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.

Popular posts from this blog

On old age

"The fact is that when I come to think it over, I find that there are four reasons for old age being thought unhappy: First, that it withdraws us from active employments; second, that it enfeebles the body; third, that it deprives us of nearly all physical pleasures; fourth, that it is the next step to death."  Writing his essay,  De Senectute (On Old Age), in 44 BCE, Marcus Tullius Cicero went on to refute these four supposed reasons in characteristically robust and forthright manner. Cicero wasn't one to sit about moping in his own old age; he remained actively engaged in the political life of the Republic whose survival, in the face of tyranny, he championed so fiercely.  Cicero was nine years younger than I am now when he met his untimely end yet he considered himself already an old man; or, rather, his society judged him to be so. His second point about age enfeebling is more germane. Physical decline had not yet impacted him but, six years on from my retirement, I
Read more

Born to rule

When, ten days ago, I posted my piece about the manipulated image of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and her children (see Snap Judgment) I didn't know of her cancer treatment. Had I known, I would have adopted a gentler, though I hope no less critical, tone. But I didn't know, and nor did any of us outside the immediate royal circle, which rather goes to strengthen the case against the monarchy. For Kate and her family the diagnosis of cancer (as yet unspecified) will have been a devastating blow, as will the chemotherapy she is currently undergoing. On a human level, of course I sympathise and extend my best wishes for a full recovery as, indeed, I did at the time of her father-in-law's diagnosis. It is particularly cruel, then, that on top of all this she has been obliged to record a video statement to reassure the public. As if she didn't have enough to contend with already. But such is the unpalatable obligation placed upon any royal personage - noblesse oblige. Whic
Read more

Working to rule

An avowed republican I may be but news of King Charles III's cancer diagnosis is nevertheless a cause of sadness - I might not want him, or anyone else, as my king but I wish the man no harm.  However, Jonathan Swift's opinion that "health is the greatest of all possessions; a pale cobbler is better than a sick king" serves as a timely reminder that ill-health in the monarch is not simply a personal matter, it has constitutional implications. To be blunt about it, Charles' death, in constitutional terms at least, would be no great problem; the king is dead, long live the king. The succession is assured and the crown would pass immediately to the Prince of Wales, who would be pronounced William V. The ship of state would sail on. A long-term or debilitating illness, on the other hand, could have far-reaching consequences for the institution of the monarchy at a sensitive time, coming so soon after the death of Britain's longest-reigning monarch, Charles' mo
Read more