managing and working those events and she totally gets the difficulty of the role involved. She knew the officers making those exceedingly tough choices and the decision-making process they would have been taking which would be methodical and fully documented.

It is commendable that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) have completed their review in such a timely fashion. There would have been many different groups and individuals to speak to and a vast amount of social media accounts to view and consider. There were several main-stream media outlets who ran significant coverage of the vigil and resulting disorder together with debates and discussions on tv and radio shows. It is noteworthy that the subsequent HMICFRS report has barely figured in being reported in the same degree by MSM and when it has, the only criticism of note in the report around communication, has been the focal point of many of the reports.

Politicians from all parties, the London mayor, celebrities, and various groups were all quick to pass judgement and many looked for someone to blame with Cressida Dick being the obvious and easy target.  Retractions and apologies have been noticeable in their absence from almost all the critics who denounced the report and questioned the independent status of HMICFRS. The HMICFRS have rarely been supportive of policing, understandably so given the nature and status of their inspections.

Their role is predominantly to inspect forces and highlight inconsistencies and areas for improvement. For this report to state so categorically that the Met Police have been totally vindicated in their decision making and actions on the night is unlikely but very welcome. Sir Tom Winsor has previously been widely criticised within policing for some of his previous comments and reports. That factor should not be used to pass judgement on the accuracy of a report produced by one of his Inspectors.

The fact that even Mr Winsor acknowledges “Officers are our fellow citizens, invested by the community to keep the community safe.  They rely upon and are entitled to receive public support when they act lawfully, sensitively and proportionately; in this case, in the face of severe provocation and in very difficult circumstances, they did just that.”1

This should for most impartial observers confirm the balance and truth of this report.

 You would expect that many of those who were quick to jump to a conclusion and post overly critical comments would now apologise and acknowledge that they were wrong. Policing has made many mistakes and will continue to do so, it is not an exact science dealing with people and incidents that involve such high emotions and reactions. Society has rightly questioned policing over many previous incidents and when found in the wrong we have seen forces and senior officers publicly apologise and state lessons will be learnt. Surely, we should expect the same from our political leaders and individuals who wish to be listened to and taken seriously. They should lead by example but that appears to be missing here as an officially commissioned review has found many of the comments inaccurate, unwarranted, and demonstrated a lack of respect for policing. There is no doubt that many of those comments will be remembered long after the subsequent HMICFRS report has been filed away. 

Words came easily for many in the aftermath of a vigil on Clapham common that descended into a protest and disorder directed towards police officers. It now seems that the hardest word for those same people seems to be sorry………

1= comment sourced from https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/news/news-feed/metropolitan-police-acted-appropriately-at-the-sarah-everard-vigil/

Policing protests – HMICFRS report 2021

A distinct sense of déjà vu swept over me as I read the latest report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Policing and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS). The report is titled `Getting the balance right – an inspection of how effectively the police deal with protests`.

They were commissioned in September 2020 by the Home secretary to inspect how effectively the police manage protests. This was because of the serious disruption caused by Extinction rebellion (XR) protests in London in 2019, and then the Black Lives Matter protests, and the criticism levelled at police tactics in dealing with those and other protests.

Ironically, it was the same body who were then titled HMIC, who published a report in 2009 into Police protest tactics, `Adapting to Protest` because of the policing at the G20 protest in April 2009. That report made several distinct recommendations around stop and search and the use of intelligence teams on protest events.

     Recommendation 9: Monitoring use of stop and search powers

HMIC recommends that chief officers should monitor the use of stop and search powers during public order operations in their force area to ensure:

(a) stop and search is conducted under the correct legislation and in line with force policy; and

(b) all officers (including those providing mutual support to the local force) are adequately briefed on, and understand, the legal powers under which they are exercising their stop and search powers.

Recommendation 10: Clarification of the role of Forward Intelligence Teams

HMIC recommends that the Association of Chief Police Officers and the National Policing Improvement Agency should clarify the precise role of Forward Intelligence Teams (FITs). Public order training should include guidance on the function of FITs and the specific tactical parameters under which FITs should be deployed in public order operations.

