The action, politics and policing of protest in London.

Latest

Only modest turn out at Save Our NHS demo

Saturday’s Save Our NHS protest was a modest affair. There were perhaps a hundred or so protesters present and they seemed wearily resigned to the fact that the Bill will pass. Initially protesters stood, politely outside the Ministry of Health building on Parliament street listening to speeches with little enthusiasm. The protest livened up when a group rushed to the centre of the road leading the crowd to block Parliament street for around an hour, while a significantly increased police presence arrived.

Following this enervating moment the protest became scrappy and spread out as it moved up towards Trafalgar Square and along the strand. At several points the road along the strand was blocked, and both TopShop and Virgin Health were closed for a period. However eventually the now notorious TSG succeeded in cornering the remaining protesters at Chancery lane, and following futher disturbances on Holborn viaduct there are rumours of mass arrests. Once again the met, and TSG in particular displayed a tendency towards heavy handed over-reaction (photos of officers armed with machine guns are circulating on twitter) indicative of the instinctive panic that seems to greet anything but the most well regulated protests in the capital.

If the protest draws any mainstream press attention at all  – at time of writing this looks unlikely – it may well be dismissive of the low turnout.  On a rainy St. Patricks day motivating numbers was likely to be more difficult. However, the most important factor was probably the feeling that bill is now inevitable. 

Time after time during its passage through Parliament there have been opportunities for MPs and Lords to act in line with the campaign’s wishes – and those of the medical profession as well as much of the public – and drop the bill. The fact that they have persistently failed to do seems likely a pretty telling indication of how far the houses are responsive to direct displays of democracy. A protest which causes some disruption will draw some attention and may indicate depth of feeling to Parliament which could causes sufficient MPs and Lords to vote in a particular way, but it is a pretty weak and indirect mechanism.

Throughout, campaigners have been hamstrung by the fact that – unlike workfare – they have no direct way of intervening in the process. A parliamentary system basically hands the ruling party/s a borderline despotism for the term of their parliament and as we have seen, there is very little that outside protest can do to derail that process.

Posted by  |  March 19, 2012 | Categories: Uncategorized | Leave A Comment »

On the benefits of an Occupy eviction

In the midst of inevitable right-wing congratulation, and left-wing declarations of defiance it is worth reflecting briefly on the extent to which Occupy has really suffered from the High Court’s decision yesterday (Wednesday 18 January 2012) to grant the City of London Corporation the right to evict the protesters camped outside St Paul’s. In order to do so, let us ignore the potential success or failure of an appeal and consider a counter-factual.  Should Occupy have been granted permission to stay at outside St. Paul’s what would have been the result?

Having secured their residency against the immediate threat of eviction it would then have become incumbent upon Occupy to define a more positive program. As we have already said, it is all very well to stage a protest and issue slogans. However, without the threat of eviction – which made the camp itself a protest, statement and cause all in one – they would have been required to start working towards something more definite.

Potentially they would have succeeded. However, there is little in their actions or statements so far to imply that a serious and committed program would be easily forthcoming. Nor is this intended as a damning judgement. Till now the role of occupy has not been to provide a sustained and analytic critique, or a detailed roadmap for reform, but to express outrage.

Having considered this, it is perhaps to the movement’s advantage that their position as a cause célèbre has been legally established by the High Court. Occupy’s strength was never likely to be as a source of coherent political discourse. As a locus of spontaneous and energising action however it has the potential to throw up and motivate future movements, activists and even – perhaps ironically – leaders.

Of course this is not to say that a future eviction will, or should be welcomed by occupy protesters. It will be potentially violent; it may sweep away a standing rebuke to established – and many would say – compromised political structures and it reconfirms once again the subservience of the legal system to the concerns of capital and property. Nonetheless, it will provide the protest with a national platform again, and save them from having to answer some very difficult and not hugely productive questions.

