It’s more than 40 years since Blair Peach died after he was hit by police officers during an anti-racism protest in west London.
His partner Celia Stubbs says she was horrified to discover she was spied on for years while campaigning for justice. She will give evidence next month to the inquiry into undercover policing as it examines the extent of covert surveillance in the 1980s.
The undercover unit moved on from political groups to relatives and families of people suspected to have been killed by the state.
Since the confrontational crackdown by the Metropolitan Police on women holding a vigil for Sarah Everard at Clapham Common on 13 March, a growing movement has condemned police intolerance to the right to protest and warned this will only become worse with the passing of the government’s 307 page Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
Prevention, Investigation And Prosecution Of Crime
Public order
Unauthorised Encampments
Every part of the bill raises serious concerns and there are detailed explanations of these in relation to part 2 (by the Institute for Race Relations) and part 4 (by Friends, Families and Travellers).
Much of Netpol’s work has been in support of social and political movements taking part in protests, so these are our concerns in part 3 of the bill about proposed changes on public order.
Why make changes to public order legislation?
Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick has said new police powers are necessary “specifically to deal with protests where people are not primarily violent or seriously disorderly” but are intended to “bring policing to its knees and the city to a halt”. This clearly refers to Extinction Rebellion’s two-week-long actions in 2019, but may also mean repeated protests in support of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020.
The government’s factsheet on the bill says “the highly disruptive tactics used by some protesters cause a disproportionate impact on the surrounding communities and are a drain on public funds.”
What are the proposed changes?
Imposing conditions on protests
Part 3 of the bill proposes strengthening the police’s ability to impose conditions where there is a risk that noise will cause serious disruption. This includes noise generated by a procession that “may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession if… it may cause … persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress”.
The bill also introduces new offences for one person protests for breaching conditions based on noise and impact.
The bill proposing giving the Home Secretary powers to make regulations without reference to Parliament and give examples of the type of protest deemed acceptable by the state, in order to “define any aspect” of the meaning of
serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
serious disruption to the life of the community.
Currently, there are different powers to deal with a march and a static assembly. The new law would allow senior police officers to give directions imposing conditions on those organising or taking part in either a procession or assembly that the police decide are necessary to prevent “disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation”.
Who will these proposals affect?
What this creates is a situation where far more protests, far more often, are likely to face the prospect of having conditions imposed on them.
We know from experience that the police are already quick to impose restrictions and conditions on protests, which is why any organisation that is likely to make its voice heard noisily should feel alarmed by the bill’s public order proposals.
Furthermore, any trade union picket line or protest calling for an ethical boycott of a business that successfully persuades people from entering a company’s premises may find its owners starting to ask the police to shut down pickets or protests.
The same is true of repressive governments insisting the police act to prevent “disruption” by embassy protests.
Every effective environmental protest over the last two decades, from local opposition to fracking sites, open cast coal mining or airport expansion, has caused disruption to corporate interests. The bill will give the police far greater powers to impose restrictions on this kind of political movement in the future.
Breaching conditions imposed on a protest
Currently the Public Order Act says a protester may face arrest if they “knowingly fail to comply with a condition”. The bill intended to change this so it is an offence if “a person who knows or ought to know that the condition has been imposed”. The government factsheet for the bill says:
This measure will close a loophole which some protesters exploit. Some will cover their ears and tear up written conditions handed to them by the police so that they are likely to evade conviction for breaching conditions on a protest as the prosecution have to prove that the person “knowingly fails to comply with a condition imposed”.
This would mean, for example, that the MP Caroline Lucas, who was found not guilty of this offence under the existing law at a Balcombe anti-fracking protest in 2013, because she was “distracted by the arrest of her son and the obvious pain being caused to him during his arrest,” might now face conviction if this change succeeds, on the basis she should have known
The bill also extended the “controlled area” around Parliament where particular laws apply and adds a new offence of “obstructing, by the use of any item or otherwise, the passage of a vehicle of any description into or out of an entrance into or exit from the Palace of Westminster controlled area”. This seems in particular aimed at locking the road around Parliament Square and up as far as the Cenotaph.
Intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance
The bill abolishes the current common law offence of public nuisance and creates a new statutory offence of causing “serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity”.
Public nuisance has been ripe for reform for many years but in the context of the right to protest, it is not clear what any of these terms will mean and serious loss of amenity does seem to indicate that protests outside a company that result in it losing business are more likely to tempt the police into greater use of public nuisance charges.
Previously, charges for public nuisance during protests have been relatively rare. Anti-fracking campaigners jailed in 2018 for this offence were the first to face imprisonment since 1932. A new statutory offence would result in a maximum sentence if tried in a Magistrates Court of 12 months in prison and a fine (or both) and for more serious cases tried in a Crown Court, of up to 10 years in prison.
Before they imposed their law upon us, we were free. Now, only trespass is freedom. For a millennia, those in power have systematically wrenched our rights to exist from us through legislation, jurisidiction, and flat out violence.
