Article
A successful policing operation which was still collectively smeared
Officers on duty at the weekly Gaza War protests would welcome some 'without fear or favour' journalism writes Chris Hobbs.
If officers on duty at the latest pro-Palestinian, pro-Israel protest and counter-protest yesterday, expected to wake up to media approbation in respect of a relatively trouble-free day, they were to be disappointed.
After a week of police denigrating headlines in its sister paper the Daily Mail, officers woke up to this headline in the Mail on Sunday which instantly sparked a storm across social media.
To state the blindingly obvious, this particular protest ended with a mass rally in Hyde Park and the Holocaust memorial in question is in Hyde Park, therefore prudent crime prevention would perhaps suggest that additional precautions were necessary.
Over recent weeks we have seen guerilla action, away from the protests, by groups such as Palestinian Action and Youth Demand which has involved in the daubing with red paint; one example being the Ministry of Defence. Since the crisis began this very vulnerable and indeed sacrosanct memorial has remained untouched. Sadly, the current publicity could perhaps attract one or more loathsome individuals to carry out an attack knowing the divisive furore such an attack would cause.
At the top of the Mail’s headline is a reference to the incident some two weeks previously where a highly respected Met sergeant was involved in a confrontation with an individual who, as Jewish and wearing a kippah (skull-cap), demanded the right to walk amongst pro-Palestinian protesters. A clip appeared on social media but that was superseded by Sky News commendably showing a much fuller version of the encounter which considerably changed the narrative and resulted in Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, praising his officer.
This individual’s organisation then stated that they had recruited 1,500 individuals, to exercise their right to be free to walk where they wished on the street of London. This ‘right’ includes walking amongst rival pro-Palestinian demonstrators during yet another national march in London.
This clearly sent a shudder through the Met’s public order branch and would have called into question the eminently sensible tactic, backed-up by the Public Order Act, of keeping rival groups apart regardless of whether the event is a football match or a political demonstration.
Interestingly the highly respected Jewish security group; the Community Safety Trust (CST), issued a statement which acknowledged the difficulties faced by the Met and approved the tactic of ‘segregating,’ rival groups. It also expressed the organisation’s disapproval of ‘hate’ marches.
It may have been this statement that prompted the announcement that the 1,500 ‘we’ll walk where we like’ protesters would stand down but the last few lines appeared ambiguous and there was still concern that some would still take to the streets thus triggering a potentially difficult situation for officers. This would explain the precaution of ensuring that officers were properly equipped and thus ‘kitted,’ appropriately.
The Mail however failed to mention this potentially explosive, ‘mingle and walk amongst rival’s tactic.’ They simply said that a march was called off due to the concerns for the safety of the participants.
The pro-Palestinian protesters gathered in Parliament Square before setting off along Whitehall towards their ultimate destination of Hyde Park. I kept ahead of the march and quickened my pace as around Trafalgar Square in the distance, I saw Cross of St. George flags which I thought might indicate the presence of unauthorised counter-protesters. Meanwhile I was unaware that behind me, there was a short scuffle which resulted in two arrests. These individuals were apparently linked to a pro-Iranian royalist group who are against the Iranian regime and thus support Israel,
Meanwhile, at Trafalgar Square, it became clear that the above-mentioned flags were part of a ULEZ protest which was very much focused on London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan; chants of ‘get Khan out,’ were prevalent and I wondered how the two groups would react to each other as the march passed the ULEZ/Khan protest. There were only a handful of police in the area although others were escorting the march.
In actual fact, whoever compiled the risk assessment had clearly been spot on. The main reaction of both groups was purely one of mutual curiosity although there were one or two insults shouted from the ULEZ side.
It was but a short walk along Cockspur Street beyond which the counter-protest was located. As previously stated, the pro-Israeli contingent was situated behind steel barriers. There was then a sterile area occupied by police, photographers and journalists, before a second line of barriers prevented any incursions by pro-Palestinians and guided them in the direction of Hyde Park.
It was during this short walk that the familiar face of the pro-Israeli Iranian dissident appeared amidst those at the front of the pro-Palestinian march holding up his placard inscribed with the words; ‘Hamas are terrorist.’ He was soon reunited with an equally familiar figure; namely the police liaison officer who has dealt with him on several occasions and with whom he must now be on familiar terms.
At the counter-protest site, pro-Palestinian’s unfurled a very long banner which meant that for the first part of this contentious area, neither side could actually see each other; a fact that was welcomed by officers.
