Don't frighten the horses
An urgent question was raised in the House of Commons this afternoon by SNP MP, Joanna Cherry, about the arrest by the Metropolitan Police of peaceful protesters at the King's coronation at the weekend.
Replying for the government, Home Office Minister, Chris Philp MP, basically parroted the line that the police are operationally independent and had a very difficult job to carry out in exceptional circumstances. In other words, move along, nothing to see here. Replying for Labour, Shadow Home Office Minister, Sarah Jones MP, said that she had warned of precisely such unintended consequences during the debates on the Public Order Bill, hurried through Parliament ahead of the coronation.
The new Act gives the police sweeping powers to handle protests, including a clause relating to going equipped to lock-on - in other words carrying anything that the police consider might enable protesters to attach themselves to railings or other structures. Ms Jones said that she had questioned whether carrying a bike lock might infringe the new law.
The six Republic protesters were arrested and detained because the police feared luggage straps they were using to hold their placards secure during transit might have enabled disruptive locking-on. A fair assumption in the circumstances one might think but this group had held extensive consultations with the Met in advance and yet arresting officers allegedly refused to contact their police liaison colleagues for verification of this.
The protesters were held for several hours and bailed before being released without charge with their bail terms cancelled. Republic's leader, Graham Smith, has said that he might consider suing the Met for wrongful arrest. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, has expressed "regret" at his officers' heavy-handed actions in this case, which he called "unfortunate".
Conservative backbenchers during the Commons debate on Ms Cherry's question used the excuse that the Met needed to act robustly to prevent rape alarms being used to panic horses in the coronation cavalcade and cause a stampede. As feeble excuses go this one didn't even have the strength to knock the skin off a rice pudding and was greeted with snorts of derision from Opposition benches. The rigorous training of military and police horses includes subjecting them to sudden loud noises and crowd surges so this explanation really doesn't stand up to close scrutiny - like so much else this government says and does.
Of course one entirely accepts that this event was a once in a lifetime one, of national significance, involving the head of state and foreign dignitaries and therefore requiring extreme vigilance. Had anything gone seriously awry images would have been beamed around the globe and the fallout could have had constitutional consequences for which the police would have been blamed. Damned if they act, damned if they don't one might say.
But the so-called 'Peelian Principles' relating to policing by consent of the public still (just about) apply in this country and the right to peaceful protest is, as even Chris Philp admitted, sacrosanct. The police apparently wanted these new powers to respond to new techniques employed by protesters.
As their overreach this weekend proves, they should be careful what they wish for.