The price of policing
The police are under pressure. Just as the antics of a few anarchists, or drunken sons of ageing rockers, or whoever, can taint the cause of student protesters, so the minority of cops who crack under the pressure and get violent during a protest when it isn't warranted stain the good name of the rest of them.
It's simple to take sides when you have a situation as we do at the moment in this country - a lot of angry people on one side, and the police on the other, with riot shields and batons. But though I have many sympathies with those who are protesting right now, I can't put the police on 'the other side'. For me, the truth is the police are us. Not necessarily protesters like us, but people who are going to suffer, like us, under the impending age of austerity - with forced retirements, cutbacks and recruitment freezes likely to make life even harder. It's students now, it will be police soon. We're all going to suffer. In a sense, the people on both sides of protest violence are angry with the wrong people when they fight each other - there are others, looking on from comfortable offices and green leather benches, who are getting away with this.
When you read about the idea of police possibly banning future marches, it at first seems like a draconian clampdown. But I can't help wondering if, rather than us turning into China or any state you care to think of where dissent isn't tolerated, this is a complaint about the price of policing - this kind of suggestion is a position during ongoing negotiations in a time of radical cutbacks. If the Government does want to cut back on policing, then it must cut back, too, on the services police provide, such as ensuring peaceful protests take place for everyone involved, and innocent passers-by. If that can't be guaranteed, the Government may ultimately get the blame. Want to cut back on police? You might end up cutting back on the right to protest - and that won't go down well.
There's another price of policing, too. When you read stories about innocent cops being seriously injured simply going about their daily job, it brings home the realities of life in a much-maligned uniform. I know there have been a lot of errors in the recent protests, and there are doubtless individuals who have stepped well out of line - and yes, at times, the media backs them more than it would the ordinary protesters - but in my opinion most police are just the same as any other hard-pressed public sector worker facing up to an uncertain future, with perhaps more added risks to their personal safety than most. When you read about cops being 'on the sick' in your thundering daily paper you might want to think of some of the reasons why, including the stress of the job, and the impact it can have.
It's easy to take sides, but as I've said before, it's perhaps a little too easy. The police are not the enemy. A lot of people are angry right now about what the future holds, police and civilians alike. The real enemies are not those behind the riot shields, but those who hide a long way behind them, peering through windows and sitting in comfortable offices, the millionaires who are sending many of us - and them - to the knacker's yard. Policing has a price which has to be paid, in every sense.
Related posts:
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
December 16th, 2010 - 05:05
I struggle to find sympathy for police who complain that their job is stressful. So is mine, so is pretty much everyone’s these days! I appreciate that they generally don’t *want* to beat child protesters with batons. Unfortunately few of them have the principles to actually refuse to do so. Its really not that hard. Many of the reports of the protests I have read state that people were pushed forward by the crowd into police lines or forced back by police advances trying to kettle the protest. Striking the people unfortunate enough to find themselves in close proximity to police is brutal and unhelpful. The police should strategically fall back, in response to crowd surges, allowing the crowd to move around in a limited fashion whilst retaining broad control over the distribution of the protesters. Isolated incidents of stupid vandalism notwithstanding, the only excuse police have to start battering protesters is when they are seriously threatened by goons chucking rocks or with metal polls. This is the definition of “reasonable force”. Only then should cavalry charges be even considered. Controlling violent behaviour from the police would give far fewer causes for violent responses from the crowd. I expect that any such incidents would also be roundly denounced by the protesters themselves, who would be far less inclined to see disciplined, passive police officers injured than some baton wielding goon lashing out at anyone within striking distance. A little respect for and solidarity with public servants is not an unreasonable expectation of most of the characters at the protests, is it- as you yourself observe.
The other point that has just occurred to me is that peaceful policing would require more policemen too to ensure that weight of numbers could effectively control the protesters as opposed to brutality. Its just another argument against cuts and for increased public spending, Keynes-stylee.
December 16th, 2010 - 15:58
oops, I initially read your line as:
“I appreciate that they generally don’t *want* to beat child molesters with batons.”
