the G20 protests: truth and mirage

[helenic]

Everyone in London has been following the saga of the G20 protests and the police response to it. But I keep finding things other people haven't seen, and other people keep finding things I haven't seen, and when I told my mum and dad about this at the weekend they hadn't heard about any of it, so I'm not sure how far this has spread in the national press yet.

And even if you're in London, if your sources are the BBC, the free papers or the Evening Standard, you've probably got a distorted version of events.

I wasn't at the protests; I was at work, and the evening was romauld's birthday, so I was spending time with him instead. I'd been invited to the Climate Camp by various hippie friends, and considered going to it, but I had mixed feelings about using the G20 as a vehicle for general protest. The G20 was convened as a financial summit to sort out global recession and world trade. I'd read up on it a bit and had a sketchy understanding of quite how complex the whole messy business was, and I felt that the world leaders would have their work cut out to curtail protectionism, and keep trade links from breaking which might take years to rebuild. Never mind world peace at the same time. President Obama has been criticised for trying to fulfil his progressive campaign promises at the same time as sort the economy out, and not really achieving either; critics argue he should fix the economy first and then deal with the rest of it. And while the Copenhagan summit is arguably too late to deal with climate change, it's only in six months' time, so I was sort of disinclined to tell the G20 they should be sorting out Jobs, Justice and Climate Change at the same time as all the complex financial stuff.

Since then I've rethought that. Not only because we should be thinking about environmental and financial crises holistically if we want to solve them, rather than compartmentalising - I don't think that's realistic with our present governmental system, but I still think it's true - but because the police response to the protests was shocking, and I wish I'd been there with a camera, been there non-violently, so I could have added my voice to the eye-witness accounts flooding the internet over the next few days and insisting that the media representation of what happened was wrong.

Okay, there's a lot to get through here, so I'm going to attempt it in roughly chronological order.


Early reports

These are the first reports I saw:

Police clash with G20 Protesters BBC News on Wednesday, 1 April 2009, 15:46 - putting the instigation of violence squarely on the heads of protesters

G20 protests: Riot police, or rioting police? - George Monbiot for the Guardian, Wednesday 1st April 16:16

G20: The strong arm of the law - Rowena Davis and Sunny Hundal for the Guardian, Wednesday 1 April 17:36.

Hobby horses of the apocalypse! Penny Red, Wednesday 1 April

Added 09/04/09: G20 - The best press photos - April Fools Day - April 1, 2009

On the night of Wednesday 1st April, I followed friends at the protest through facebook, texts and twitter. Reports were that they had been kettled for no reason, the police were being very heavy handed, stopping people leaving with batons and shields. Some protesters were angry and fighting back. It was all very ugly but no-one could get out. People were frightened and angry. No-one knew who had thrown the first punch but there was a general consensus that if it was a protester, it was a case of a rogue individual rather than a united group initiative.

Meanwhile the London papers, the Metro, the BBC are full of stories of violent anarchists, destroying property and breaching the peace, and forcing the poor police to rein them in. I don't have links for those because they made me so pissed I closed without saving. Some of the following articles link back to them though.

Eyewitness accounts

On Facebook I am surrounded by people who were there, linking to blog posts and eyewitness accounts. People started to talk about the kettles; they started to talk about the events after police tried to close Climate Camp down on April 1.

By GreenerBlog: Kettling: the tactic that backfired and Kettling: How should we respond?

The Guardian continues to be the only paper corroborating the eyewitness reports I'm receiving through blogs and personal accounts on social networking sites.

Did the handling of the G20 protests reveal the future of policing? - Duncan Campbell for the Guardian, Friday 3 April

Since Climate Camp is where I would have been, had I been there - if I'm going to protest anything it's climate change, there's no point protesting about the recession in my opinion - I am fascinated and horrified by the reports coming in of police behaviour after dark, once they've cleared all the journalists out of the area.

The siege of Climate Camp by Stuart White, April 2, 2009

What I saw - Various eye-witness accounts of police brutality when they cleared out Climate Camp on the evening of April 1, organised by a medic who was baton-charged by police.
At 7:10 I was sitting around near south end, north end had a bicycle-powered sound system up and people dancing, there were a few (<10?) drunk idiots slumped round being incoherently rude to the police but absolutely no threat or sign of violence. It was just turning too dark for TV crews and commuters had left. Then this happened (link to youtube video). Riot police turned up maybe 6-8 deep south end (video I don’t think shows lines behind the two front lines who were actually charging), two deep north end, started kettling us (no-one in or out). Then the south end baton-charged. They charged us sat down praying, they charged people sitting round eating tea, they were hitting people faster than they could run away, and going for heads rather than legs. At first people tried standing in front of them hands in the air (to show you aren’t holding weapons), but they were getting beaten up so people ran, and they were still getting hit. I saw three people throwing fruit, but as far as I could tell that was as violent as resistance got. You can see on the video people chanting ‘This is not a riot’ and ’shame on you’, no-one hitting the police back.