 * `Adapting to Protest – Nurturing the British Model of Policing 2009 HMIC`

This latest report finally addresses both of those recommendations and also looked at improving legislation relevant to protests. It takes account of the importance of pre-event intelligence and benefit of utilising intelligence teams during the event. The 2009 report was widely interpreted within some policing circles as meaning intelligence was a `dirty word` and forward intelligence teams should be limited in use and largely replaced by liaison teams to improve dialogue and communication. This was based on a model from Sweden where they use `dialogue officers and teams`. I met with Swedish officers in the mid 2000`s when they visited Scotland yard and I gave them a presentation on how intelligence teams (FIT`s) are used in UK policing. After the presentation, their assessment was that in Sweden, they might have some use for intelligence teams working alongside dialogue officers. I was surprised that dialogue officers had no role whatsoever in gathering or disseminating intelligence and information. We decided that both roles would be of benefit in policing protests, but neither could replace the other and that protest policing in Sweden was quite different to the UK.

The recommendation in 2009 about intelligence teams suggested `tactical parameters` for using them and identifying their function at public order events. The inference was that they should be limited in use and only deployed when really needed. In my view this was where policing started to lose effectiveness in policing protests and this 2021 report does go some way to recognise and identify that.

Intelligence is essential in all aspects of policing and especially so in policing demonstrations and protests. They can often be fast moving and dynamic situations that require fast time information and intelligence to enable the command team to police it safely and effectively. In recent years since the 2009 report by HMIC many forces have reduced or stopped using intelligence teams preferring to rely solely on liaison teams (PLT), to manage a protest. Liaison is a two-way process and, on many occasions, those attending a protest are not willing to liaise with police officers. That is where for me the 2009 report was wrongly critical of intelligence teams, viewing them as confrontational based on the premise that if disorder took place then intelligence teams were often on scene. This was a misconception and if intelligence teams are correctly deployed and concentrating on those intent on disorder and committing offences, then when disorder happens it is surely common sense for your intelligence teams to be present?

They were not the catalyst but were often part of the solution by their mere presence and ability to pass fast time information and collect intelligence on those committing offences.

Recommendation

By 30 June 2021, the Home Office should consider laying before Parliament draft legislation (similar to section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986) that makes provision for an obligation on organisers of public assemblies to give the police written notice in advance of such assemblies.

Recommendation

By 30 June 2021, the Home Office should consider laying before Parliament draft legislation (similar to section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986) that makes provision for the prohibition of public assemblies.

*Getting the balance right HMICFRS 2021.

In respect of legislation, the 2021 report rightly identifies the disparity in the public order act of 1986 where processions (marches) must be notified and approved but assemblies do not require any notification. Protest groups and legal advisors have identified this potential loophole over recent years and will often announce an assembly or vigil which can then turn into a `procession` from one location to another. In my view, this caused the police significant issues specifically in dealing with the XR protests which often announced meeting points at short notice and then moved across London. Reducing the serious disruption caused by this type of protest was exceptionally challenging and lacked suitable and applicable legislation to support police tactics.

The proposed changes would make assemblies subject to same notification and conditions as processions and allow the police to make informed decisions around disruption caused by a proposed assembly. Section 14 Public Order Act 1986 already allows for conditions to be imposed on assemblies. It must be the senior officer `present at the scene` which legally caused the police issues when the assemblies were spread over a wide area. It also prevented them from placing conditions on future assemblies or restricting them to a specific geographic area.

Policing protests is about balancing the freedom to assemble and express your views but remain within the law. It should have some understanding around minimising disruption to society and allowing the public and businesses to go about their lives. Throughout my public order policing career, it was often incredibly challenging to meet that balance between allowing protests to continue but reducing the disruption to the public and business community. On many occasions, we had to use legislation to control and manage demonstrations that were starting to cause serious disruption.

I believe that this latest report and associated legal recommendations, allows the police to meet that balance in a way that is fair to those wishing to protest but allows life to continue with minimal disruption. It remains to be seen how many of these recommendations reach the statute books after debate and discussion in Parliament and the House of Lords.  