…and thought to myself ‘well, the police don’t have to do that, it’s what the Sun readership is for’.
December 17th, 2010 - 12:54
“The police should strategically fall back, in response to crowd surges, allowing the crowd to move around in a limited fashion whilst retaining broad control over the distribution of the protesters. ”
This seems like a good idea, but I’d be worried that people might keep on pushing the crowd towards the police in order to make them give up more and more ground in one direction. Of course doing it once or twice would be OK but the police may have to draw the line at some point.
December 16th, 2010 - 11:54
Agreed, have been at a few of the major protests in London, the one last Thursday included. I saw teenagers beaten unconscious for trying to protect those unconscious on the ground, and now when I walk past a police officer in town, I struggle to repress the same feeling I got as they charged towards us, batons held high, shouting, forcing us back.
But I am also a policeman’s daughter. And having met many an officer growing up, know that there is the same proportion of bastards in the police force as there are in any other job. Just as there are the same number of people for whom it’s just a job, or who genuinely want to do good.
The problem comes, however, (and this currently makes more sense in my head than I’ve yet been able to articulate) following media twisting, and the factors of state-sanctioned vs un-sanctioned violence; when we’re all just people, but some of us are more ‘people’ than others.
This is an interesting post on it: http://lookingforastronauts.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/towards-a-new-rhetoric-for-political-action/ as is this: http://www.criticallegalthinking.com/?p=1180
December 16th, 2010 - 13:42
While i agree in principal with some of your points, i struggle to agree with the main thrust of the argument, i do manage to see the police as “them”. I think the difficulty with equating protesters and police comes when you see the different responses to the faults of either side, whether from the police hierarchy, the government(including the PM) and the media.
The police need to be able to be held to higher standards by the nature of their position and the job they do, when they are not it makes it harder for them to function, not easier. When you then see the reality, which is police getting minor sanctions for actions which would potentially be considered manslaughter even after the employment of dodgy pathologists is uncovered, the PM talking about an officer being pulled off a horse which is subsequently shown to be a fall with no-one near him, and even the BBC taking a line of questioning which implies it’s OK to pull a disabled man from a wheelchair if he’s “rolling towards the police”, the them and us feeling is re-inforced.
When you then see investigations that would embarrass the government, like the Coulson phone tapping one, being done in such a perfunctory manner, it’s hard not to conclude that there’s an element of quid-pro-quo to the whole issue.
And when you see the way they misuse terror legislation just because they can, and have dealings with the police and see what a high percentage in general have superior attitudes and a general contempt for the general public and try to apply the law as they would like it to be, rather than how it is, like in trying to deny treatment to a seriously injured protester at a hospital where injured police from the same demo are being treated, the final vestiges of any guilt over a lack of fairness start to melt away.
December 16th, 2010 - 15:29
yerrrs, but – my (new to me) experiences of the police on the recent demonstrations has seriously damaged my opinion of them as an institution and lowered my expectation of any given individual officer.
i didn’t “take sides” i was shoved onto a side by the threat of imminent violence.
and the lying . . . oh my word the lying both on the ground and through official spokespeople.
like you say though, i was aware, even at the time, that the police were a varied bunch – the problem is that in the situations that you describe they (literally) close ranks and even the ‘best’ ones (in my terms) join in albeit possibly less enthusiastically. i now assume that many other situations are similar.
as a relatively insulated middle-aged white man i have been aware of stories of police violence, intimidation, arbitary use of stop-and-search, profiling and so on and on for a while. now i’m not saying i’ve now experienced anything like that – but what i have acquired is a frame of reference based on my own observations that allow me to re-evaluate those stories in a whole new light.
a bit like Hannah seems to be saying, when i see police or even police vehicles now i experience a kind of internal sneer. i expect that my threshold for involving or assisting them has risen. that’s not good.
December 16th, 2010 - 15:55
The Far-Left makes the police out to be the enemey. The SWP attacks working class people who join the police saying they are no longer workers and once they join they are mere drones of the state.