Greens protest formally over G20 police tactics - "The protesters' stories of police brutality and the police's story of complete professionalism just don't stack up," says Jenny Jones

These two posts by Bristle are good collections of photos and eyewitness accounts:
Watching the police: Attack on the G20 Climate Camp (part 1)
Watching the police: Attack on the G20 Climate Camp (part 2)

Let's refresh our memories as to what these violent, anarchic protesters actually getting up to that was so provocative:

Climate Camp in the City

The Calm Before The Storm - With the world watching Climate Camp 2009

Ian Tomlinson

The mainstream press still hasn't picked up on the unprovoked brutality of police against protestors on the night of April 1st. They are, however, starting to question the original "evil protesters, professional police" narrative, because of the investigation the Guardian ran this week into the death of Ian Tomlinson, inside the kettle near the Bank of England on the afternoon of April 1.

Video reveals G20 police assault on man who died
and accompanying articles:
Police 'assaulted' bystander who died during G20 protests
Ian Tomlinson death: G20 witnesses tell of dogs, batons and an attack by police

De Menezes taught the Met nothing by Duncan Campbell

Extended Youtube footage - including of a single bottle being hurled at police as they shielded Tomlinson from the crowd. (A far cry from the rain of bricks claimed to have been thrown at polce medics by protestors in the Evening Standard.)

Ian Tomlinson: What happened? - by GreenerBlog with links to eyewitness accounts.

Added 17:56 "Krishnan Guru-Murthy of Channel 4 News says that ITN have exclusive footage that 'shows police clearly striking out at him with a baton.' Will be on the news tonight at 7 PM." (thanks to cavalorn)

Added 09/04/09: G20 Police Attack Protestors Causing Severe Injuries (Youtube video)

Added 09/04/09: Sousveillance notes by Denny on Thuesday 9 April on the use of batons by police medics in the Bishopsgate kettle.

Added 09/04/09: And this is finally getting international coverage:
Questions About Police Tactics During G-20 - NY Times, April 6, 2009, 6:26 pm

Media propaganda

What we have here seems to be media propaganda resulting in a mirage, and victim-blaming on a grand scale. This means that most people in the UK still believe the protesters were the original instigators of violence, that the police only responded to force once a riot had already begun, and that the police response was restrained and legitimate. This propaganda needs to be challenged.

Correcting the media narrative of the G20 protests on April 1, 2009, from CeaseFire Magazine, Tuesday, April 7, 2009 21:21
“Anti-capitalist protesters embarked upon a wrecking spree within a City branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland today,” shrieked The Times on April 1, “and engaged in running battles with police as G20 demonstrations turned violent. Police were forced to use dogs, horses and truncheons to control a crowd of up to 5,000 people who marched on the Bank of England, in Threadneedle Street, on the eve of the London summit.”

This narrative of events is entirely typical. Under the headline “Police clash with G20 protestors”, the BBC reported that “protesters stormed a London office of the Royal Bank of Scotland”, later adding that: “officers later used ‘containment’ then ‘controlled dispersal’” (BBC, April 1). The Guardian reported: “The G20 protests in central London turned violent today ahead of tomorrow’s summit, with a band of demonstrators close to the Bank of England storming a Royal Bank of Scotland branch … [S]ome bloody skirmishes broke out as police tried to keep thousands of people in containment pens” (The Guardian, April 1).

What is interesting about this narrative is that it precisely reverses the events of the day.

Media quietly admits smearing G20 protestors by Sunny Hundal for Liberal Conspiracy, April 3, 2009 at 1:10 pm

As of today, the BBC are finally starting to catch up with events: G20 death man's son seeks answers

Added 04/09/04: The BBC is still behind everyone else: How should the police handle protests? on Have Your Say, Wednesday, 8 April, 2009, 16:55


added 16:13: G20 policing caused man's death: police coverup and media lies (lots more coverage at Indymedia London)

added 09/04/09: Did Costumes and Props Undercut the Seriousness of the G-20 Protests?
Is the media to blame for focusing so much on what is most visually arresting, or are the protesters at fault for spending too much energy attracting attention and not enough articulating practical steps that might actually change the system?