Policing with the Military in a Covid Crisis

I watched & listened to the Prime Ministers address to the nation and heard the reference about the Military being used to `support` the Police in enforcing the Covid regulations. He clearly mentioned `backfilling` and putting more police on the streets which for me are two separate aspects in any increase in enforcing the regulations.

Backfilling –

I have listened to several radio phone ins and read several views online about how the refence to the military may mean troops on the streets in a policing role. That is categorically not what was meant or what policing would ask for or request based on my knowledge and experience. I worked for many years in the Public Order Branch of the Metropolitan Police and sat through many strategic planning meetings and emergency planning meetings with senior officers. Police chiefs across the UK know and fully understand their role in society and that they police by public consent, they are not a military force but maintain strong partnerships with our military forces. Policing and the military can and will work together if need be, but not as joint patrols on the streets or in using the military for dealing with demonstrations or protests.

The reference to `backfilling` is to a contingency and option that is already in place, that if Policing requires the release of additional officers from certain specialised roles then the military may be used. That means that police officers used to protect and secure Crown properties, government buildings and Defence establishments could be replaced by military personnel. Those officers would then be available for Covid enforcement roles or other recognised policing roles, whilst the military perform their security functions. I have never seen any plans or been present in any planning meeting, where the option of using troops on the street for policing roles was a viable option or proposal.

Additional Officers –

This is where it becomes interesting and, in some ways, aspirational and arguably unachievable. As many in policing, and those of us who previously worked in policing, will tell anyone who still wants to listen, that there are NO additional or extra officers available in those commonly understood terms. Policing has little or no resilience in officers available to be re deployed to another role or bolster a specific function such as any increase in enforcing Covid regulations. Since the `lockdown` was eased some months ago we have witnessed a return to violent crime levels and serious crime incidents on a similar regularity as they were before March. In some areas of crime, they are increasing, as criminal groups look to retain & regain their area of criminality and prevent other groups from taking over. Drink related offences have also increased once the pubs opened again, which may explain the new move to close pubs and bars at 10pm to alleviate the burden on policing and health care services. There was already an increase in mental health related calls to police, coupled with a significant rise in domestic abuse related cases.

Policing is and was already stretched to the limits, however during the lockdown they were able to return to some more pro active work as calls reduced in many other areas such as violent incidents or public disorder as people stayed home. That situation changed when the lockdown was eased, and people were urged to eat out and return to work and pubs and public areas re opened. The cuts to budgets and resources in policing has been well documented but that is a primary cause for policing now lacking the numbers to react to these challenging times.

There are no additional officers ready to be deployed – they will be taken from existing areas of policing and local response teams which places extra strain on officers left to deal with those areas. It also means cancelling much needed rest days and increasing hours at work for officers, so 8/10-hour days become 14- or 16-hour days or more on occasions. This is not a healthy place for our Police service and the public can play their part by following guidelines or legislation as it frequently changes.

As in previous times, the military will step in and assist the Police service but in a supportive role by taking over some of the non-operational or non-contact roles. It is irresponsible to suggest military forces will patrol the streets of the UK carrying out Policing roles and enforcing the laws of the land. That has always been the role of the Police and is done with the consent of the public and for the protection of the public, even when some sections of the public may not believe or accept it is for their own protection. 

Every person has a part to play irrespective of personal views on the benefits of restrictions or lockdown measures. At times, policing can be quite a blunt implement to achieve compliance with legislation with officers only having the option to report or arrest any offenders. The policy for policing throughout the Covid crisis has been based on the Four `E`s – Engage, Explain, Encourage and if they fail to achieve compliance then Enforce as the last option. The vast majority of officers have used discretion in their dealings with anyone breaking the regulations – they have not made these laws but are expected to ensure they are followed. That is predominantly achieved by the first three `E`s – engaging and explaining why they need to be followed or finally encouraging the public to comply. Enforcement has always been the last option if for any reason the individual will not or cannot comply with the law.   

As with most offences –

The way to avoid being fined or arrested is to abide by the laws of the land –

The way to challenge is through our democratically representatives and in Parliament –

That way you are supporting Policing and protecting yourself, your family and society.    

