Viewpoint: another edition, yet another attack on police

Chris Hobbs takes issues with the Mail on Sunday's editorial attacks on the police.

So, just a month after it’s sensationalist headlines in relation to the ‘persecution’ of a grandma by Greater Manchester ‘thought’ police that caused an eruption on social media, the Mail were at it again.

On Sunday, it was the Met who were in the newspaper’s sights with a confusing account which appears to suggest that during the Whitehall Black Lives Matter protest back in 2020, armed police guarding Downing Street were ordered to leave their posts so as not to antagonise the violent crowd.

The front page clearly states that the armed police were ‘taken away from Downing Street’ because of the riot. It also states that police chiefs were frightened that the crowd might grab officer’s firearms.

Police officers will remember with a shudder, the sight of a female officer being seriously injured when she came off her horse during the disorder. The Mail refers to this and the fact that the officer is apparently subsequently suing the Met. However, it also states that the basis for her claim is that her injuries were partly the result of the ‘withdrawal of the armed police guard’ which contributed to the level of disorder.

Throughout the article there seems to be an implication that armed police are stationed on the public side of the gates. The confusion isn’t helped by a quote, if accurate, from the Met’s barrister who is alleged to have suggested that there was ‘concern that protesters might attempt to get into Downing Street.’ He went on to say that there was ‘a risk of discharge’ or that rioters might ‘overcome an armed officer.’

So is the Mail saying that with an angry mob at the gates of Downing Street armed police had been ‘stood down’ leaving the world- famous street and the staff who work there at the mercy of the rioters?

Needless to say, quotes deploring the Met’s ‘surrender,’ were obtained from several politicians from the right of the Conservative party, including, surprisingly Tobias Elwood.

Armed police and Downing Street

Although I wasn’t present at this riot due to the fact I was obeying Lockdown regulations, I have, since 2018, having attended numerous protests close to and at the gates of Downing Street.  I’ve never seen armed officers on the public side of the Downing Street gates other than when they are proceeding to and from that place of duty. They certainly wouldn’t mingle with potentially violent crowds when carrying firearms, unless there was a specific operational reason such as an active terror incident.

Where a protest is contentious, a line of steel barriers is placed along the footway in front of the Downing Street Gates. Behind that line of steel barrier, a cordon of ‘unarmed’ officers is deployed as, effectively, a second line of defence. Behind those officers are the Downing Street Gates which will, to state the obvious, possess numerous security features. Behind those gates are ‘visibly armed’ Parliamentary and Diplomatic Police (PaDP) officers complete with semi-automatic weaponry. These features are all visible to the public and, again to state the blindingly obvious, there will be other features that are not.

Clearly, during a protest or other incident that occurs within the vicinity of Downing Street, this will attract the professional interest of the armed officers who, if the event becomes violent, will be concerned for the safety of their unarmed colleagues. However, those officers will have to content themselves with simply watching events unfold.

Out of range

It may be that the officers forming the cordon between the steel barriers and the gates, will have to withdrew if the attacks become sustained and especially violent. Could it be that, at some stage during the BLM riot in question it was these unarmed officers that were withdrawn for their own safety due to the levels of violence directed at officers?

In any event, when protests at the gates of Downing Street become unduly violent, the PaDP officers may be instructed to pull back for a short distance so as to be out of missile throwing range.

The Mail’s editorial on the subject states that ‘police were ordered to abandon the gates of Downing Street,’ thus creating the image that this high security area was denuded of armed officers and left to its fate. The headline to the newspaper’s editorial was as follows;’ If armed officers can’t do their job properly, why have them at all?’

The Met’s response was brief and stated that ‘Downing Street remained fully protected by armed officers throughout.’

Of course, any major newspaper publishing a police denigration feature against police will sprinkle it with criticism from various quarters and examples of previous police ‘misdeeds.’ Any brief response from the force will inevitably be buried amidst other examples of police transgressions.

A picture of officers ‘taking the knee’ to illustrate woke, weak policing was perhaps an almost inevitable feature of the Mail’s diatribe against police and is frequently replicated on far-right social media. The fact that there was no wholesale ‘knee plunging’ by UK police officers with those making the gesture numbering between 30 and 40 out of the 130,000 serving at the time is ignored, as is the fact that ‘taking the knee’ by officers totally ceased after the aforementioned Whitehall riot.

It perhaps will come as little surprise to those in the police community that during the pandemic, the Mail was one of several media outlets that were trawling around for stories which would denigrate police. This was during a period that, along with other 999 and essential services, front line officers would be at increased risk from Covid. They also had to endure attempting to enforce ever-changing, confusing regulations and were frequently subjected to assaults which included being spat at and coughed on.

MP’s, columnists and ‘retreat not an option’

One Tory MP responded to the Mail by contrasting the Met’s ‘withdrawal’ to the ‘heavy handed,’ policing of the Sarah Everard vigil. He conveniently forgot that the subsequent inquiry by the  Inspectorate virtually exonerated the Met. He also clearly hadn’t watched the Sky News account of events or viewed the ‘timeline video,’ by anti-racist activist Marc Lister. No mention either of the fact that there were no hospital admissions and only one female ended up in a police custody suite.

Another columnist, doubtless invited by the Mail to air his views stated that ‘when police are faced with a rioting mob, retreat should not be an option.’ The absurdity of this comment almost defies belief and when criticism of police abounded after the Harefield Riot, police critics were countered by reference to the tragic case of PC Keith Blakelock during the 1985 Tottenham riot. Certainly, I remember retreating in the Southall riot of 1981 when we were faced with overwhelming numbers of missile throwing rioters and 97 officers were injured. Those injured included myself, knocked out by a brick.

Another interpretation of the absurd quote above is that armed police such as the one pictured should be prepared to engage in ‘hand to hand’ fighting with mobs of rioters be they Black Lives Matter or far-right.

Police officers are used to headlines hostile to police emanating from the Mail. On one occasion, the paper, via, its cartoonist, accused police of cowardice.

Images such as this will do little for public confidence in the Met in particular and British policing in general. Calling out wrongdoing by individual officers and units is totally justified but we have moved from this to ‘collective smearing’ where headlines denigrate all rank- and- file front-line officers.

Chris Hobbs is a former Special Branch officer who follows public order events for Police Oracle.

 

Category: Public Order