Added 09/04/09: G20 assault: how Metropolitan police tried to manage a death - The Guardian, Thursday 9 April 2009.
It began with an anodyne press release from the Metropolitan police more than three hours after Ian Tomlinson died. It ended with a police officer and an investigator from the Independent Police Complaints Commission asking the Guardian to remove a video from its website showing an unprovoked police assault on Mr Tomlinson minutes before his heart attack.


Stay balanced

Okay, so. I don't want to join the hyperbolic brigade screaming that the police are murderous pigs. Eyewitness evidence can build a compelling case, but it's not proof, and there is already a counter-mirage being thrown up by over-excited liberals making uncorroborated claims of police violence. People saying Ian Tomlinson was beaten to death with police batons, etc. Lots of people have been angry with the police since 1991 and some of the myths springing up around the G20 are frankly unhelpful. But this doesn't mean eye-witness accounts should be dismissed out of hand, and this doesn't mean the press coverage is any less fanciful.

I wasn't there. I can't work this out just by browsing the internet; there should be an independent inquiry (rather than by the police watchdog, who as a point of policy use police reports as evidence rather than taking any independent interviews from witnesses!). All I'm trying to do here is raise awareness. This is more complicated than the BBC would have you believe. Stay sceptical. Ask questions.

--

Edited 18:05: People are engaging with this, getting angry, reposting it. That's great. Some of you are writing blogposts or to your MPs; even better. I do want to re-iterate the warning above, though.

For instance, a few people have already started circulating the claim "the police baton-charged a prayer meeting". This claim derives from the accounts given at What I saw. These reports make for powerful reading, and I was very emotionally affected by them. Thus far, however, they appear to be the accounts of a small group of acquaintances, who would have re-inforced each other's version of events before posting. They match some reports outside the group (linked above) but so far I haven't seen video or photo evidence of the police charging seated protestors, or the attacks by police getting bloodier than what you can see here.

The prayer meeting claim seems to be corroborated by the fact that a 'Buddhist meditation circle' and 'prayer for peace' were scheduled to take place at around the same time as the police charge shown in the above video - between 6-7pm on April 1st. However, this would have been taking place inside Climate Camp, not at the edge where people were standing up as the police approached.

That's not to say it didn't get nastier after dark, or that the eye-witness accounts posted to blogs are fabricated. However, I think it is important when writing about this, particularly to MPs, to focus on the evidence that is backed up by several independent sources. If you care about this, I would advise you to put the sensationalistic headlines down and concentrate on the stuff we can make a strong case for. There is more than enough of this to make a point.

I am anxious that the protesters and their supporters are in danger of shooting themselves in the foot by getting over-excited and making exaggerated claims. The meme of violent police is as catchy as the meme of violent protestors. If we pounce on the most dramatic claims, and they are subsequently disproved, it may weaken any remaining case we try to make.

--

What the Met have to say

Here are some articles covering the police point of view of events:

Operation Glencoe policing and security for the G20 London Summit - Metropolitan Police Service - offical Met reports.
Police are now effecting a slow dispersal of the remaining group of protesters who formed part of the Climate Camp demonstration at the top end of Bishopsgate. These people have now been demonstrating for over 12 hours. While this has been peaceful, they are being moved because Bishopsgate is a main arterial route. To allow them to stay would cause serious disruption to the life of the community in this area. Police are using powers under section 14 of the Public Order Act to do this. They have made every effort to tell protesters they would need to leave, warning them several times through loudhailers. (evening of April 1)

Blogs by police officers who were working at the G20:
Stressed Out Cop: Apathy in the UK and Any one of us

G20: Sheepdogs and Wolves - Friday, 3 April 2009

Most officers were on extended shifts (12 hours minimum though most did 16+ each day) and when things went properly pearshaped we had no relief and were just kept on, regardless of when we were due to start the next day. On the 1st for example, most of the serials were on an 0800 start, they didn't finish until 0200 and were then due back on for 0430 - so much for a minimum of 11 hours between shifts. After spending 14 hours getting battered with bottles and poles in one of the cordons in the City we were retasked to clear and take the climate camp.
(romauld points out: "There is no evidence that anyone on any police barricade spent '14 hours getting battered with bottles and poles'. Since that would have involved non-stop violent assault onthat picket from 10am onwards right up to the moment climate-camp was finally wrecked circa 1am." The first charge on Climate Camp happened while it was still light.)