When protesters were able to see each other, insults were exchanged as is usual at these events. The companion of the above-mentioned Iranian male appeared on the wrong side of the barrier clutching a similar ‘Hamas are terrorist,’ placard. It took some time for officers to persuade him to move to the other side of the barrier, but eventually he complied.
A small number of pro-Israeli counter-protesters managed to move from their own designated area to the next line of barriers thus they were within hailing distance of the pro-Palestinian marchers. Insults again were exchanged and one term flung across the barriers by both sides was, ‘baby killers.’
I did hear a female who was standing in the sterile area filming passing protesters complain that one of the insults directed at her, included the term ‘Auschwitz.’ During the same period, police went amongst the marchers to instruct one of their number to remove his mask as the Section 60AA regulation had been introduced. He refused and was arrested.
After what was timed as a period of an hour and twenty minutes, the march had passed by. Those participating in the counter-protest sang the Israeli national anthem followed by God save the King. Then a serial of officers ‘marched’ past the pro-Israeli counter-protesters and were greeted with a round of applause.
I returned briefly the Trafalgar Square where the ULEZ protest had concluded and, by the National Gallery, there was a small but powerful, unpoliced protest against the Iranian regime complete with pictures of those who had allegedly been killed at their hands.
It was then a short journey to Hyde Park where numerous police carriers were parked at both Wellington Arch and Marble Arch. In fact, the rally was just closing with the ‘compere,’ announcing that the next national demonstration will be on Saturday the 18th of May. Most streamed away from the park but around 200 stayed and indulged in a ‘chant-fest,’ complete with drums.
Conditions imposed by the Met stated that events must finish at 5pm. At 4.56, the ‘music’ stopped and an announcement was made thanking everyone for their attendance. Most drifted away; a few stood around in small groups chatting. The police control (GT) could now begin dismissing serials of officers after what appeared to be a job well-done.
Oppressed opposition and the Met ‘taking sides’
On Sunday, in the aftermath of Saturday’s events and in the wake of the Mail on Sunday’s front page, a former police superintendent accused Sir Mark Rowley and ‘Rowley’s robots,’ of ‘oppressing,’ any opposition to these marches. He went on to say that that the Met had ‘chosen a side.’
In fact, the first sign of ‘street opposition’ from those who are primarily Jewish and actively support Israel came on the 9th of March when a small group materialised close to the route of a pro-Palestinian march that ended adjacent to the US Embassy at Nine Elms.
The first formal counter-protest by those supporting Israel took place on the 30th of March when the organisers agreed with police that they would conduct a static protest close to Waterloo Bridge which was on the route of the march. As the march passed, insults were exchanged but stewards generally kept the march moving past the noisy but well- ordered pro-Israel counter protest. This, however, saw one of the more unpleasant incidents when an extremely powerfully built man appeared to go berserk and hurled himself at the police cordon which was placed in front of the counter-protesters.
It took a number of officers to restrain him and he was duly arrested and led away in handcuffs.
The ‘oppressed’ pro-Israeli opposition also opted to stage a protest on the route of the pro-Palestinian Al Quds Day march. Despite the fact that police had, according to the ex-Superintendent ‘chosen sides,’ the organisers became extremely hostile to officers who stopped a car flying a Palestinian flag. Unfortunately, actionable posters featuring Hitler and cannabis were found and the driver was duly arrested.
The pro-Israel opposition were gathered in Parliament Square and steel barriers and police serials were in place. As previously stated, there was an exchange of insults and the stewarding was not of such a high standard but there were no major incidents other than a situation which was to be significant in relation to the episode involving the Met Police sergeant.
Despite the allegation that opposition to the Palestinian cause has been ‘oppressed’ further pro-Israel protests have taken place with, as stated, the last one on Saturday seeing applause for police from pro-Israeli counter-protesters.
‘We’re not far right, we’re just right’
So, what of the other counter-protests that have been ‘oppressed.’ During the first major protest, which involved pro-Palestinian protesters marching down Whitehall to Parliament Square, a small group waving Union and St. George flags ‘defended,’ the Cenotaph from passing marchers. They were protected by a small number of police. Insults were exchanged, but most marchers, encouraged by stewards, simply ignored what was occurring and continued onwards. There were a couple of very minor scuffles but nothing more.
The ‘oppressed,’ opposition to these marches, consisting mainly of ‘football lads’ turned up in considerable strength in Whitehall on November the 11th again to ‘protect the Cenotaph.’ Fighting with police took place before the appointed hour of 11am. Later, one group tried to attack the large pro-Palestinian march as it crossed Vauxhall Bridge towards Nine Elms but were thwarted by police amidst scenes of disorder.