I wonder how many of the “all police men and women are fascist pigs” brigade have never called the police when they’ve been a victim of crime.
December 16th, 2010 - 17:37
Although the policing of protests is a very visible manifestation of activity, in the scheme of things it doesn’t happen very often and is a marginal cost.
I do feel a bit sorry for the police, it is one of the few public services where we demand they do their job in a manner that is contrary to their professional opinion.
The narrative of the media and politicians is always “more bobbies on the beat”. The police know this does little or nothing to reduce crime but has a limited impact on perception of crime.
They are in the peculiar position of having resources taken from them but still being told they must do their job in a way that they know doesn’t work.
I think I’d find that a little stressful.
December 17th, 2010 - 10:06
i guess that just as it was a minority of protestors who were violent, it was the minority of police who were violent. it’s awful what some police did, but that is some.
the police in bristol have always been very supportive when we’ve put on reclaim the night marches. last year some protestors shouted at the police, but i believe it is better to work with the ‘good’ police to change things in our city, than to shut them out, as that is when things start to stand still.
December 17th, 2010 - 10:42
I think Mark made a particularly excellent point when he said:
If you examine other aspects of police work: anti-terrorism, organised crime, murders, rapes, thuggery, chid abuse; in every case the actions of the police are unquestionably morally superior to those of the criminals. In the case of protest policing ancient and modern this rule seems is almost always inverted. The police are entitled to use reasonable force in their policing. And yet first-hand acocunts of the recent protests frequently mention horse charges and baton-wielding thuggery profoundly disproportionate to the nature of any crimes being commited. Furthermore, these incidents are generally stated to pre-empt retaliatory violence from protesters who have been subjected to kettling, assaults and intimidation.
I accept that the police are a varied bunch but when the “good” ones close ranks, as @a6ruled mentioned, and refuse to confront the baton-wielding maniacs out to “crack some heads” then they are complicit in the provocation of a violent backlash. Its not right. I’m not endorsing it. But if I saw friends of mine get clobbered for nothing by some grinning riot ape I would struggle to maintain my normally placid and courteous demeanour.
In summary, heavy handed policing provoked a violent backlash. Both sides are guilty but one of them had to start it.
December 17th, 2010 - 12:36
I agree with your post Anton.
Personally I think one of the main problems with the protests has been the the police don’t have any ranged means to deal with large numbers of yobs being violent and/or attacking them. (I don’t mean the students, I mean the idiots who’ll go along to any protest intending to cause violence)
I mean, their options for dealing with violence seem to be:
Fall back and let it happen (obviously not a good idea!)
Stand with riot shields and take it (risking injuries etc)
Disperse the crowd with horses? (Although in a really packed crowd this wouldn’t be an option, as they’d either be crushing people or going nowhere)
Attack the people in front of them with a potentially fatal metal stick.
Surely it would be better if they could use non-fatal and ranged methods like water cannons to stop attacks, rather than hitting them with sticks? (note: I know they have water cannons but at the moment none of the higher-ranking officers is likely to want to give permission to use them on “children” as the media would inevitably put it.) Particualry if they did what they apparently do in Belgium, which is to start with a low water pressure to give the less idiotic members of the crowd time to disperse before getting really pummeled.
It might also mean that the police wouldn’t have to contain the protests so early, as they’d know they’d have an effective ranged method of dealing with things if they got out of hand, so legitamate protestors would be less likely to feel annoyed and uncooperative. Also I imagine that police operating a water cannon from a safe distance of 30-odd feet are less likely to snap and seriously hurt a protestor.
December 17th, 2010 - 16:31
Further to sianushka’s comment: perhaps a part of the problem is that national protests tend to take place in London, and are therefore policed by the Met. Not all police forces have quite so many hair-trigger types.
December 17th, 2010 - 16:33
PS – whenever an authoritarian whines about how hard the job of the police is, quote Touch of Evil: “A policeman’s job is only easy in a police state.”