The Sacrificial Van

Whoever was in charge of the police tactics used at yesterday's student protest in Central London must be having a satisfied chuckle this morning. Every part of their plan worked.

However they may stand on the righteousness of the students' cause, members of the media are unanimous in their depictions of the mindless violence carried out by the 'trouble-makers' who they tell us were responsible for hijacking the event.

The main focus of this attention is the police van which was vandalised on live television. Foolish as it was of the students to attack this vehicle, we really ought to recognise the extent to which this formed the backbone of the police's plan.

This was no ordinary van... it was a sacrificial van which had been placed in a vulnerable position to draw the students into an act of criminality which would ensure that the media supplied a damning verdict of the students' motives and the police themselves could justify the suspension of the civil rights of everyone caught within the enforcement zone that they created through the controversial tactic known as 'kettling'.

The police had already trapped around a thousand or so protesters at the Parliament Square end of Whitehall when, without warning, they formed a line and closed ranks to prevent any of the students from leaving the scene. This was done without any provocation from the protesters (unless good natured chanting is now seen to be beyond the pale). There was no attempt to breach the police lines and the crowd largely accepted their temporary imprisonment inside the enforcement zone without much visible anger.

Latecomers continued to drift to the protest but they were not allowed into the enforcement zone and the police appeared content to allow them to vent their anger without any heavy-handed intervention. Any fears about police brutality appeared misguided and unfair.

Then it changed. A command came through the radio and the police formed a second line behind the newcomers. The first zone had been established by police officers who appeared to recognise that not everyone was there to cause trouble. They allowed tourists to slip through their lines and their approach was, under the circumstances, admirably restrained.

Not so the second line. Responding to shouted militaristic orders, they removed their caps and normal helmets in unison and replaced them with the riot headgear that instantly transforms their appearance from that of police and into that of paramilitaries. Around half of the line pulled riot batons from holsters and began aggressively slapping them into their free hands as they advanced forward.

I witnessed two tearful students pleading to be let through the police lines. They were angrily told that they were being held for their own protection. A baffling claim as there was absolutely nothing going on behind the second police line. Another woman was told that she should make her way to the other end of the cordon where people were being allowed into Westminster Underground Station. Not remotely true... the entrances to the station were well beyond the limits of the enforcement zone.

This second front began to advance down aggressively down Whitehall driving protesters towards the other containment zone. Only the media was allowed through the line.

This occurred at a point in the afternoon when the students' frustration at not being allowed to progress beyond Whitehall was leading to a natural and peaceful dispersement of the crowd and it seemed an inexplicably counter-productive by the police.

I had already noticed the isolated police van that sat in the middle of Whitehall and it was immediately obvious that it was likely to be subjected to the protesters' frustration if the situation deteriorated. The police's action guaranteed this.

What's most worrying about this tactic is the way in which it politicises the police's actions. They have participated in a deliberate propaganda exercise designed to undermine the students' cause.

Politicians are queueing up to condemn the actions of those whose violence was so lurid on last night's news (naturally, the police ensured that their sacrificial van was placed in a position which guaranteed that it's destruction would be caught by the full glare of the national media).

It's worth noting that the police also drove the students towards the Cenotaph which was surrounded by highly flammable wreaths of paper poppies. The police made no attempt to protect this sacred monument and it seems probable that a decision was taken to allow a desecration to take place to score propaganda points rather than to ensure its sanctity. Thankfully the students didn't bite and the Cenotaph was untouched by the mayhem that surrounded it but there was no recognition of this restraint in the media.

If this event was really overrun by anarchists and other sinister elements from the extreme left, why did they forego the opportunity to attack such a potent symbol of the glorious ritualisation of warfare under such extreme provocation?

Having already spoken to a few people about what I witnessed yesterday, I already know how reluctant we can be to believe that the police would participate in such a cynical exercise but this a dangerously complacent attitude.

I Defend A Riot

There appears to be very little variation in the approach adopted by political commentators writing about last week's student demonstrations in London. While opinions vary on the legitimacy of the students' grievances, there's a remarkable level of unanimity when it comes to the invasion of the Conservative Party's Headquarters. Almost without exception, commentators have told us that an otherwise peaceful protest was undermined by hardcore activists from the extreme left.

