March 30, 2011
A Matter of Perspective
Imagine a private security firm whose agents shoot an innocent man 7 times on a crowded tube, at close range and without warning. Imagine this security firm systematically lies, attempting to cover-up what really happened. Imagine no agent ever stands trial for what happened.
Imagine the same security firm instigates a riot situation at an otherwise peaceful demonstration, its agents concealing their identities with premeditated intent. During the ensuing trouble, imagine one of the firm’s agents pushes a man to the ground, from behind, for no reason. He dies within the hour. The firm then lies to the media, and hires a tame pathologist (already scheduled to face misconduct hearing) who returns favourable results and destroys key evidence. Imagine the security firm’s agent never stands trial for this unprovoked attack – revealed after private footage is released to The Guardian - and at a later inquest his colleagues smear the victim, claiming he was drunk.
Imagine the same firm sends officers into deep cover, infiltrating activist groups. They act as agent provocateurs, conducting sexual relations with activists. One even gets married to an activist and has a child – whilst under cover.
Imagine this same firm is put in charge of policing another mass demonstration (despite its appalling earlier failures). Imagine the firm “kettles” the protest on Whitehall, keeping 15 and 16 year old children out in literally freezing conditions until midnight. Imagine the firm needlessly charges the kettled protestors with horses.
Imagine the same firm is yet again put in charge of managing another mass demonstration. When this protest turns violent, the firm again pointlessly charges demonstrators with horses – despite protestors having nowhere to go, because they’ve been kettled. At the same time, a student is batoned over the head and nearly dies from internal bleeding. The security firm attempts to prevent him being admitted to “their” hospital.
At this same demonstration, evidently peaceful protestors are prevented from leaving the riot zone. Security agents systematically lie to them about being able to go home. As the cold December night stretches on, packed-in demonstrators are advanced upon by horses, before being herded onto a bridge where space is so scarce many fear for their lives.
Imagine this same security firm is again put in charge of yet another demonstration. When activists proceed to stage an entirely non-violent protest inside a luxury department store, security agents promise them they can leave shortly without fear of being detained. That they are being kept inside purely for their own safety. But it’s a ruse: the security firm is simply taking the time to set up a kettle and detain nearly 200 activists they’ve just freely admitted on camera to be peaceful.
*
Any private security company with such a record to its name would surely be unsuitable for rehire by the state. If such a firm did exist, it seems unimaginable there would not be widespread outrage about its receipt of public funds. But none of the above actually need to be “imagined”. I’ve simply described the recent record of the Metropolitan Police Force.
If you don’t go on protests, and you’ve never had bad experiences with the police, it can seem bizarre that the boys in blue arouse such hostility from some of my generation, and political activists in particular. You may think “if you’ve got nothing to hide, why conceal your face?” You may think “the police are fundamentally decent – you can trust them even if there are a few bad apples”.
But if the above press fairly strongly on your political awareness – because you’ve been on a lot of protests, or been on the receiving end of police trickery and force – then it all looks very different.
Increasing numbers in this country hold the justified opinion that the Met is a fundamentally mendacious and violent outfit. That it is untrustworthy and deceitful – and sometimes dangerous to the point of lethality. Is it surprising that increasing numbers see no point in trying to play by the rules that London’s Finest themselves so egregiously flaunt? This is a dangerous dance. But if your instinct is to side automatically with the police, remember that it takes two to tango.
Left Outside said,
March 30, 2011 at 10:45 am
Even if people don’t know their Weber, there is an awareness that the police are allowed to be violent so the rest of us don’t have to. With that violence comes a certain leeway which people are not wont to criticise.
Perhaps that shouldn’t be the case and the police should be subject to higher standards, but that isn’t the popular conception. Ex post enquiries may (be meant to) hold police officers to a high standard, but ex ante they are expected to use their own judgement and if that judgement leads to violence then so be it.
There is also the contingent who quite like seeing the uppity getting their skulls caved in.
MarinaS said,
March 30, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Not to justify the mendacious political poodle that is the Met, nor quarrell with the justified suspicions of the protesters, but such private security firms do exist, and they commit much more egregious violations of human rights and of the law.
I’m not even thinking of Halliburton in Iraq, more things like the private security firm hired by Alaska Senatorial candidate Joe Miller, who attacked and injured journalists just because a candidate for public office didn’t want to be questioned about irregularities, and got away completely scott free.
Miller, however, lost the election; a salutary lesson, I think, that where public interests are concerned we still have more leverage over the public sphere than the corporate one. A slightly tautological observation, meant to say that for all that the Met are bang out of order, let’s not be tempted to fantasise about how much better it would be to replace them with something else.
Torquil Macneil said,
March 30, 2011 at 4:46 pm
A long article by Paul Sagar decrying the relative unaccountability of the public sector compared to the private? This could be by Tim Worstall. Edging ever rightwards, Paul.
NemesisTheWarlock said,
March 30, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Dammit – Torquil beat me to it! I take it Paul now supports Coalition cuts to this quasi-fascist purveyor of State-sponsored violence…
Paul Sagar said,
March 30, 2011 at 8:46 pm
No you fucking retards, just because I make a hypothetical comparison to a hypothetical private firm along one dimension of interest it does not follow that a) real private security firms are superior to a state-run force or b) that I am advocating moves to a private security model.
Christ, do I have to spell everthing out in giant 7ft high letters, because you are all actually as stupid as you make yourselves sound trolling my blog?
One tries to carve out a self-selecting niche for people with brains, but there’s always some Dunning-Kruger case studies who can’t see the writing on the wall. Even when it’s in 7ft high letters.
Paul Sagar said,
March 30, 2011 at 8:49 pm
*The above does not apply to MarinaS or LeftOutside, who are very clever, insightful and very much welcome around here.
It applies to you other bozzos without brains.
septicisle said,
March 30, 2011 at 11:35 pm
Much as I sympathise with your overall point, the thing that bugs me about the Fortnum and Mason/UK Uncut arrests is that they either must have known or should have known there was the potential for them to be detained for aggravated trespass; you can’t expect to be allowed to occupy what is defined in law as a private place, regardless of your peaceful intentions, and not face potential consequences.
This isn’t to say I agree with the law or the police lying to them; I suspect that the arrests were ordered precisely because the police attitude on the day was to let the black bloc smash things up and then get them later, only for this to become untenable once the vandalism became so widespread with there needing to be more arrests to prevent the Met looking bad. As I’ve said over on OurKingdom, I’d like to support UK Uncut but they’re now targeting firms involved in relatively minor tax avoidance, if at all, not properly informing those taking part in their protests of the possible consequences of their actions, and then also not taking responsibility for the fallout when things go wrong.
Paul Sagar said,
March 30, 2011 at 11:53 pm
“As I’ve said over on OurKingdom”
So, you’re NS-S?
Or are you referring to a comment, not an article?
septicisle said,
March 31, 2011 at 12:03 am
Yeah, I should’ve said I’m going under “Simon Verwest” over there. Blame their comment system.
Paul Sagar said,
March 31, 2011 at 10:38 am
I’m guessing that’s a pseudonym?
Cheers then mate « The gaping silence said,
March 31, 2011 at 12:23 pm
[...] ever getting ‘good press’ in this country – and about the related question of the policing of demonstrations ever getting a bad press. There is a narrative of the events of last Saturday [...]