Posted by  |  January 19, 2012 | Categories: Courts, Cuts, Democracy, Non-Violence, Occupy, Police, Protest | Tags: , , , , | Leave A Comment »

Helping make HMRC more honest is a good start, but UK Uncut hasn’t won the war yet

Today the front pages of numerous papers, including the right-wing cheerleaders the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, led with stories about HMRC’s questionable arrangements with large firms which allowed the likes of Goldman Sachs and Vodafone to get away with paying far less tax than they should have done.

The stories were the result of a report by the Commons Public Accounts committee, which drew attention to widespread failings in the way HMRC dealt with the large corporations it was meant to police. Read the rest of this page »

Posted by  |  December 20, 2011 | Categories: Daily Mail, Tax-avoidance, UKUncut | Leave A Comment »

Paternoster Square management secure ban on occupation of streets outside Goldman Sachs

The company which owns Paternoster Square secured last week a year-long injunction effectively banning protesters from setting up a camp in the passages outside the offices of Goldman Sachs near the London Stock Exchange in a bid to ensure Occupy London protesters do not move into the area.

Paternoster Square Management are understood to be concerned that the removal or relaxation of an injunction preventing public access to Paternoster Square could open up the area to occupation by protesters currently camped outside St Pauls.

The injunction was secured just days before the Occupy protesters outside St Pauls reportedly agreed to leave their camp.

The injunction, which was issued on December 13 by Justice Vos at the Royal Courts of Justice, covers streets around the Goldman Sachs building on Christchurch Court.

The injunction makes it a criminal offence to set up a protest camp on three streets surrounding the Goldman Sachs offices: Christchurch Court, Rose Street and White Hart Street.

Paternoster Square Management Limited initially secured a temporary 24 hour injunction on December 12 after Justice Vos asked them to produce further evidence to justify imposing the conditions.

Katharine Holland QC, representing Paternoster Square Management Limited, argued in court that the fact Goldman Sachs offices in Italy and New York had been targeted by the Occupy protest movements meant there was a risk of similar protests taking place in London.

However, no evidence to suggest that protesters were planning to target Goldman Sachs in London was presented.

Neither hearing was included on court lists made available to the public each day.

Goldman Sachs, though not named in the application for the injunction or represented at the hearing, was said to be happy for the square’s owners to seek the injunction.

The injunction runs until December 13 2012, but can be extended or cancelled by the court.

Posted by  |  December 18, 2011 | Categories: Occupy, Protest, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | Leave A Comment »

Unions and Occupy are complimentary movements

Wednesday’s strike is over. Teachers, hospital workers, civil servants and many others from the 2 million who turned out have returned to work.

None of the government’s predictions have come true. It was not a “damp squib”, it did not turn the public against the strikers (according to a range of polls if not perhaps Jeremy Clarkson), and it did not push our teetering economy any further towards the abyss.

What has it achieved?

The coalition appears no closer to reversing pension reforms or its gutting large parts of the public services. Just days ago the government announced new measures that will transfer funds from low-income families (many of whom will have sacrificed pay to turn out yesterday) to construction companies, commuters (often on above average salaries) and firms that decide to hire the young at anything above the minimum wage.

The strike is unlikely to change any of that. Few of those out on the march were likely to vote Conservative, or even Lib Dem, so why should the government care what they think?

Meanwhile, under the cover of the strike, around 200 activists from the Occupy the London Stock Exchange camp took their occupation a step further by occupying the London offices of Xstrata, a mining company that is headed by the FTSE 100′s top paid CEO, Mick Davies, who earned 18.4 million last year.

Their action did not last long; most activists were prevented from going inside and a handful detained inside. It was hardly noticed by the mainstream press, and it is hard to argue that it should have been given that 2 million had people walked out.

The Occupy LSX protests were in a way setting an example for the strikers. The Occupy movement has started to slip from public consciousness. Without constant action, the only thing that will bring cameras back to St Pauls will be the camp’s eviction. Regular stunts and further occupations are perhaps the most promising way of maintaining discussions about the movement, and therefore its goals.