Another group threw missiles at police in Soho, while a third remained in Parliament square and periodically fought with police. As darkness fell, those who’d been participating in the pro-Palestinian march passed through Parliament Square unaware of the situation. Police had to run to intervene on numerous occasions as young girls with Palestinian flags were abused and even attacked with flags being snatched. The term f*cking P*ki could frequently be heard.
Recently there have been two small protests by a group who state they are not ‘far-right,’ but have been defined as such by those on the left. None posed a significant problem; the second occurred when there was a large pro-Palestinian rally in Parliament Square but other than challenges to debate with passing pro-Palestinians, there were no issues.
Those placards
There was also a comment from the ex-Superintendent concerning Met ripping a placard from somebody’s grasp. This is a refence to the two individuals mentioned above. Omitted is the fact that the two individuals concerned produce the placards when in the midst of pro-Palestinian marchers as if inviting a reaction and attack. In order to prevent harm, officers will normally move those individuals away from the march to a place of relative safety where they can continue to display their placard to those with polar opposite views.
There can however be no doubt that some of the Jewish community feel unease and threatened by current events. Guerilla tactics by splinter groups will add to that unease and I had a lengthy exchange with a Jewish activist via ‘X’s DM service that explained how and why many are concerned.
It will of course be pointed out that there is a significant Jewish ‘bloc’ presence on these marches who are welcomed and don’t suffer intimidation because of their religion.
All should be able to enjoy the ‘freedom’ of being able to walk where they wish in London’s public spaces. However, such freedoms have their limits. Those with opposing views sometimes have to be segregated from each other.
Those criticising police for curbing the ‘freedom to walk,’ during pro-Palestinian events should remember that at pro-Israel events, those with pro-Palestinian views were not given the freedom to walk as they wished and police duly intervened to remove or arrest.
The fact is that before Christmas, these marches ‘scored,’ on a disorder scale (albeit mine) of 1 to 10, somewhere between a three and a four due, in the main to groups of youths who occasionally threw fireworks.
Since the beginning of 2024, many of those youths appear to have lost interest and the disorder scale barely reaches a 2. Unlike in 2021 and apart from the first protest immediately after the 7th of October, police haven’t come under attack from missiles and the worst they have to suffer are chants of ‘let him/her go,’ or ‘shame on you,’ if the crowd witnesses an arrest and yes, contrary to far-right folklore, there are arrests.
In addition to the ex-Met superintendent, there are others who suggest that the Met have effectively taken sides and are ‘soft’ in respect of the pro-Palestinians hence the current phrase favoured by those on the right of ‘two tier policing.’
Finally, the ex-superintendent was totally correct when he spoke about the huge strain on police resources caused by these marches which inevitably has an impact in terms of policing the streets of London.
It’s interesting to note, therefore, the extract which can be seen in a public letter from the Islamic Human Rights Commission to the Met Commissioner concerning the above mentioned ‘Al-Quds day.’ which states; “The Metropolitan Police has regularly abused its legal powers to harass pro-Palestine protestors, especially since pro-Palestine protests have proliferated since last October.”
The letter goes on to suggest that the Met’s ‘harassment,’ is due to their responding to ‘pro-Israeli’ politicians and a hostile media and it then accuses the Met of illicit arrests which have failed in court.
Some may say that balance is as it should be and illustrates the fact that the Met polices without fear or favour. I suspect that the Met’s front line would simply be grateful for some ‘without fear or favour,’ journalism.
Chris Hobbs is a former Special Branch officers who follows big public order events as an observer for Police Oracle.
Category: OpsPublic Order
Advertisement
Job of the week
Communications Data Investigator
- National Crime Agency
- Warrington, Birmingham, London
- £41,347 + 20% shift allowance + £3,847.00 for roles based in London
Communications Data (CD) underpins virtually every element of modern life. It is about who we communicate with, how those communications takes place, when they happened and where we were at the time. The need for criminals to communicate means that the requirement for CD and its subsequent analysis underpins all the NCA’s operational activity, as such the demand for CD is increasing. As technology evolves, the complexity of Communications Data is increasing. The role of a Communications Data Investigator Unit (CDIU) Single Point Of Contact (SPOC) is pivotal in all NCA intelligence developments and investigations and can create huge opportunities for the Agency.
Read more