Fed up with the mainstream media? Support radical, challenging, independent media instead! Subscribe to Red Pepper · Close this message

Policing dissent at London 2012

With numerous groups planning to protest during the Olympics, Jules Boykoff asks how British security forces will respond to people exercising their right to dissent
19 July 2012

Photo: WBUR/Flickr

The Olympic Games are set to kick off in London, replete with a sheepalicious £27m opening ceremony choreographed by Danny Boyle. Boyle’s live-animal master-plans have raised the hackles of animal rights groups, but Olympics-induced dissent spans far beyond the Peta circuit. With a jaw-dropping five-ring price-tag, dodgy corporate sponsorships, a militarised public sphere, and a hyper-vigilant brand protection racket revving its corporate engine, it’s hard to blame Londoners for wanting to take to the streets. Activists with the Counter Olympics Network have planned a mass mobilisation for 28 July in East London, and numerous other marches and events are set to spring. The looming question is how will British security forces respond to people exercising their right to dissent?

To be sure, the private security firm G4S has demonstrated Olympian incompetence, failing to properly prepare the 13,700 guards that its £284m contract stipulated, and forcing Olympics honchos to literally call in the troops as back-up. The mainstream media have roundly—and rightly—criticised the company’s bone-headed blunders, but meanwhile a bigger threat to the expression of dissent has receded from public attention: Scotland Yard. After all, in theory, G4S’s guards-for-hire are only supposed to patrol inside Olympic venues. Workaday policing outside official Olympic spaces will largely be left to the Met, so it’s important to forecast what we can expect from Scotland Yard.

Early clues were not encouraging. In late 2011, Chris Allison—Scotland Yard’s Assistant Commissioner and the national coordinator of Olympic security—briefed the London Assembly on policing costs for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. He highlighted ‘four key risks to the Games’—terrorism, protest, organised crime, and natural disasters. Singling out protest as a ‘threat’ and then sandwiching it between terrorism and organised crime was revealing. For political activists it was ominous. Security officials should most assuredly do their best to prevent acts of terrorism—that’s their job—but this does not give them carte blanche to conflate activism with terrorism and criminality. Keeping the Games safe from terrorism is one thing—green lighting the squelching of individual freedoms and human rights is another entirely.

Over the last few months Allison’s public pronouncements have been laced with a bit more suavity. He has assured civil libertarians that Scotland Yard will not crack down on protesters as long as they remain within the law, acknowledging, ‘They have a right to peacefully protest.’ Last month he said, albeit with a hefty dose of paternalism, ‘If you want to protest, speak to us beforehand so we can manage your right to peacefully and lawfully protest.’ He went on to warn, ‘But if as an individual we think you are going to disrupt the Games in some way, then I am telling you that we will take whatever action we can within the law to prevent you from disrupting the Games.’ Despite breathless media accounts about activist plans to disrupt the Games, the mobilisation in late July is designed to be family-friendly, or ‘fluffy,’ as organisers put it. Sure, campaigners with visions of spikier tactics are always a possibility, but the Met needs to remember these people are activists, not terrorists.

Security officials—and their private partners at G4S—have treated the Olympics like their own private ATM, using the Games as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to jack up their plastic-bullets-per-capita quotient. They’ve stockpiled an array of high-tech—and sometimes military-grade—policing tools, from a Long Range Acoustic Device (used against insurgents in Iraq) to surface-to-air missiles (that, it turns out, are useless in wet weather). Three months before the start of the Games, police set up ‘dispersal zones’ in Stratford whereby officers have license to order groups of two or more people to vamoose if they’re deemed to be engaging in anti-social behaviour. Police also have expansive stop-and-search powers under the Protection of Freedoms Act of 2012. Officials have vowed to carry out pre-emptive arrests in order to prevent disruptions at the Games, though Allison has said legal protesters will not be targeted. Still, Olympics security officials have built up a disquieting arsenal that could be deployed to quiet dissent.