One thousand years of enclosures. The theft of common land and its concentration in the hands of an oppressive minority. Innocents murdered by an occupying force of class traitors. There has only ever been one war, and that has been between those who would seize property for themselves, and those who would have it as a common treasury for all.
And we are fucking sick of it.
Easter weekend saw an uprising against the new bill that would not only increasingly criminalise our rights to protest, but also legalise the continued and historical vilification of those who would struggle to view the world beyond the context of property and ownership: people who live in vehicles, vans, boats and barges, on horse-drawn carts, those who squat land without permission or live nomadically. Travellers of no fixed abode. That weekend, there were 107 arrests as people actively, directly, sincerely resisted in the streets over Easter, as they did against the Criminal Justice Act, as they did at the Battle of Orgeave, as they did at the Battle of the Beanfield. As people did as they occupied cranes at the Clapham cop shop nearest to where Sarah Everard was abducted. As we did at the Pizza Shop in Soho that dared hand out free food As they did at Jones Hill and Euston Square against HS2. As they did in Bristol, Brighton, Belfast. As we do everywhere. As we always will, as its all we can do as they continue to squeeze our collective throats and try drive us into abject submission.
“The bill will criminalise protest, violent OR non-violent for its “disruptive nature”.
The bill will criminalise the act of trespass with intent to reside. This targets primarily Travellers, and it could also have unprecedented impact on the rights of squatters, protesters, rough sleepers, ravers, ramblers, van dwellers, boaters…”
Without a bail address, when arrested you can be remanded to prison to await trial. Under their law, to not have property means you have no rights upon the land, you have no right to be, you have no right to exist. Under their system, the only right is the right to own. The dynamic is clear: if you do not own, you must be owned. In their eyes, there is only master and slave.
Yet as ever, people getting organised. As state repression ramps up against the most vulnerable in society, groups continue to form to resist:
Lynne Morgan, secretary for the Friends of the Horsedrawn Campaign, said the following:
‘This group supports ALL folk who wish to opt out of a corrupt society, whether in bricks and mortar or not. It supports folk currently NFA, those in transition and those friends and family who provide massive support to NFA who are being targeted by the current system. Our common ground is the battle : fighting against the demise of community, and seeking the eradication of the nuclear family and all things designed to disconnect us from each other and the land.’
Police Liaison Officers (PLOs, sometimes known as Protest Liaison Officers) have become a feature of demonstrations and marches.
A month before the scenes of brutal kettling of demonstrators in the City of London, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report {, 1.2 mB] asserting that “the police and protesters need to focus on improving dialogue. The police should aim for “no surprises” policing… They should review how they foster effective dialogue with protesters”. In the aftermath of G20 and the severe criticism of the use of force by riot officers, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC) jumped on the idea of ‘dialogue policing’ in its November 2009 review, ‘Adapting to protest – nurturing the British model of policing‘ [, 4 mB]. Its recommendation on ‘Public Order Command Training’ said that “police should seek to inform themselves about the culture and general conduct of particular protest crowds” and that officers on the ground “should engage with crowd members to gather information about their intentions, demeanour, concerns and sensibilities”.
The HMIC review also called for greater clarity about the precise role of Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT), which had previously been set out in 2004 in the Association of Chief Police Officers’ Public Order Training Manual. FIT officers were originally responsible for what has become known as ‘dialogue policing’ – establishing “a dialogue with individuals and groups to gather information and intelligence” alongside identifying individuals and groups “who may become involved in public disorder”. However, HMIC said that the role had “shifted significantly over the past few years, with FITs now often deployed in personal protective equipment and accompanied by photographers to identify and obtain information about protesters. The public order manual does not explain the purpose for which this information is required. This lack of clarity creates the potential for FIT officers to act outside their lawful powers.”
Even HMIC admitted that, in reality, FIT teams were always far more interested in surveillance than they were in ‘dialogue’.
Since the public order manual was updated in 2010, protesters have seen three teams of officers at marches and demonstrations: Evidence Gathering Teams (EGTs), who are deployed with cameras; FIT spotters, who collect detailed “intelligence” based on observation; and PLOs, who took on the responsibility for obtaining information through dialogue. All this was fed back to Bronze and Silver Commanders.
The police have always insisted that PLOs are not used primarily for data gathering. However, there are numerous reasons why protesters have been unable to believe this:
Former FIT officers re-emerging as PLOs
Take CO 89 Sergeant Holland, for example – these pictures show him in as a FIT officer at the student demonstrations in 2011 and as a PLO at a counter Olympics march in 2012
Sgt Holland on FIT duty at a student demo in 2011
Sgt Holland as a PLO at Olympics Missiles protest in March 2012
Public admissions of intelligence gathering by PLOs
2011
A former Assistant Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lynne Owens told the Home Affairs Select Committee about mass arrests of UKUncut activists at Fortnum & Mason and said:
Q12: We do need to improve the intelligence picture, but our ability to arrest over 200 people at the weekend gives us a very good starting point in terms of building that picture.
