Police try to persuade man to remove mask
Police grab man when he fails to remove mask
Police search man who they allege punched police
When I arrived at Dalston Kingsland around 2.30pm there were already around 50 demonstrators there, mainly those connected with Greek students and workers, but also some anarchists with several banners. They were rather outnumbered by police and community support workers and were simply waiting for the march to start, causing no problems, not even obstructing the pavement or the access to the Overground station.
Had the march been allowed to start, they and the other couple of hundred who turned up would probably have caused little trouble, other than a relatively small amount of disruption to traffic as they made their way along to the peace mural. After possibly a few speeches and rather a lot of chanting and shouting, everyone would probably have dispersed without further trouble and we would all have been on our way home before it got dark.
What completely changed the course of events was a decision by the police present to take action against people wearing scarves across their faces. This is of course a part of the anarchist 'uniform', and it does frustrate the police in their attempts to keep photographic tabs on all demonstrators (that database again.)
Section 60(4A) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Act gives the police powers to require the removal of face coverings that an officer is satisfied is worn wholly or mainly to conceal identity, provided that an officer of or above the rank of inspector has given an authorisation for such action within a given area for a period of up to 24 hours.
Assuming that the police were following the law, the decision to take such action was made in advance. But although such powers were available it surely made no sense to use them before any trouble had occurred, when doing so was almost bound to provoke it.
A small team of officers approached one of the men holding a banner and told him to remove his scarf. A lengthy argument ensued, which ended with the man being manhandled away. At this point there was a bit of a scuffle, and police allege that another man punched a policeman (or possibly a CSW) and he was dragged onto the pavement, handcuffed and searched.
Demonstrators who had remained on the pavement outside the station while this was happening - mainly Greeks and others who had wanted to keep out of any trouble – and a few others who had returned there were then penned in by police (at around 2.43pm.)
A rather larger group of the anarchists had sensibly gone over to the other side of the street before this happened, and there were soon several hundred people watching from across the road. And things stayed more or less this way, with a few more arrests and minor skirmishes and large police reinforcements until I went home around 4.15pm when those not detained were noticeably thinning. I'm told the police held those they had penned until some time after 5pm.
What would have probably have been a short and relatively peaceful event causing short and minor disruption became a major problem, closing Dalston Kingsland station and severely affecting traffic in north London. Several shops nearby closed early. When I left Kingsland High Street - a "Red Route" - was closed to northbound traffic.
As well as the frustration of a legitimate protest, the police activity resulted in considerable inconvenience for many people not taking part, as well as costing us a small fortune in police pay. At best it was a small display of police macho, and I can't see there was any positive outcome from it at all. But perhaps it is some kind of political charade organised to increase public support for increasing surveillance and repressive legislation.
Quite a few more pictures on My London Diary http://mylondondiary.co.uk/2008/12/dec.htm/greece shortly.
Comments
Hide the following 8 comments
Hmmmm, not really
15.12.2008 20:04
In London, the cops have the powers to stomp all over us, legitimately or otherwise. They can literally get away with murder. When we tell them we're coming, where and when, how can we expect anything less than the repression we face over and over again? If the shoe were on the other foot wouldn't we take exploit any tactical advantage we had? i hope we would, which brings me to my point. when we don't have the sheer weight of numbers to impose our power in the streets we need to use our brains and the advantage of surprise. these 'publicly advertised' demos prove again and again that we don't have the sheer weight of numbers required and the only reason to continue them is to test each time whether that is still the case (and it almost always is).
riot
You make my point
15.12.2008 20:39
Which is exactly why if a march had been allowed there would probably have been no trouble - or at least very little - and it would easily have been contained by the police, causing far less disruption than occurred. For some reason (perhaps just incompetence) the police decided to take a path that maximised the disruption. I'm just trying to understand why this should be. And perhaps thinking about it might produce more sensible strategies?
Peter Marshall
e-mail: petermarshall@cix.co.uk
Homepage: http://mylondondiary.co.uk
Peter Marshall - technical details
15.12.2008 21:19
ia
Response to dalston kingsland protest
15.12.2008 21:52
anon
to hmm not really
16.12.2008 10:24
There is a need to resist and confront the state, and we do not do that by hiding. Yes, it is difficult and we need to be stronger, better organised, more determined and perhaps a little braver, but these things are possible.
Unannounced and covert actions have their place, but also their limitations. Whatever else we do, we need to be stronger on the streets.
confront not retreat
A response to "Response to dalston kingsland protest" by anon
16.12.2008 12:41
During the second bid to break out of the police containment, a young woman who was at the front of the surge fell to ground and was punched by one of the officers. According to him and one of his colleagues, this was justified. Are you seriously suggesting that this is the case?
hippocampus
GD465
16.12.2008 12:57
upthera
to ia
17.12.2008 23:45
If the police have filmed everyone thoroughly (I wasn't there so can't say) and got people to remove their masks, why is there any point in blurring the photos? Surely blurring them is to prevent the cops getting good pictures, but if they've already got them....! And it's a march/demo, not an action, and no-one in the photos is doing anything incriminating.
But I share your worries - photographers often think it's their right to take photos, and don't consider what they're filming/shooting. If it's incriminating or the police don't have enough evidence and think the photographers might, they will confiscate the camera and use as evidence. That would be the photographers fault if that happened, and their responsibility. And I don't like my photo being taken either, and don't have much experience that makes me trust photographers. Also, there's nothing certain that the cops got pictures of everyone, unless they were filming people as they let them out in 2s and 3s of the cordon, which is their usual way, just in case they haven't already got 100s of pictures of everyone!
It's become indymedia chic to blur photos as 'what should be done', without thinking if there's any point, or what the photo is actually of.
about photo blurring