The thing with opinions is that everyone has one. Even if you choose not to engage that is nonetheless a view. As the author of this piece, it shouldn’t be that shocking to note that there will be a clear bias towards my own judgements.
If you weren’t moved in some way by the events that unfolded at Clapham Common last Saturday night for which the Metropolitan Police have since received widespread criticism for the tactics exercised in the ultimate arrest of several people attending a vigil for Sarah Everard, then please leave this conservation by the metaphorical exit door now. If your ideology is that entrenched to the point that you refuse to reflect upon such a significant event, then I will again point out the exit. Likewise, if you think that nuanced affairs can be summed up in three or less words the exit door will lead you to, amongst other more welcoming platforms, Twitter. Finally, if you are motivated to engage with an opposing view and prefer to react with a handful of words, I will assume that you also lost your way out. As a member of the public, I did have a reaction to what happened on Saturday night and have chosen to comment a couple of days later.
As an ex-cop, the motivation to explore this episode that unfolded on an apparently cold night was compelling. I have guessed the temperature because I wasn’t there. That doesn’t mean that I do not have an opinion, however since I wasn’t present nor privy to the operational planning my opinion is based on vicarious experiences, and as a result I remain confused. According to the most reliable of sources it was Frederick R. Barnard who, in 1921, coined the mantra, “a picture paints a thousand words.” The social media photographs especially, were harrowing both in construction and nature. I was shocked. And like any shaken human being the chemical reactions that instantaneously prompt an uncontrollable urge to determine right and wrong, to choose flight or fight, compromised rational deliberation.
From what I can reasonably deduce a High Court judge refused to arbitrate on the legality of a proposed vigil that organisers sought to hold at Clapham Common leaving the Metropolitan Police to maintain their original position that such a gathering would offend the Coronavirus Act 2020, leading to potentially heavy fines. This legal position is, in my opinion as the holder of a qualifying law degree, sound. The organisers, although disappointed, abided by the police direction. Many of you will be familiar with the rule of law and at this juncture may be compelled to cry ‘slam dunk!’ If this slide rule of determination was so simple to apply written legislation would simply equate to obedience. But life, and death, is never that straightforward.
The discovery of the body of murdered Sarah and the arrest and subsequent charge of a serving police officer, understandably and predictably created a crisis of emotion. Murder is always abhorrent but within the context of this appalling narrative I have found myself struggling to choose the correct vocabulary to articulate the level of feeling. Banning the vigil would never, ever mitigate this incendiary sentiment. What it would inevitably do would be to strengthen the resolve of those who wished to remember Sarah, paying their respects at a mutual point of tribute. Indeed, The Duchess of Cambridge expressed her condolences at the memorial point of the Clapham Common Bandstand. It would also attract others who wished to express their opinions, including agent provocateurs. Earlier in the day my instinct, based on my operational experience, told me that this episode was not going to pass without incident. Ex-anybody’s have the luxury of a comfortable armchair view and the wisdom of hindsight. However, the police and in particular the Met are exceptional at preplanning and mitigating risk.
My initial confusion is why wasn’t a legal alternative considered? An opportunity for local residents, more personally impacted by the terror and its proximity to their homes, allowed to participate in the vigil whilst undertaking legitimate exercise and outdoor recreation, whilst maintaining social distancing? Allowing a representative cohort to express the feelings of the many would, in my opinion, have been a sensible and empathetic resolution. To believe that people would simply stay away was naïve in the extreme. And the Met were not. They quite correctly deployed uniformed officers to reinforce the coronavirus guidelines. Yet the likelihood of disruption would always result in those frontline officers being placed in the most invidious of situations and thereby becoming the unfortunate patsies, allowing those intent on causing disruption convenient cover. The resultant fall-out, catapulted around the nation and beyond by social media and latterly the mainstream channels, created the perfect storm for one of the worst police public relations exercises ever, conveniently seeking the head of the Commissioner. I have never worked with Commissioner Cressida Dick, but when rank and file officers speak of her talents in such glowing terms I am minded to conclude that she is the right person to lead the Met.
Something though is missing. The Command Structure which sets the strategic objectives is robust, reliable, and relentless in its accountability. I struggle to consolidate what I saw on Saturday night with what I know of modern policing. All police officers and those that operate within the wider emergency services will be confident with the terms Gold (strategic), Silver (tactical) and Bronze (operational). Rarely used, in my experience, is the Platinum level of national government. The Commissioner would also have been acutely aware of the inconsistences where coronavirus law has been proportionality applied. In the case, for example, of the visit of the Duchess.
As I write this the Mayor of London is reportedly less than satisfied with the police response to his initial call for an explanation to the tactics used and the Home Secretary has requested that the Chief Inspector of Constabulary conduct a review. In the meantime, the aftermath consumes the ether of news leaving a vacuum of fear and mistrust.
Over the next few days Parliament will debate the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021, which engages with the right to protest. This cocktail of events has done nothing for the reputation of the police who enforce the law by consent. They do not make the law. I do, and always will, support the notion of the right to protest and freedom of expression. I remain worried and confused.
Those who make our laws as our chosen representatives in our Parliamentary democracy have a burden which requires that in the first instance the rule of law is sacrosanct. During debate on the Internal Markets Bill parliamentarians openly discussed the breaking of the rule of law. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that prorogation of Parliament was unlawful. Also, the debacle of Barnard castle still hovers. To simply state that those who attended the vigil were breaking the law somehow seems even more hollow in light of these events.
The overwhelming, massive majority of cops are good people often doing the most thankless of tasks and regularly putting themselves in harm’s way.
What happened at Clapham Common was shocking. Was it preventable? Could it have been managed any differently?
I have given you my take.
© Ian Kirke 2021
Title photo by Ai Nhan on Unsplash