Depending on what finally comes to light over the man’s death, there’s an outside chance some order-obeying grunt cop will get done over this. Pretty unlikely, given the de Menezies outcome, but possible. However, the only institutional change I can see making a difference is some of the top cops of the day getting reprimanded. Losing their rank, getting suspended or something. Which is of course not going to happen.

Here’s where I should suggest we all start attending lots more demonstrations. However, to be honest I hardly ever go to things like that myself any more, so I’m hardly practising what I preach. But I do think that the kettling tactic becomes unworkable once the crowd gets over a certain size, imagine if they’d tried it at one of the big anti-war demos, there’s not enough cops in the country. One of the aims of kettling is of course to deter people going on such things, by making them feel threatened and disempowered, which is so far working reasonably well. But kettling is also entirely reliant on that being the outcome, if it were to galvanize attendance the result would be quite different.

As for the institutional component of this, I have no doubt at all that you’re right,. I hadn’t, however, read enough reports to be sure of it in this particular case…

Just in case you had any lingering doubts…

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2009/04//426087.mp4

I remember just after the Menezes shooting I was arguing in LJ comments that it would be thoroughly investigated and that anyone who had done anything wrong would be in serious trouble. Subsequent events proved me completely wrong.

I don’t know that the solution might be. The Freedom Bill is better than what the big two are giving us but it still looks like a half-hearted compromise that will just give us slightly less of a police state.

If only George Cowley was real…

As for the institutional component of this, I have no doubt at all that you’re right,. I hadn’t, however, read enough reports to be sure of it in this particular case (I’ve only browsed a couple of things, having no home net access for much of the week and all sorts of stuff going on that means I’ve not kept up with the news as much as I’d like). The problem appears to be threefold – an organisation that sees dissent as dangerous and is unworried about abusing its power, laws that give that organisation free rein, and individuals within that organisation who take that as a literal license to kill.

I’m not so naive as to think that legislation can fix systemic problems within the police, or to think that the police would never overstep the boundaries that are set for them – I grew up in the 80s, and remember the SPG, the West Midlands police fitting people up left, right and centre, the shoot-to-kill policies and James Anderton.

But while the police will overstep whatever boundariess are set for them, the tighter the boundaries the less damage will be caused by the overstepping…

While of course this is true, I feel it misses the point. At the G20 and so many other recent protests the way the Police’s draconian response was systematic. Lines of Police waded into the Climate Camp, for example, clearly under orders to do so. This isn’t a matter of ‘a few bad apples’, or if it is the apples are right at the top of the tree. One of the more sinister elements of this, which hasn’t received nearly enough attention, is that to be allowed out of the cordon people were compelled to give their name and address. The Police have absolutely no legal right to demand this unless they’re arresting you, yet this abuse of power is all too common.

They’ve been talking in the papers about how they’re expecting a ‘Summer of Rage’ in 2009, and we all know that that sort of thing is liable to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Sometimes yes, but also it’s Win/Win for the Police. If major disorder were to break out, they can simply say they told us so. If it doesn’t, they can claim this to be evidence of the marvellous job they’re doing. A cynical soul might point out that the public sector is in general facing cutbacks, and the Police need to talk up an exception case for themselves…

We need, desperately, to find a real electoral alternative to the current repression…

Perhaps we should agree to disagree there, in the interests of brevity!

I think the best way to do this is to rally round the Lib Dems’ Freedom Bill, but ensure it’s not seen as a purely partisan effort. It doesn’t go anything like far enough, but it’s a good start

I don’t see how this follows. In America the Constitution theoretically enshrines basic freedoms like the right of assembly but the Police are even more draconian than those here. There the Police’s response to demonstrations has been to corral the crowd inside a (normally far too-small) ‘free speech zone’. Anyone stepping outside the zone is arrested. Comments that America itself should be considered a free speech zone have left them unmoved.

What normally happens over protests and demons is that whatever proves useful for the protestors eventually gets declared illegal, and whatever proves useful for the Police similarly gets enshrined into law. When Police first started extensive surveillance of protestors, people began to disguise their identity. This was made illegal. (Theoretically the Police have to apply for an order for this beforehand, but of course they pretty much use the power sweepingly.) The Police were seizing protestor’s cameras at events in Brighton long before the law was passed allowing them to do it. As the old saying goes: ”Laws are cobwebs for the rich, and chains of steel for the poor.”