Whose Street? Our Street!. (There are more links in the sidebar to other police blogs. I haven't had time to go through those yet but looks like there's quite a lot of material if you're interested.)

added 17:13: G20: The upside of 'kettling' John O'Connor for the Guardian, Thursday 2 April 2009 16.30

added 09/04/09: Sigh by mummylonglegs on April 1, 2009.
Fools pretending to be protestors. Terrorists pretending to be protestors. Vandals pretending to be protestors. Greenies, Beardies, Trots, Commies, Scroungers, Losers and Wasters all pretending to be protestors. They are not protestors, they are fuckwits.

Under surveillance: police target environmental protesters and journalists This Guardian video was found by Denny - it was filmed last year, but the commentary clearly illustrates police attitudes towards the free press and the right of the public to protest.

Context and commentary

Okay. There's more, but that pretty much frames the picture that has formed for me over the last week. Here's some analysis by people who have more time to write about things than I do.

Some historical context: A Brief History of Violence by cannons_at_dawn

Directionless Bones, a militant radical, on violence and police strategy:
Put People First, Psychological Biases, and the Role of Violence
G20 Protests: Perspectives on Police Tactics, Part 1 - Liberal Moralism
G20 Protests: Perspectives on Police Tactics, Part 2 - Militant Strategy
Machiavelli for Anarchists, Part 3 - Public and Private, Contracts of the Powerful and the Powerless

JohnQPublican, commentating on eye-witness reports, media management and hypocrisy:
Feast of Fools
They predicted a riot - containing a useful critical analysis of some of the eyewitness accounts.
Feast of Fools II: Foot in Mouth

I still blame police brutality by Sunny Hundal for Liberal Conspiracy, April 2, 2009 at 4:21 am.
So who will excuse police brutality now? by Sunny Hundal for Liberal Conspiracy, April 8, 2009 at 4:38 am.
Sunny was one of the four journalists who were present during the protest on behalf of the Guardian; hence that paper's sympathy with eyewitness reports even when they contradict the official version of events.

Added 17:40: G20 death is a sign of systemic problems in the policeby Ian Dunt for Yahoo News, Wed April 8 at 11:01am.
Picture the scene: it is around 14:00 BST. A group of peaceful protestors around the Bank of England are kept about 20 metres apart from another group of peaceful protestors on Mansion House Street. Much has been written about the effect this has on demonstrators - namely to make them more irritable and rowdy than they were previously. But it must surely have an effect on the police as well. At best, the people they are policing are treated as cattle. At worst, they are treated as a public disorder event which hasn't happened yet.

They are not, of course. They are British subjects exercising their democratic right to protest. But police behaviour is influenced by the words of their commanders, and the operational basis on which the policing is conducted.

Added 09/04/09: G20: Police turned my dissatisfaction into anger - Saturday 04 April 2009 15:17 by Longdancingboy
A moment before the clashes started, when the crowd had started to push forward against the police line I thought to myself, ‘God, those cops must feel pretty scared’. Their line of a few dozen was trapped in between two groups of many hundreds. They had no way out. I was honestly worried for their safety if there was a crush.

Then a strange thing happened. The instant the officers started raining down blows the heads of anyone and everyone I lost all sympathy for them. In a flash they had gone from being on my side, there for my protection and safety, to causing harm to innocent people. I actually became afraid of being hurt by the police.

And this when I had been a Special Constable for eighteen months when I was at university. I know from first-hand experience that it’s a tough, dangerous and mostly thankless job, even when they’re not on the front line of an angry crowd. Yet suddenly my perspective shifted. Now they’ve lost my respect. This makes me extremely sad.

--

It has been suggested to me that it is possible that the mainstream press was so slow to point blame at the police because of the stringent legal regulations in place which restrict this. I have been informed that the police can, and will, sue journalists for slander if they make claims about the police or individual police officers that cannot be proved in court. I don't have any sources for this, but would appreciate them.

Okay. I should do some work now. Feel free to add links in comments. I'll keep this entry public; you're welcome to link to it.

--

Edit 14:18: Denny has posted the letter he sent to his MP this morning here. It's a good letter. If you care about this at all, you should write to yours.

Edit 18:54: dennyd and I will be at the G20 Meltdown protest this Saturday. See you there?

EDIT 22:01 Wow this is moving fast...
Ian Tomlinson death: New video footage from G20 protests gives fresh angle on attack - Wednesday 8 April 2009
Footage originally released on ITN Channel Four News at 7pm this evening, showing the police office who attacked Tomlinson drawing back his arm and hitting him full swing with the baton from behind.