Exactly the same can be said of the strikes. Just because the unions can cause huge disruption by calling on a far larger pool of supporters, doesn’t mean that causing disruption once a month will achieve anything.

What the unions need is regular actions, not necessarily on the scale of Wednesday’s march, and not necessarily by causing as much trouble for schools or hospitals, but regular, eye catching and well attended.

Because what Occupy LSX lack in numbers they try to make up for in dedication and ingenuity, something qualities which have so far been in short supply among the unions. Imagine what a combination of union strength and Occupy agility could achieve?

Posted by  |  December 5, 2011 | Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | Leave A Comment »

3 Reflections on Occupy London SX

It is now (Sunday 23 2011) just over a week since protestors and eager spectators occupied the square surrounding St. Paul’s cathedral joining a string of international demonstrations emulating the Wall Street occupation. There has been significant discussion of the movement: its aims (or lack thereof), justifications and chances of success. For what it is worth here are a series of reflections on the occupation – recently expanded to nearby Finsbury Square.

1 – Despite being its most famous example and most frequent hashtag, Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is of course not even the originator of the movement – for want of a better word. This is a truism. However it is worth pausing for a moment to consider why Occupy Wal Street has grabbed global imagination in a way that the tent cities in Tel Aviv, Madrid and even Tahrir Square did not. Occupy Wall street came after the indignados in Spain and the tent city protests in Israel and cannot even claim to have toppled a regime as Tahrir square can (there are serious questions to be asked about the extent to which lasting change has been secured in Egypt but there is not the space to discuss that here). However Occupy Wall Street took place among a media savvy population, in an iconic region of an iconic city. Regardless of the antecedence or achievements of predecessors there is a publicity punch attached to American protests in New York that others cannot match. Why is this important? It is indicative of the potential that this new wave of movements posses and of the limitations to that potential

2 – The intention of the movement is instinctively clear but the specific aims are fuzzy at best. This is probably not a serious problem. Last Sunday the protestors held a general assembly to agree on a mission statement for the occupation. Within a day it had been released to the press and was widely reported. The statement was exactly what those participating and observing the protest would have expected. There was discussion of economic justice, reclaiming democracy and creating a sustainable future. Exactly how the establishment of a tent city in EC4 would lead to these changes was not even discussed.

These two reflections lead on the third

3: This occupation cannot, by itself affect change and the belief that it will can only disillusion those who have been politicised by it. It is unclear how far those participating believe that the protest is an agent for change of itself. However in order to progress it is necessary to realise that it is simply a method of drawing attention to the issue at hand and demonstrating the popular support for (as yet undefined) measures to address it. The occupation will be successful if from it spring a host of conversations about radical change and tactics and if the national discourse is forced to join these conversations. The fact that it is a part of a global movement, that massive cultural + economic hubs like America are participating, and that even members of the traditional right seem sympathetic implies that the tent city is inline with the zeitgeist.

However the conversations themselves cannot be enough, people will have to start striking, voting, buying: acting in line with the aims of the movement if change is to be achieved. Mildly inconveniencing investment bankers on the way to work will not suffice. It will fail if, after however many weeks, the tents are eventually cleared and ten years from now Occupy London Stock Exchange is little more than a five minute segment in “I love 2011.”

Posted by  |  October 24, 2011 | Categories: Blockade, Democracy, Protest | Leave A Comment »

The Prosecution of Alfie Meadows is huge tactical misstep

Alfie Meadows was on trial yesterday, charged with violent disorder at a protest in which he had been hospitalised with brain damage after being beaten by the police. This move seems heavy handed at best, sinister and cynical at worst.  However it also seems strikingly ill-conceived. The move has won the Met widespread condemnation at a time when their reputation and good will among the public are already diminished.

