Everyone saying ‘Kill the Bill’ needs to know what’s in this new policing report

A police line at Brideswell Police station
Support us and go ad-free

Earlier in March, a report on policing protests was published by HM Inspectorate of Police and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS). It comes at a time when the controversial Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is passing through parliament.

The report’s recommendations provide an insight into likely not-so-distant future policing. And it doesn’t bode well.

Banning protests/demonstrations

The HMICFRS report – titled Getting the balance right? An inspection of how effectively the police deal with protests – makes a number of recommendations.

One such recommendation concerns the banning of public assemblies (e.g. protests/demonstrations):

By 30 June 2021, the Home Office should consider laying before Parliament draft legislation (similar to section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986) that makes provision for the prohibition of public assemblies.

Earlier the report says:

We recognise that such a power [to ban assemblies] is likely to be used very infrequently. Nevertheless, our view is that it would be preferable to place it on the statute book so that it is there if and when it is needed.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

Or, once that ban is on the statute book, it can be misused.

‘Aggravated activists’

Another recommendation is that police chiefs create a new criminal act – that of “aggravated activism”, which seeks:

to bring about political or social change but does so in a way that involves unlawful behaviour or criminality, has a negative impact upon community tensions, or causes an adverse economic impact to businesses

With regard to the last point, the Good Law Project’s Jolyon Maugham commented:

What does this mean for the right to protest against slavery in supply chains? Or against the polluters who are destroying the planet? Or, indeed, for the right to strike? How is humanity weighed in the balance against money?

According to the report, there are two kinds of aggravated activism. Low-level aggravated activism is described as:

activism which involves unlawful behaviour or criminality. This criminality is local or cross regional and potentially impacts on local community tensions

Whereas high-level aggravated activism is defined as:

activity using tactics to bring about social or political change involving criminality that has a significant impact on UK communities, or where the ideology driving the activity would result in harm to a significant proportion of the population.

Either definition appears intentionally vague and would be open to interpretation.

A new ‘spycops’ unit?

The report adds that:

Since the late 1990s, the police have made various arrangements for managing protest-related intelligence nationally. In recent years, this has fallen under the remit of Counter Terrorism Policing (CTP).

In January 2020, the NPCC decided to reallocate responsibilities. Low-level aggravated activism intelligence was transferred to the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC).

It adds:

The NPoCC’s strategic intelligence and briefing team (NPoCC SIB) was created in April 2020. Its remit is to manage intelligence related to low-level aggravated activists and protests that have the potential to cause disorder or significant disruption on a national or cross-regional scale. It is also responsible for giving intelligence and assessments to police forces.

This may be significant: Netpol argues that the NpoCC-SIB is essentially:

the return of the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, which employed the undercover officer Mark Kennedy whose unlawful activities helped to trigger the ongoing Undercover Policing Inquiry.

If this assessment is correct, it further exposes the work of that inquiry as a sham.

BLM and Extinction Rebellion targeted

The HMICFRS report adds that intelligence gathering is already being used to target protests and specifically names BLM and Extinction Rebellion:

intelligence managers from the forces we inspected gave some positive feedback on the NPoCC SIB’s work so far. We heard from several officers that it had provided good-quality and useful intelligence in relation to protest activity, including from Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion. One intelligence manager told us that, during the Black Lives Matter protests that took place throughout the country in summer 2020, the NPoCC SIB held national telephone conferences with forces to report on events and share information.

Meanwhile another report, by the National Police Chiefs Council and the College of Policing “appears to use a definition of unlawful protest activity that could include boycotting a shop or silently taking a knee”, according to the Guardian.

Ongoing protests

As for the controversial Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, The Canary’s Emily Apple reported that if enacted it will:

ban protests that block roads around Parliament. It also allows the police to impose conditions on one-person protests. And it will introduce a new offence, punishable by up to ten years in prison, of ‘public nuisance’ for actions that cause “serious distress”, “serious annoyance”, “serious inconvenience”.

Protests in response to the bill took place on 21 March, 23 March, and 26 March. Following the first night of disturbances in Bristol, The Canary reported on other #KillTheBill protests around the country: notably Birmingham, Brighton, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Cornwall, and Wales.

After the second night of disturbances, one BBC journalist deleted a tweet that said the protest was peaceful until the police arrived:

Criminalisation of ‘activists’

The criminalisation of activists – ‘aggravated’ or otherwise – could apply to all forms of protests. This could even apply, as Maugham mentioned, to protests or other gatherings associated with industrial action (strikes) and the picketing of workplaces.

Interestingly, on 23 March, the appeal court implicitly criticised the police when it quashed verdicts of affray and unlawful assembly against striking building workers known as the Shrewsbury Pickets:

This was despite evidence of aggressive policing and collusion in the prosecution by a prime minister, the media, and a spy agency. Furthermore, it took more than four decades for the pickets to be exonerated. It was blatant class warfare.

Indeed, Howard Beckett of Unite the Union has also referred to the policing reforms as an attack on picketing:

Future policing

The HMICFRS recommendations, when combined with changes proposed by the Police Bill, arguably amount to a ban on all meaningful protests. In short, if a protest – whether static or otherwise – isn’t approved by the police or other state agencies, then those taking part – ‘aggravated’ or otherwise – could face lengthy jail sentences, and likely consequential blacklisting.

This could be the future of UK policing.

Or to paraphrase the words of George Orwell: if you want a picture of future policing, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

Featured image via the Shoal Collective

Support us and go ad-free

Do your bit for independent journalism

Did you know that less than 1.5% of our readers contribute financially to The Canary? Imagine what we could do if just a few more people joined our movement to achieve a shared vision of a free and fair society where we nurture people and planet.

We need you to help out, if you can.

When you give a monthly amount to fund our work, you are supporting truly independent journalism. We hold power to account and have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence the counterpoint to the mainstream.

You can count on us for rigorous journalism and fearless opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right wing mainstream media.

In return you get:

  • Advert free reading experience
  • Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
  • 20% discount from our shop

 

The Canary Fund us
  • Show Comments
    1. Unlawful behavior is never described by the Government. So peaceful protesting is unlawful looking at the police with their dogs attacking these people who are simply makinga public statement.
      Brings a different meaning to “unlawful”
      What a Bad Bill, and fraught with trouble by stripping people of their right to voice an opinion in a public gathering. This means the English parliament will be complicit in civil crimes against a diffference in views from their own. But they can’t see it as problem worth changing their mind about as they intiate and inflict physical harm upon the popluce.
      Parliament will have failed in its function to debate by passing this bill.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.