Ian Tomlinson death: Police officer comes forward to IPCC - Wednesday 8 April 19:50

Riot police officer comes forward as Ian Tomlinson death investigation begins - April 9 2009

Good, the individual has accepted culpability and police use of batons against protestors will hopefully be called into question.
Clever, the individual handing themselves in deflects culpability from higher up the chain of command - where responsibility for police strategy and conduct still lies.

I hope this doesn't close the whole story down. I hope it paves the way for more revelations. Because this was a big deal, but it was by no stretch of the imagination the whole deal.

Edited 22:41: John Q Publican apparently agrees with me: Feast of Fools III: Guilty.

Comments

[lupie-stardust.livejournal.com]

Thank you very much for this post. The only thing I can contribute is a friend's photographs of peaceful protestors being rushed by police. I'll ask her if I can link to them.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

Please, that would be great.

If the truth does out, the only way it'll happen is through the increased transparancy enabled by the internet, mobile phone cameras, youtube, etc. It really drives it home how damaging the recent anti-photography legislation is. And the timing is enough to make you wonder.

[lupie-stardust.livejournal.com]

It's Transmetropolitan all over again.

The friend in question is dizzyjess, and while her LJ holds one of her photographs (second most recent post), her deviantART account has others, which she's compiled here (http://dizzyjess.deviantart.com/art/Police-117922825).

[the-lady-lily.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this. Would you mind if I linked to it on Facebook?

[libellum.livejournal.com]

Go for it - I considered doing the same myself.

[chiller.livejournal.com]

It's interesting that even I, as someone who generally thinks the Police are all jolly good coves, and who has nothing much in common with hippies, watched the footage with a great amount of disquiet. I can't understand what benefit "kettling" provides? Surely you want to keep everyone moving along, not gather everyone into what looks increasingly like some sort of "bait ball" and then baton charge them?

I thought the police had a duty of care to all citizens, and that includes protesters, even if you disagree with them. Even if they are being jolly annoying or breaking things. What disturbs me about this is that I also appreciate that the police have a duty of care to protect the property of the companies that were being broken into.

But in a straight call between protecting property and injuring someone, I would have thought the choice was obvious. Meh.

[taimatsu]

I think 'breaking things' is often a step too far, but 'being jolly annoying' by sitting down somewhere people usually shouldn't, or standing in inconvenient places chanting or singing, should be generally ok. All this really bothers me. Have you seen either the film or the book "Taking Liberties"?

[chiller.livejournal.com]

No - as I admit above, this isn't usually my sphere, but I haven't liked what I've seen from the police handling crowds in recent years. Maybe I should look it up.

[cannons-at-dawn.livejournal.com]

Cunts are still running the world is me - you can put me down as this lj or as Rhian if you like.

Thanks for the link and an interesting concordance of material.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

Cool - I knew it was you, wasn't sure how you preferred to be credited. Have edited the entry with your LJ name. Thanks for the links to the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster - I was young enough to accept the official version of events at the time, and hadn't seen anything on it since.

I get the impression there is substantial precedent in police misconduct at protests, but apart from the Poll Tax Riots I don't have any sources. I'd be really interested to see a similar concordance on that.

[cannons-at-dawn.livejournal.com]

Thanks :)

I get the impression there is substantial precedent in police misconduct at protests

That's my belief, as well as in public disorder more generally. I'm hoping to write something longer on the precedents and associations of cases like this, and the way in which they're reported - will keep you posted.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

Excellent post, thanks for all your effort.

[ebb.livejournal.com]

This is a very useful entry - and I note that you're happy for this to be linked to, so I'll do that if it's ok? I don't have time to read all the linked info right now but I'll make time later.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

Go for it. I don't want to cause hysteria, but word-of-mouth can't help, and I honestly believe that an independent inquiry would be fruitful if it was indepedent, and not by an internal police watchdog. I think the inquiry should be into the police response as a whole, not just the death of Ian Tomlinson, which is in danger of becoming a bit of a red herring. If it is disproved that police brutality was a direct or indirect cause of death of Ian Tomlinson, nothing else changes. I'm anxious that the focus on the death deflects attention from the unprovoked violence by police against peaceful protestors, intimidation of protestors, destruction of protestor's property, and the cold-headed strategy that prompted this to take place after dark, once all the official journalists had gone home, against a camp that had caused no trouble and was going to move on the next morning anyway. And, of course, the lies to people and to the press.