The Police have undermined claims of fairness and proportionality through dark hints of increased violence if the Government did not protect them from the cuts facing the rest of the public sector.  The excessive and provocative violence witnessed at the demos at the end of 2010 will inevitably be viewed in this context.

On a more practical level, given the reduced resources available for policing both within the community and at major events, the police must rely more and more on the consent and cooperation of the public. The reservoir of good will on which these factors depend is greatly depleted by the prosecution of a man the Police themselves hospitalised.

Finally the move is a strategic misstep which has succeeded in producing a galvanised and united coalition intent on monitoring police behaviour and holding officers to account. Meadows and fellow protestor Bryan Simpson have set up the umbrella organisation ‘Defend the Right to Protest’ which protested outside the court on Thursday.  Jody Macintyre the activist who was prominently dragged from his wheelchair in front of the cameras has also become involved as have UKUncut, members of which were arrested after being deliberately misled on the 26th March TUC demonstration.

The overall impression is of a vindictive and petty force intent on penalising those who inflict upon it unwelcome scrutiny.  Even if the logic of the Met’s  action is to dissuade others from protest or dissent, it seems to have scored a stunning own goal succeeding only in creating a new cause celebre and brand new movement to do just that.

Posted by  |  June 10, 2011 | Categories: Civil Liberties, Cuts, Democracy, Fees, Marches, Police, Protest, Riots, Students, TSG, UKUncut, Unions | Leave A Comment »

Rally Against Debt shouldn’t be underestimated despite poor turnout

Around 300 demonstrators gathered opposite Parliament today for a “Rally against Debt”. The protest is intended to encourage the government to cut public spending further and faster in the name of fiscal responsibility.  The event was largely organised by the Tax Payers Alliance, and featured their Director Mathew Sinclair as well as representatives from rightwing think tank The Institute for Economic Affairs, as well as UKIP leader Nigel Farrage.

Speeches were marked by a denial that any real cuts to public spending had occurred and a repeated insistence that public debt was an irresponsible burden upon future generations. Of course this is the same line followed by the government, however members of the public carried placards and banners which criticised the government for what they considered to be its overly lax fiscal plans. Of course far more ire was directed at the previous government for creating what one speaker called “a morbidly obese state”.

There is an obvious temptation to sneer at such low turnout – organisers had been expecting around 1,000 – and dismiss the group as cranks. Some of the attendees where clearly from the more eccentric end of the right-wing spectrum, one woman was handing out fliers calling for the end of all credit systems and a return to a purely cash based economy.  Some may also question the necessity of protest in support of an on-going process.

Nonetheless, the group – who have been styled in the press as a UK tea party – have the potential to offer the government an aura of credibility for its agenda. By providing vocal criticism from the right they provide the appearance of public pressure to which the government can then seem to be responding. The BBC has already devoted news time to covering the demonstration, for instance; an almost unprecedented move that would certainly not be extended for left-wing protests of a similar size. For this to be effective, they will require a more representative looking group than those assembled today of course, who were overwhelmingly white, and certainly appeared affluent.

Posted by  |  May 15, 2011 | Categories: Uncategorized | Leave A Comment »

Defending our right to protest is an urgent necessity

A range of activist groups, trades unions and MPs have called for an end to “political policing”. ‘Defend Our Right to Protest’ made the call in the wake of a series of violent clashes between police and protesters and particularly the pre-emptive arrests of people in fancy dress in the run up to the royal wedding.  Police tactics in the last few months – if not the last few years – have often been extremely violent, a trend they hinted at late last year, in dire warnings about their likely response to the cuts backlash. They have often also appeared deeply cynical and politically motivated. The arrest of the “Fortnum & Masons’ 140 and the charges brought against Alfie Meadows, who suffered brain damage after being attacked by police at a demonstration in December, are just two recent examples of this.