Stay well.   

4th July Drink Independence Day

How will people react to being able to go out drinking?

What could possibly go wrong?

Obviously, the government and local authorities looked at and considered all the possible problems and impact of opening pubs on a Saturday in July, and with a full moon as well! No idea how or why but yes, ask any experienced police officer and they will confirm that for some reason a full moon does seem to coincide with even more inexplicable behaviour from the public. We have not quite witnessed any werewolves as such, but on occasions some individuals have only just stopped short of literally howling at the moon.

I do fear for crime and disorder this coming weekend with pubs opening for the first time since March and some official encouragement being given to go out and `have fun`. We have seen gatherings in parks and open areas with people `socially drinking if not quite socially distancing` but what can be done and how does the Police service cope?

Why do we need the Police service to cope and is it just policing and the other emergency services that will be expected to manage the predicted chaos from permitting the public back into licensed premises? Is there not a responsibility on breweries and landlords to manage their own businesses? Do they need to open all day from Saturday?

In sequence then – yes Policing will be needed to deal with the inevitable increase in alcohol related calls to the emergency services, together with the paramedics and accident & emergency departments dealing with any resulting medical needs. They will be needed because I doubt common sense will prevail amongst many eagerly anticipating the opening of the pubs. We have seen examples of a lack of common sense amongst a minority of the public throughout this pandemic. We have witnessed the stockpiling of toilet rolls and pasta to the hordes of people swamping public beaches and attending various protest events in their thousands, despite pleas and reminders that there is a killer pandemic in our society. So, the Police service will be needed this coming weekend because I foresee significant sections of society being unable to drink sensibly and control their behaviour. I really hope I am mistaken for the sake of every police officer working Saturday and Sunday and every paramedic and A&E member of staff.

Why is it just the emergency services who will be expected to manage this alleged chaos?

I really hope it is not and I did hear a very welcome and positive message during a radio phone-in last week. A manager of a pub called in and said that the brewery had taken the decision themselves to open on the Monday to avoid the anticipated rush for a drink. They had introduced social distancing measures in their pubs and would monitor and manage any excessive drinking from their clientele. Any sign of disorder or violence and the manager had the authority to immediately close the premises and stop serving.

That sounded a reasonable and sensible approach – does beg the question why government had not considered staggering or having a slower and more gradual return for the opening of the pubs. We are where we are – unprecedented times, these are two sayings that have almost haunted every news bulletin or government briefing since the start of this several months ago.

I could never see the government performing another U turn on policy by moving the opening of pubs back a few days. So, it is left to the licensing trade and the responsible breweries and managers, to start the process of slowly and carefully introducing alcohol back into general society.

As in the full moon example, ask any Police officer or paramedic if there is any impact on their workload from pubs and the consumption of alcohol and they will look at you as if you just asked the most stupid question in the world. Of course there is and on some days and nights it increases, such as a Saturday evening in the summer just after the end of the month when people have been paid – factor in a full moon and you almost have a full house! At the risk of being labelled killjoys, most Police officers and paramedics working this weekend will be practising their `rain dances` and hoping that the good old British summer that usually coincides with a very wet Wimbledon tennis will not let them down. The best policing available comes from `PC rain` to dampen the desire to stand in the street and shout and swear and fight whoever happens to come along because you drank three too many extra strong lagers.

Across the UK, Police chiefs will be drawing up plans to post their `extra` officers into mobile support units and await the increase in calls for assistance. I would anticipate a highly visible police presence in many towns and cities as officers are taken from their local policing areas and away from response policing and community teams, so they are ready to respond this weekend. Numerous officers will have had their rest day cancelled, shifts changed and to expect a much longer shift to meet the demand placed on them by the decision to open pubs on a Saturday night.

I wish them well and hope they all stay safe  – if you do intend taking advantage of the pubs being open, then please drink responsibly and be courteous and respectful to any emergency services personnel that you may encounter. Follow their guidance or requests and comply with any instructions given.

That is not too much to ask as you celebrate your drink independence is it?