The Royal Wedding provided an opportunity for police triumphalism as squats were raided and people were arrested, only to be 'de-arrested' once the press had been informed that the Met had the situation 'under control'. But other than the Government of the Dead's carnivalesque street theatre, no major demonstrations were due to take place. In the run up to 2012, how do we pre-empt the pre-emptive strikes?

Two years ago this month, two squats in London were raided by the police Territorial Support Group following protests against the meeting of the G20 group of nations during which one man was killed and hundreds of other were kettled, arrested and generally harrassed by officers acting under powers granted them by the Terrorism Act, among others. It has now been confirmed that at least one group were illegally detained and are entitled to sue the police for compensation. In that case, the raids were justified on the basis of a search for people who had been involved in 'criminal damage' during the previous day's activities.

The recent raids on Ratstar and Offmarket social centres (as well as squats and social centres in other cities) on the day prior to the Royal Wedding and the farcical arrest of a couple of pensioners off to celebrate the event with a bit of subversive street theatre were billed as 'pre-emptive'. Chris and Camilla were arrested for apparently 'conspiring to cause a public nuisance'. What is likely to emerge in the coming days and months is that the raids were unjustified, the evidence non existent and the treatment of activists disproportionate to any supposed 'crime' thus giving a considerable number of people the opportunity to supplement their income by sueing the Met for wrongful arrest. In other words, the police mount a massively successful PR operation, the right wing press can report 'the absence of any major protest by anarchists was put down to the Yard's intelligence and 'pre-emptive' strikes on potential troublemakers' (Daily Express) and 'close attention to the movements of anarchist groups' (Daily Mail) and the unwilling participants are quietly paid off.

Of course, the truth is that the absence of any major protest by anarchists was simply that. Aside from the Republican Tea Party in Red Lion Square which was well publicised in advance, a Facebook page set up by a group calling themselves (inexplicably) 'Reclaim the Royal Wedding'' (really? Do we want to?) and the Government of the Dead's thwarted mock execution, there was less interest in the event than in planning for Mayday; a day of solidarity with workers' movements around the world and a day when we remember the Haymarket martyrs and other victims of police violence.

As yesterday woefully demonstrated, there are more people happy to come out on to the streets to 'celebrate' a royal wedding than to protest against their own oppression by a system that privileges inherited wealth and protects it by violence. But, if this wasn't the case, then capitalism would already have fallen and the whole country would be celebrating Mayday instead of holding street parties to show their enthusiasm for the continuation of a social hierarchy maintained by the hegemony of familial allegiance.

Attacking the Royals is a bit like attacking Legoland. Both provide opportunities for spectacular consumption while reinforcing conservative values associated with the preservation of the family. Plus, the royals have the added value of providing a focus for the kind of sentimentality whipped up by the cult of celebrity and sustained by the myth of romance. For the working people of the UK, cowed by debt, unemployment and insecurity, protests against tax avoiders and education cuts make a certain amount of sense. Threats of violence against the spectacle that they themselves work so hard to maintain with the constant performance of ritualised consumption are likely to provoke only outrage. For many people the preservation of public services and the right to free education are directly related to the desire to buy their way to the kinds of lifestyles that the Royals represent. The scapegoating of 'anarchists' and 'terrorists' provides legitimate targets for anger and promotes enthusiasm for police tactics which are, fundamentally, illegal.

In the run up to next year's Olympathon and Royal Diamond Jubilee, we are likely to, yet again, be convenient scapegoats for the police PR machine, whatever we are or are not planning to do. We need a concerted and intelligent strategy to not only outwit them but to formulate tactics for effective civil disobedience.