By Michael Faulkner – April 19, 2009
In the early evening the demonstrators, numbering several
thousands, left Trafalgar Square, where the rally had been held, and moved into
Whitehall. Whitehall is the administrative centre of government and links
Trafalgar Square, through Parliament Street, to Parliament Square. Many
government ministries are situated here and Downing Street opens onto the main
thoroughfare where Parliament Street meets Whitehall. The distance between
Parliament Square and Trafalgar Square is about a third of a mile. The
demonstrators’ mood was angry, but there was no hint of violence. The
destination was Downing Street where a cabinet meeting was in progress.
Unknown to the demonstrators, the police had closed the exit
to Parliament Square. The crowd entering Whitehall from Trafalgar Square
congregated opposite Downing Street, which was guarded by a phalanx of police
officers. Eventually the demonstrators filled most of Whitehall and crowded
onto the lawns in front of the Ministry of Defence, shouting for the
resignation of the prime minister. There was no violence. The violence started suddenly when
columns of mounted police appeared at the Trafalgar Square end of Whitehall and
lunged into the crowd. People were subjected to baton charges. Many were
injured. Some policemen were pulled from their horses. Mayhem ensued and many
arrests were made. The demonstrators had been corralled or “kettled” into a
space from which it was very difficult to escape without running the risk of a
severe beating. Fortunately, no-one was killed. It was the biggest and most
violent demonstration that London had seen since the 1930s.
It happened on November 4th 1956 following a Trafalgar
Square rally called by the Labour Party and the TUC to oppose the Eden
government’s invasion of Egypt in league with France and Israel. The invasion
failed to overthrow Nasser, whose nationalization of the Suez Canal had
provoked the British and French aggression. Its failure, and the subsequent
withdrawal from Egypt forced Eden’s resignation. The Suez demonstration was the
first mass public action of this kind since the Second World War. It was to be
the first of many over the years, and, while the majority of these have passed
peacefully, others have resulted in violence and, in several cases people have
been killed.
Such was the case on Wednesday the 1st April at the London
protest demonstrations during the G.20. summit, where a man died following an
unprovoked, violent assault by the police. At the time of writing (9th April)
the story is still unfolding, but enough facts are known to provide a
sufficiently clear account of what happened. The incident concerned must be seen in the context of the
crowd control tactics adopted by the Metropolitan Police when faced with
demonstrations of this kind. The
resistance that has been building internationally for more than a decade
against corporate global power and despoliation of the planet in pursuit of
profit, has now exploded in anger about the multi-billion bail out of the banks
while millions lose their jobs and homes. It is only to be expected that public
demonstrations will give expression to this anger. Nevertheless, in recent
demonstrations, only a very small minority of (usually young) self-proclaimed
anarchists deliberately resort to violence.
In Britain, policing of such demonstrations has become far
more coercive. The “corralling” or “kettling” tactic used more than 50 years
ago at the Suez demonstration, has been much in evidence recently. The term
“kettle” used by the police, originates from the German “Kessel” used by the
Nazis to describe what the Russians did to the Sixth Army which was surrounded
at Stalingrad in 1942; but, as a recent critic observed, the London protestors
had not invaded Russia! In 2001, at a May Day demonstration, the police
corralled about 3000 people in a confined area in central London for seven
hours denying them access to food, drink or toilet facilities. The right to
peaceful political protest is enshrined in British law. But what seems like a
clear deprivation of liberty in such cases was deemed by the House of Lords not
to be unlawful. The police also have sweeping new powers under the Terrorism
Act to arrest and hold suspects without charge for up to 28 days.
On April 1st several thousand demonstrators in the vicinity
of the Bank of England were corralled by the police into a limited space for
hours. Prior to the protests the police had made plain that they intended to be
confrontational. They were as good
as their word, treating all demonstrators with an extraordinary degree of
hostility and force. Instead of moving against the small minority of anarchists
who seemed intent on causing trouble, they herded everyone together and subjected
the crowd to baton charges, physical and verbal abuse. Entirely peaceful environmental
protestors who had erected tents with the intention of camping out overnight in
Bishopsgate, were attacked by riot police with batons and dogs and forcibly
evicted from the site. Numerous eye-witness reports testify to the violence
with which the police behaved.
The Death of Ian Tomlinson
The occurrence that has put the spotlight on policing
tactics is the death of Ian Tomlinson. A newspaper seller who lived and worked in the area of the Bank, he had
no part in the protests. At around 7.pm. he found himself in the police
“kettle” and unable to get home. According to the police account, he collapsed in the street and shortly
afterwards died of a heart attack. There was no mention of any assault on Mr.
Tomlinson. The Metropolitan Police left the case in the hands of the City of
London police (a separate force that polices the square mile of the City) and
it was referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission for further
investigation. The IPCC gave every
indication of treating it as an open and shut case, and there the matter might
have ended. But numerous eye-witnesses came forward to testify that they had
witnessed an unprovoked assault on Tomlinson. The police discounted such
allegations and complained that suggestions of this kind were malicious and
intended to prejudice the man’s family against them. Then photos began to
appear which cast serious doubt on the police account of what had happened.
Still, the evidence suggesting that Tomlinson had been assaulted seemed
inconclusive and the IPCC (which is supposed to be independent of the police)
seemed keen to exonerate the force. But some days later conclusive evidence emerged. Video film showed a
police officer in riot gear, his face covered by a mask, assaulting Tomlinson
from behind with a baton as he was walking away from a police line with his
hands in his pockets. It was
immediately posted on the Guardian website. It was then broadcast on Channel 4 News,
the BBC and Sky. The film was taken on a digital camera by a New York
investment fund manager who had apparently attended the protest out of
curiosity. It is interesting to
note that shortly after this, a representative of the IPCC accompanied by a policeman,
visited The Guardian’s office to ask for the video to be removed from the
website. From this it seems
that the IPCC is about as
deserving of trust in its investigation of complaints against the police as are
those who were responsible for regulating banks.
It now appears that there are other video records of this
event. It is clear beyond any doubt that not only was Tomlinson assaulted, but
he was attacked from behind with a baton as he walked away, causing him to fall
and hit his head on the ground. He lay on the ground and the riot police stood
around doing nothing to help him. He was assisted by a protestor who helped him
to his feet. Some minutes later, after staggering away, he collapsed and died.
The Metropolitan Police’s account of what happened has been
exposed as lies. The IPCC has
finally agreed to liaise with the Crown Prosecution Service to consider
bringing criminal charges against the police officer/s involved. What may we
expect to come from this?
The past record of similar cases is not very encouraging. In
2005, following the terrorist attacks on the London underground, police
officers shot and killed an innocent Brazilian, Jean Charles de Menezes, in a
very violent operation on an underground train. Despite an enquiry which made
very serious criticisms of the police, none of those responsible was
prosecuted. In the 1970s and 80s two students were killed by the police on
anti-racist demonstrations. No-one was prosecuted. In this case, although the
identity of the officer involved is known, he has not been suspended from duty.
The evidence against the police in this case seems incontrovertible, but this
is no guarantee that justice will be done.
As we enter a time of deepening crisis, nationally and
internationally, mass movements of protest and resistance are likely to grow.
Governments, and the power elites they represent, are likely to come under
greater pressure from organized opposition movements determined that the
victims of the economic crisis shall not be made to pay the price for it. We may be sure that all the police
powers available to the state will be brought to bear against such movements.
The fight against the abuse of such police powers must start now. 