What we’ve seen so far does not jibe with Allison’s assurances that peaceful protesters will be left alone. Jelena Timotijevic, convenor of the Defend the Right to Protest campaign, said police have proffered ‘a whole range of intimidating tactics and techniques.’ In April, police ostentatiously filmed activists as they filed into an anti-Olympics public meeting at Bishopsgate Institute in East London. Officials have doled out an ‘Olympic Asbo’ to Simon Moore after he protested the construction of an Olympics basketball facility on Leyton Marsh. His Asbo forbids him from traveling within 100 yards of any Games venue or the torch route. London-based photojournalists Martin Slavin and Mike Wells independently report being accosted by security officials simply for snapping photographs near the Olympic zone. Meanwhile, the brand police have also reported for duty—the activist group Space Hijackers had its Twitter account suspended after it declared itself to be ‘the official protesters of the London 2012 Olympic Games.’ A disjuncture seems to be emerging between the police public-relations podium and the real world.

Civil libertarians have good reason to be on edge, but Allison and his colleagues have the opportunity to prove their critics wrong. In the lead-up to the Games and during the actual Olympics, they could—and should—allow the hassle-free expression of political dissent. As Kevin Blowe of the Newham Monitoring Project said recently, ‘The rights of free speech shouldn’t disappear just because of a sporting event.’ The mobilisation on 28 July provides a prime occasion for security officials to align their public rhetoric with boots-to-pavement policing. It’s not too much to expect police forces to forgo sacrificing the rule of law on the altar of Olympics-induced exception.

The protest starts 12noon, Saturday 28 July in Mile End Park, London. More info.


10 ways to support Red Pepper

Whether you've been subscribed to Red Pepper for the last 20 years or have just found us, here are some simple ways you can help boost our impact.

Caring, survival and justice, versus the tyranny of the market

This weekend The International Women's Conference takes place in London

Save Shaker Aamer – his freedom announced but still not home

Shaker Aamer, held in Guantanamo for 14 years, needs support at this extremely tense time as he awaits release, writes Becky Lawrence

Ireland: Water protesters face jail as political policing ramps up

Ireland's movement against water charges is being criminalised by a nervous state, writes Oliver Eagleton

gerry oates 19 July 2012, 19.31

Essex police held a closed press conference last September ahead of the Dale Farm eviction in which a chief inspector said the anarchist are planning to hijack the eviction.There are 2.000 of them on the site and another 1,000 “signed up” as reinforcements.
His men were monitoring 30 groups,unnamed,which are thought to be intent on violence.See Billericay Gazette/7th,Sept.and Southend on Sea 5th Sept…..although the latter report has recently been transferred to an archive dated Jan/1970.
One can reasonably expect similar tactics during the Olympics.The /Essex boys equate protestors with anarchists.

gerry oates 22 July 2012, 18.14

For a good understanding of what went on in Essex it will pay to look at the police website.Essex Police.uk and there you will find a letter from the Chief Constable who chides a local nrewspaper editor for being too alarmist plus an FAQ section designed to reassure the public.Then last march they published an information documenton on Operation Cabinet3.This outlines the elaborate preparations,including summoning up large reinforcements,arranging for financial support from the council and the home office (£10m),building of a holding area (police transit camp) – all of which points to the fact that this was the biggest operation in living memory in these parts.They included a list of injuries sustained by officers and some idea of arrests made.
There is a section on use of Tazers -not about what actually happened but what ought to happen in ideal circumstances.The original document might have been efited since but originally it stated in the final section that no complaints had been received.
The point to note is that in on the day the invading force consisted of riot police.They broke into the site.They conducted the eviction….something which in the Chief constable’s letter and in the FAQs they claimed they did not do because evictions were a civil matter and the police only attended as bystanders,ready,if called upon,to intervene in order to maintain the Queen’s peace.
What caused the Essex boys to overturn the usual police procedures if not undue deference to the local politicians and newspapermen baying on the sidelines.Did the Basildon council exert undue influence upon the constabulary.WE know that the police were softening up the media,because they held a closed press conference just about 6 weeks before the eviction in which a chief inspector claimed that there were 2,000 anarchists on the site and another 1,000 preparing to join them.The protestors on the site of Camp Constant would recognise this was hogwash
but since the riots of last Summer,mythical anarchists had become popular scapegoats.
I can see the Essex OTT jolly happening again during the Olympics.

Comments are now closed on this article.

Red Pepper · 44-48 Shepherdess Walk, London N1 7JP · +44 (0)20 7324 5068 · office[at]redpepper.org.uk
Advertise · Press · Donate
For subscriptions enquiries please email subs@redpepper.org.uk