[romauld.livejournal.com]

I've been wondering today whether or not this is going to be visible as a deliberate media management tactic from the authorities in the next few weeks. Focus the media and the inquiry on a death which, at worst, can result in the disciplining of one officer rather than allowing people to focus on the deliberate promotion of unrest and violence by police strategic decisions and tactical control.

It would protect the politicians and the senior officers at the possible risk of having to apologise on camera. No-one 'who matters' can get taken down over Tomlinson's death; but they ought to be held to account for what happened to the Climate Campers.

[mirrorshard.livejournal.com]

Yes, this.

[whatifoundthere.livejournal.com]

Thanks for putting so much work into this. I've heard nothing about it and would like to learn more. But for now I have to run to my volunteering gig so if I could leave you with a question: what is "kettling"? I've never heard the word before, and quick clickthroughs on a couple of articles took me only to pieces that seemed to assume the reader would already know.

[libellum.livejournal.com]

It's a technique to control out-of-control civil unrest. The police set up a cordon and pen the crowd in. No-one can get in or out. Anyone trying to get in or out is forced to shove up against the police line, which is armed with riot shields and batons.

In this case, the polive claimed that the kettle was formed in response to violence and vandalism from the protestors, which has been contested by all the eye-witness accounts I've read. It is a strategy used to contain a protest that might get violent, to stop a distruptive crowd scattering and thinning police resources. Unfortunately,it's also guaranteed to make a crowd angry, frightened, threatened and uncomfortable, even if it wasn't already.

The kettle near the Bank of England contained thousands of protestors with no water, food or toilet facilities for nearly nine hours. People were attacked if they tried to leave by force. When they started releasing people, they only released those who gave their name and address and submitted to being photographed and searched. If you refused, you were put back in the pen.

Well, so the people who were there claim. The press don't mention that part. I'm still trying to work out how much I believe the eye-witness reports.

[robert-jones.livejournal.com]

When they started releasing people, they only released those who gave their name and address and submitted to being photographed and searched. If you refused, you were put back in the pen.

This doesn't seem to have been Khalinche's experience (http://khalinche.livejournal.com/331986.html). Maybe the thing about being searched (etc) was at the Bishopsgate kettle (where your links certainly suggest that was happening) or maybe it was only later in the evening?

[khalinche.livejournal.com]

It wasn't my experience, but I certainly heard of it anecdotally from others who had been there a little later. As many of the links above show, tactics changed over the course of the day, and I was generally blessed with good timing. I got out of the Bank of England kettle during the couple of hours when they were allowing free movement: some others who didn't leave between 3 and 5 were kept there well into the evening. I also left Climate Camp about 6, before the worst of the police violence.

[destinationsexy.livejournal.com]

Here via one of my flist's flist, and just wanted to say thank you for this post. As far as the media coverage outside of London goes, I'm up near Glasgow and had heard little of this, other than that some protests had 'turned violent' (and, today, about the death of Ian Tomlinson). I'll be working my way through these links over the next little while, seeing what I've missed.

[ebb.livejournal.com]

Interestingly enough, the video you mention here:

"It was just turning too dark for TV crews and commuters had left. Then this happened (link to youtube video). Riot police turned up maybe 6-8 deep south end (video I don’t think shows lines behind the two front lines who were actually charging), two deep north end, started kettling us (no-one in or out). Then the south end baton-charged. They charged us sat down praying, they charged people sitting round eating tea, they were hitting people faster than they could run away, and going for heads rather than legs."

now comes up as "We're sorry. This video is no longer available". It had 81,000+ hits.

[twisted-times.livejournal.com]

"...now comes up as "We're sorry. This video is no longer available". It had 81,000+ hits."

Why am I not surprised? O_o I'm sure it will get reposted again, and again, and again... Hell, someone should rename it as a fake pr0n file and watch how quickly it spreads over bitorrent and limewire. ;p

I got here via my flist and I've already pointed at a green activist on my flist as well who was, I believe at Camp Climate (or wanted to get to it but couldn't).

[libellum.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it didn't work for me when I clicked through this morning. Works now though.

The poster is bristlekrs - presumably the same Bristle as http://bristle.wordpress.com/.