Is this a fair description of what happened and can it really be said that the escalation of the protest was against the interests of the majority of those protesting? In fact, it's very clear that the protest received considerably more coverage than it would have done if it had all passed off peacefully. And even though almost all of the coverage was negative, viewers can have been left in doubt of the passions that have been aroused by the trebling of tuition fees.

Our right to protest is regarded by many to be proof of the healthiness of our democracy but can this really be true when marches have been neutered by an acceptance by those protesting that they must liaise with the police and follow a series of carefully constructed guidelines to stay on the right side of the law?

Protesting is, by its nature, an inherently anti-establishment act so it's counter-productive to bring it within the mainstream of political expression.

By co-operating with the police and ensuring that all the appropriate permissions are sought, it's now possible for thousands of people to march through one of our major cities without so much as a provocative shout emanating from the crowd, never mind a brick.

The broadcast media will offer the event a little bit of coverage on their news bulletins, the Government can satisfy itself that it is a properly democratic institution because it has permitted this heavily sedated dissent and then... well, nothing. The lack of passion on display will persuade no one of the righteousness of the cause no matter how many are marching because the impact is destroyed by adherence to all the regulations.

Did the government plan this? Almost certainly not but they benefit from it nonetheless. Not only do these neutered protests enable the authorities to claim that they're tolerant of dissent but they can also contrast the behaviour of those who abide by the rules with those who don't. This gives them licence to demonise the latter and question their motives.

They are aided and abetted in this by the media who, in the case of the students who broke into Tory HQ, have dusted off pejoratives such as 'Trots' to emphasise the idea that dark figures infiltrated the protest as a cloak for their sinister political agenda.

This is a far-fetched accusation. It seems much more likely that some of the students felt so frustrated by the neutered nature of the legitimate protest that they felt the need to break free of its shackles. What happened next was, in all likelihood, pretty spontaneous. And a glimpse at the footage appears to confirm this. The students attacking the building on Millbank look quite surprised that they meet such feeble resistance and this, more than anything, appeared to encourage them to push their luck.

But surely the biggest irony is the fact that it worked. A story about a student protest that would have garnered very little media interest became a major story. Even though the coverage was very negative, the audience cannot have failed to note the anger of those taking part even if they were tutting their disapproval as they watched.

So the students who disavowed the behaviour of those who smashed windows should think again. Without the vandalism, this march would barely have registered on the national consciousness.

A line needs to be drawn between those who damaged property and the actions of one individual who hurled a fire extinguisher from a roof with wonton disregard for the welfare of those on the ground below. Any action which risks injury to others cannot be seen in the same light as actions which risk injury to those taking part or damage to property. If the fire extinguisher incident happened in the way it's been described then it ought to be roundly condemned. Having said that, a charge of 'attempted murder' is several leagues over the top... something akin to 'reckless endangerment' appears far more appropriate.

The key lesson that can be drawn from all of this is that protests need to step outside the boundaries of what's permitted in order to be effective. They don't have to be violent and they don't have to involve attacks on property but they must create a point of conflict.

To draw attention to their cause, protesters have to be willing to take risks with their own liberty and their own safety. This was something that was completely understood by Gandhi and Martin Luther King who consistently put themselves in the firing line when leading peaceful protests.

How would Gandhi and King have responded to the sterility of modern protesting in the UK? Is it likely that they have been content to allow their challenge to the establishment to have been neutered by abiding to regulations designed to minimise the impact of their protest?

Of course not. Faced with the level of control exerted on political protests in Britain today, they'd have found imaginative ways of creating discomfort for the governing authorities... they absolutely understood that this is the very least that a protest must achieve.

Next time around it will be easier for the students. The police will be up for it and they're likely to over-react to the slightest provocation. And if this happens, the media tide will turn in favour of the protesters. All the students have to do is find a minor way of stepping outside what's permitted. A mass sit-in along the march route or something of that order would do the trick. Throw the ball into the authorities' court and see what they do next. It won't be pretty but sympathy for the students and their cause will rise inexorably.