2012
Chief Inspector Sonia Davis, head of the Police Liaison Teams (PLT) unit in the Metropolitan Police, gave evidence as a prosecution witness in the trial of Critical Mass cyclists arrested on the evening of the Olympics opening ceremony. Under cross-examination, Davis admitted that PLTs gather information on protesters and had even been covertly deployed at previous Critical Mass rides to try to identify ‘leaders’.
2014
A review of the policing of anti-fracking protests in Balcombe West Sussex, confirmed that PLOs played “a pivotal role in the operation” by “interacting with the protest organisers” and as a result, “there was intelligence, including open source, to suggest the protest would escalate”. The report complains that it was unclear how PLOs fed back the intelligence they had gathered to their senior officers and concludes:
This is a common issue with usage of PLO teams as a relatively new tactic within UK policing. Consideration of the deployment of a dedicated PLO Bronze may help ensure that important intelligence is appropriately considered within the command structure and that an appropriate intelligence sterile corridor exists between those who are engaging directly with protestors and command.
Video evidence of PLOs harassing an activist at home
In September 2012, the Guardian reported that two plain-clothes Sussex Police officers – one a former FIT officer – turned up at the home of a Brighton campaigner, claiming they were PLOs and asking questions about a forthcoming UK Uncut action in the town:.
In testy exchanges, one officer asks her repeatedly whether she is a member of UK Uncut. She replied that she did not think it necessary for her to say whether she was or not. She asked the officers why they thought she was a member of the campaign.
The officer replied: “Because I have seen you on many demonstrations, and you have been leading the demonstrations. I am not saying that you were the organiser, but you have been a leader on these sorts of things.”
He then asked her who is the organiser of the planned demonstration. She declined to answer his questions.
After passing her film to the Guardian, she said: “It was not building communication or dialogue at all – it was them coming to my house to intimidate me and attempt to gather information.”
What PLOs’ Standard Operating Procedures tell us
In 2013, Netpol obtained the Standard Operating Procedures for Metropolitan Police PLOs, which confirms that “[Police Liaison Teams] are likely to generate high-quality intelligence from the discussions they are having with [protest] group members”. It also says:
“all PLT officers must ensure all intelligence is recorded on Crimint” [a criminal intelligence database] and all intelligence obtained during an event “is passed to Bronze Intelligence for analysis and dissemination to Silver and the rest of the Command Team (in the same way as any other intelligence)”.
See below for a full list of documents released by the Metropolitan Police under this Freedom of Information request.
Numbers of PLOs in English and Welsh police forces
This is a snapshot based on information on the number of officers who had receiving PLO training by the end of October 2013:
An earlier Freedom of Information request [, 32 kB] from January 2013 confirms 30 trained PLOs in the Metropolitan Police, with the intention to increase this to 60 officers.
Scottish police forces have now merged into Police Scotland – accurate figures for PLOs are currently unavailable,
PLO procedures and training materials released by the Metropolitan Police
Police & Crime Bill is currently before parliament. Wide variety of folks are opposed to it because of restriction on enviro, protest, unions, attacks on travellers & criminal trespass. Please organise. Recent speech at protest youtu.be/Kx0_4Nf5Y28 @NottmGreenFest #killthebill
Posted in.|Tagged–, killthebill, tweet|Comments Off on Tweet – KillTheBill
An ongoing diary of stuff, allsorts, and things wot happen ……
I am a photographer with a special interest to document the lives of travelling people and those attending Festivals, Stonehenge etc, what the press often describe as ‘New Age Travellers’ and many social concerns.
With my photography, I have tried to say something of the wide variety of people engaged in ‘Alternatives’, and youths’ many sub-cultures and to present a more positive view.
I have photographed many free and commercial events and have, in recent years, extended my work to include dance parties (’rave culture’), gay-rights events, environmental direct actions, and protest against the Criminal Justice Act and more recently, issues surrounding the Global Capitalism.
Further, police surveillance has recently become a very important subject for me!
In recognition of this work, received a ‘Winston’ from Privacy International, at the 1998 ‘Big Brother’ Awards. The citation reads: “Alan Lodge is a photographer who has spent more than a decade raising awareness of front-line police surveillance activities, particularly the endemic practice of photographing demonstrators and activists”.
I am based in Nottingham, UK.
Quotes & Thoughts
“Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ Vanity asks the question, ‘Is it popular?’ But, conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one’s conscience tells one that it is right.”
Martin Luther King Jr.
“In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance.
In Switzerland they had brotherly love – they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock!!”
Harry Lime [Orsen Wells] The Third Man 1949
“Civilization will not attain to its perfection, until the last stone from the last church, falls on the last priest.”
Emile Zola
“….I have an important message to deliver to all the cute people all over the world.
If you’re out there and you’re not cute, maybe you’re beautiful, I just want to tell you somethin’- there’s more of us ugly mother-fuckers than you are, hey-y, so watch out now…”
Frank Zappa
, 1.2 mB] asserting that “the police and protesters need to focus on improving dialogue. The police should aim for “no surprises” policing… They should review how they foster effective dialogue with protesters”. In the aftermath of G20 and the severe criticism of the use of force by riot officers, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC) jumped on the idea of ‘dialogue policing’ in its November 2009 review, ‘
