Give the police their due?

Further to my previous post on the police at the G20, is it too glib or naïve to criticise the police for their policing of G20? Let's look at it from the police's side.

We might say that environmentalists are not just peaceful protestors, but provocative agitators, using violent tactics;

Footage of police actions is edited by the environmentalists for their own ends, and gullible journalists fall for that, as does the public when it sees the footage; moreover the very act of filming changes the situation on the ground: there is something aggressive in the very act of filming, especially if they stick the camera close to the police officer's face - police accountability might even be personal vulnerability to attack outside of the job;

You might also say that the sheer nervous tension of a day-long police operation means individual police officers will sometimes lash out in “inappropriate” ways.

But in fairness to the protestors, another way of seeing the filming is to say that having been duffed up the police, the protestors are filming for their own protection; after all, the state are filming them. Defensive and offensive filming look the same. Also, police officers should be disciplined enough not to lash out: it would be understandable if someone is actually hitting the police officer, so he needs to defend himself; but there were no pitched battles going on.

Again in favour of the police, you might say that on the previous G7/8 days, these people wrecked City centres and we should be thankful that the police kept order and preserved property. This is the only objection that carries much weight with me. But there is a controversy going on about tactics and separating the anarchist thugs from the peaceful protestors.

I'll finish with the horror stories told by George Monbiot in Tuesday's guardian. You don't have to sympathise with Monbiot's politics to agree that he has a right not to be duffed up by the people he pays his taxes to protect him. He mentions that the countryside alliance got the same treatment. The use of counter-terrorism powers is also disturbing. I am linking to the article at Monbiot.com rather than the Guardian because there Monbiot provides some links to press and parliamentary comment.

The point about my previous post was to say that good policing is about protecting and respecting the liberty of all subjects of the crown, not just using the law to rectify the supposed injustices suffered by “designated oppressed groups” (see latest from Theodore Dalrymple for that phrase). I had begun to wonder if I was fitting the facts around the G20 demo to this general observation; but actually it could be you or me protesting next time, so police restraint is good.