It shows the police approaching Climate Camp, which is engaged in peaceful protest. They approach the crowd with batons and shields. People start to line up defensively. The police are trying to move them on. They don't want to move on: they want to continue their peaceful protest. The police start to push the rows of people back with shields. The people start to chant "this is not a riot". The people are unarmed, chanting, many of them with their hands in the air. They are not fighting back, but nor are they retreating. After a little while the police decide they need to move them faster, and start to attack the front line with batons.

When people continue to stand firm, the police organise a charge. They push the front line back a few metres. People are knocked down and shoved. A couple of police stand out as being particularly aggressive with their shields. At the edge of the crowd people - still not throwing punches, still with their hands in the air, shuffling backwards as fast as they can with the press of people behind them - are batoned and struck down. Elsewhere the two lines - protestors and police - seem to be at a stand off, with protestors talking to the police and engaging with them.

[romauld.livejournal.com]

The suggestion about police legal tactics aimed at reporting was from me: a friend who recently completed a professional qualification as a journalist was my source, specifically the module of their course which dealt with reporting on the police. My understanding was that if you don't have video evidence or truly unimpeachable sources, the police vigorously and actively pursue any negative reporting as slander through the courts. The advice of the course book was, therefore, "Don't report the police unless they're in the right: if you do, make sure you can cover your ass in court" (I paraphrase).

I may have misunderstood the course material, but I don't think I did. Evidence from both the JCdeM case and the death of Ian Tomlinson suggests that the police will systematically lie until caught: proving this would be very difficult, and so it remains speculative on my part.

[baloobas.livejournal.com]

Nope That's pretty much it! the media is quite happy to report on the polcie but evidence needs to be shown - and balance given - else the police will libel the media company responsible.

[robert-jones.livejournal.com]

Another example of the need for libel law reform in this country, I'm afraid. Fortunately, I've heard that the Americans are getting annoyed that our libel laws effectively deny their citizens their First Amendment rights, so given our usual attitude to American pressure, reform will probably follow fairly swiftly.

[baloobas.livejournal.com]

I doubt it, you're still allowed to air opinion in the press providing it is clearly marked as opinion - which doesn't impinge on American civil liberties :) that and they don;t live in the UK :) It's why in the UK media you get such watered down phrases as "beliveed to be" clearly distancing the publication from any assumption that that is indeed the truth until evidence indicates that it is.

[robert-jones.livejournal.com]

I am not a defamation lawyer, but I understand that if a US media outlet (or anyone in the US) publishes a story online which is read by someone in the UK, that counts as publication in the UK for the purposes of our libel laws, and an action can therefore be brought in the UK, which (unlike US libel law) does not require proof of falsehood.

[robert-jones.livejournal.com]

Also, see here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/20/pressandpublishing1) for US attitudes towards UK libel laws and here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/30/civil-liberties-libel-law) for domestic criticism. (And NB that the US bill will only be effective where US defendants have no assets in the UK.)

[hythloday.livejournal.com]

Isn't that the way that the UK libel laws work for everyone? I seem to recall the Private Eye coming under fire from some legally exhuberant individuals (such as Maxwell - i.e. ones with practically as deep pockets as the police) but I don't remember any kind of mainstream chilling effect as libellum describes.

[romauld.livejournal.com]

I believe the significant phrase you're overlooking is 'vigorously and actively pursue'.

The law is the same for everyone. The financial ability to wage a legal campaign is quite wide-spread these days. But, the police as a whole and the Met in particular maintain teams (plural) of lawyers and researchers who actively and aggressively examine the professional print media for any instances of police criticism and then actively and aggressively pursue any such instance where the proof is not cast-iron and ideally on video. You'll notice that even the Guardian, who had four of their own people on the ground through all of this, didn't proceed with the story until they had video; even after it became apparent (by Sunday) that forty or fifty independent sources confirmed the police had assaulted Ian Tomlinson.

For most people you could say true, bad things about the chances are they might notice and if they do they might come after you. With the police, aiui, it's guaranteed and guaranteed unless your evidence is absolutely solid, and published in advance (because they can usually find ways to bar your evidence from court if it isn't).

[hythloday.livejournal.com]

After some research it turns out that in fact, there were stories that the UK press were reluctant to run for exactly that reason! So consider my comment retracted. :)

[alixandrea.livejournal.com]

Linked, thank-you for compiling this.

[jenny-gould.livejournal.com]

I was pointed at your post, and thnkyou for a good calm summary. I don't feel very calm, even a week on.

[hairyears.livejournal.com]

We have already lost - it is forbidden to protest in public in the United Kingdom: forbidden de jure in much of central London and anywhere the Chief Constable says you can't; and de facto forbidden, under penalty of arbitrary detention or legal arrest, confiscation, violence and systematic defamation. Or death, though this seems - to date - to be a rarity, a matter of reckless disregard in actions that end up killing somebody, rather than premeditated murder.