The actions of the police force come as a stark warning against complacency about the democratic credentials proudly proclaimed as the “British way of life”.  This is a way of life maintained by a noisy and active civil society rather than the passionate instincts of the establishment. Critics of the Met are often told to feel grateful that they do not live in countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia where the police and security forces are given much freer reign to impose their authority according to their whim. Political expression is certainly freer in the UK than in these regimes, where there is little pretence that the police operate other than to protect the state against those citizens who wish to change it. What they seem to miss, is the fact that even to make such a comparison is an alarming sign of itself. The whole point about such boasting is that the UK prides itself upon its respect for freedoms of speech and expression; it should go without saying that it therefore has a better track record than the theocratic despotism of Saudi Arabia.

That the police are, comparatively, restrained in the exercise of their power is no justification for the increasing clamp down on our right to protest, or the increasingly open politicisation of police tactics. More importantly, the majority of the freedoms we do have were won and maintained through active and vocal protest from a variety of groups, chartists, suffragettes, feminists, trades unions and Brixton rioters rather than generous gifts from a benevolent state. Finally there is no absolute measure of democracy which a nation can either attain or not, democracy is the sum total of whole sweep of rights and freedoms, the right to protest being one of the most important, any incursion on these is a restriction of our democracy regardless how liberal the state may proclaim itself to be.

Posted by  |  May 11, 2011 | Categories: Uncategorized | Leave A Comment »

Pre-royal wedding raid on Heathrow camp makes little sense

Of the raids carried out by police the day before the royal wedding, one stood out as particularly strange. As well as squats in Camberwell and Hackney, the Met also chose last Thursday to visit a camp in Sipson near Heathrow airport called Transition Heathrow.

Transition Heathrow stands out because the camp has so little obvious relation to the royal wedding or the protests that have recently caught police attention. The camp is a “transition town”, where the occupants grow their own produce and try to live a carbon free life. It is in part a protest against the proposed building of a third runway at Heathrow, and was born out of many of direct action climate campaigns that have provided some of the most high profile protest in the UK. However, it is also an attempt to provide an example of living differently. By all accounts Transition Heathrow is on friendly terms with its neighbours

Used with permission from Transition Heathrow

, and the camp also has the support of local MP John McDonnell.

Yet on Thursday 28 April, at roughly 7:15, around 40 TSG officers turned up at Transition Heathrow. While 20 of the Met special operations unit battered in the front door, the rest scaled a rear wall. People were woken and the place was searched. Two members of the camp were detained, one cuffed, it seems because they were too slow in getting up.

According to those at the camp, the police warrant said they were looking for items to be used for criminal damage. They didn’t find any, and after a couple of hours the police left having made no arrests.

The targeting of Transition Heathrow seems to back up the police claims that timing of the raids had nothing to do with the royal wedding. Yet it is strange that police would choose to target this location just 24 hours before their biggest operation in years. McDonnell is among the MPs who have questioned the raids in parliament, saying they appeared to be some form of “pre-emptive strike”.

Transition Heathrow resident Joe Rake, 20, says the raid was “pretty bizarre”, and that those living at the camp are “completely baffled about why they chose to raid a community garden”.

However, he says the timing suggests there must be some connection between the raid and the royal nuptials, whether police thought something was being planned at the camp, or were merely using the event as an excuse.

“It’s got to be about the royal wedding, but no one here was talking about the wedding at all before the raid.”

“It was completely disproportionate…yet another example of political persecution.”

Why did the police decide to target an entirely peaceful movement campaigning about the climate? Raids and arrests on protesters planning to make a point while William and Kate got married may be  worrying from a civil liberties perspective, but at least they appear to follow some logic. The raid on Sipson suggests that either police intelligence is lacking, or that in the current climate even the mildest signs of dissent are liable to invite police harassment.

Posted by  |  May 2, 2011 | Categories: Civil Liberties, Climate Change, TSG | Tags: , , , , | Leave A Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.