After writing my entry about Hobo Stripper’s blog, it got me thinking about the use of the police as an arm of the state designed to remove obsticles to the rich getting richer. I think one of the most compelling and obvious areas where their use in this regard can be seen is in the sphere of protest.

The police have powers under the Public Order Act (1986) to regulate both static assemblies and processions. These powers have very loose restrictions on them. For example, the most senior officer present at a procession can impose any limits he likes (such as changing the route, limiting the number of people allowed to take part, limiting the number of banners, restricting the use of objects used to make noise, etc) so long as he believes doing so will prevent:

  1. serious public disorder
  2. serious damage to property
  3. serious disruption to the life of the community
  4. the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others

Most people can probably get on board with 1,2 and 4. They seem reasonable at first glance and so 3 manages to worm it’s way past as well, it’s in reasonable company, after all.

However, how does one quantify the disruption to the life of the community? I don’t know how you would define the life of the community, let alone what serious disruption is. Were the bombings of 7/7 seriously disrupting? Or was that very serious disruption? Is a bunch of people blocking a road serious disruption? Even when section 11 of the Act requires that the police be given 6 days notice of any planned procession?

How does one place protest outside ‘the life of the community’? How does one judge so as to qualify certain acts as within and other acts not within the life of the community? Protest is, we are so often told, fundamental to the democratic tradition. So, if something is fundamental to our way of life, how can it not be part of the life of the community? So how can seriously disrupting it make sense if the disruption is to prevent a serious disruption to the life of the community?

By ‘life of the community’ they mean ‘day to day life of non-protesting consumers’, because, as we know, while protest may be important in a democracy, commerce is the life blood of capitalism and we are a capitalist society much more than we are a democratic one. As such this provision is used to stop protests using busy roads. But, I would contend, a protest which does not inconvenience anyone is a waste of time. The point of a protest is to get noticed, to get attention and to make people think about the cause. These things are invariably done best when the person is put out in some way

Demonstrations which support the status quo are all fine. Things like the Memorial Day marches are fine (most people would not recognise these kinds of things as demonstrations, but they are, they are demonstrating support for the armed forces or veterans of the armed forces, supporting the status quo).

Because the police are charged with ‘keeping the peace’ they are empowered to do whatever is necessary, including detaining you for 7 hours even without you having done anything other than be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The case ,which I can’t remember the name of now, involved a man being detained with a lot of protesters, despite not being a protester himself. The House of Lords ruled that it was fine, since other people might have possibly done something to cause a breach of the peace. Other people might have done something so this man, who told the police he was completely unrelated to the demonstraters, was allowed to be detained for 7 hours. Legally.

So long as it supports the status quo the police can do whatever they like, including push protesters backwards when there is a sudden drop behind them, as can be seen in Taking Liberties.

No one is ever asked if they want to be subject to the power of the police. No one is ever given the choice because there can be no choice. Your input into the process is once every four or five years when it comes time to vote for your colour of preference. This doesn’t change the powers the police can use, of course, it simply means you can take heart from the knowledge that you either helped the new bunch of liars into power, or moan that they’re doing it wrong and how your guys would have been so much better. Truly, if voting changed anything it would be illegal, as are all viable protest methods.

Sorry about the scatter gun nature of this post, I’m a little unfocused.