No-one in a position of responsibility for these assaults - the decision to intimidate, to harass, to use force full-on as the first resort, to disregard the law on such a scale - will be punished. No authority - elected or otherwise placed above us all - will be influenced in the slightest by the protest or by any 'backlash' against it's violent repression. The word is impunity and I doubt that even the most junior participants, who got their hands dirty wielding the riot batons, will face sanction or censure.

Worst of all, we have lost the history: whatever the politically-insignificant Grauniadiators read and froth about in their suburban dinner-parties, the 'official' story is out in the mass media, it's been swallowed and believed by the masses, and no other version of events has any political importance.

So what is truth? Video footage? Affidavits? Pressing a complaint against the Police? Or is the truth that anyone who looks like they will make any progress with such a crusade will find themselves the star of a 'Whore of Gib' (HTTP://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Proetta) campaign in the media, harassed by the Police, unemployable, isolated, or even imprisoned?

The best that such brave souls can hope for is that they have tilted against windmills, to no effect bar ridicule - if even that - for they might find out that they are not so lucky in their folly as the good Don Quixote.

[EDIT]

Re-reading this a little later, some of this is overcaffeinated bitterness and cynicism. Which will, I hope, disappear by morning. And despair is no excuse for inaction: if I had something usable on-camera, I'd do my level best to make sure that it was used to maximal effect, no matter how minimal it might turn out to be in rolling back the loss of legitimacy in our public-order policing. But I would also be taking up my search for work in Copenhagen, Stockholm or Norway - and you, in turn, might want to set up some kind of watch for the contributors to these sites about the protest and the policing: this isn't South America in the 70's but some people are going to find all sorts of petty discourtesies and obstacles and strewn in their path from here onwards, even if the press don't have a go at them.

[juggzy.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this, and thank you for your balanced approach. Truth is important.

For the 'what the police say' section...

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

http://200weeks.police999.com/archives/1418

'Baton-charged a prayer meeting'

[brainduck.livejournal.com]

I'm the original source for the 'baton-charged a prayer meeting' quote. I was with a radical Christian group who have turned up to Climate Camp and other non-violent direct action events for a few years. The prayer meeting was informally organised at the camp itself so won't be referenced much elsewhere, a more detailed account by a good friend is here: http://www.prayer-i58.org.uk/node/35

I'd agree it's inappropriate to put too much emphasis on that one event of unprovoked violence. While we were sitting down quietly preparing for Communion near South End of climate camp just after 7pm, around us others were engaged in other equally unthreatening activities - many sat around eating the 'vegan slop' camp kitchen had just dished up. At North end of camp a ceilidh was being organised, but South end seemed to be mostly people settling in as it started to get darker and colder. The central point is that they charged *everybody*, without warning. The police didn't seem to have a response level below 'charge and beat up anyone within range', regardless of the actual threat posed. This is counterproductive, as it doesn't give people an incentive or even a chance to co-operate peacefully with police.

The g20police.wordpress.com blog was started by me to re-post a Facebook note somewhere where friends-of-friends and non-FB friends could find it. Got a bit out of hand, I don't know most of the people whose stories are on it by now, and most of the stories are cut-and-paste from emails by people I know nothing else about. I started it because I just wanted to tell my story of what happened when it got too dark for cameras and the newsprint deadlines had passed - I'm suspicious of the timing of the police charge. A lot of people who sent me stories seem to feel the same way - we just want people to know what we saw, often hardly able to believe it ourselves.

I don't pretend g20police.wordpress.com is anything more than a collection of subjective and unreliable anonymous accounts of remembered personal experience, and I'm enough of a psychologist to know better than to rely on personal memory alone. However it has been really striking how consistent different people's accounts of police behaviour from around Climate Camp and elsewhere have been.
I already know of several incidents originally mentioned on the blog which have been independently confirmed thanks to the Climate Camp legal team.
The Guardian have also interviewed some of those whose stories appeared on the blog first: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/11/g20-protest-witnesses-police-actions and others.

If there's anything else you'd like to know, please leave a comment here & I'll try & remember to check back, or email duck at riseup dot net.

Climate Camp legal team report

[brainduck.livejournal.com]

http://climatecamp.org.uk/themes/ccamptheme/files/report.pdf

Detailed, clear, and very much worth reading.