Category Archives: Racism

The 2013 March for England in Brighton: Questions for Sussex Police

Updated: 30th April 2013, with Sussex Police’s answers in italics. The police cannot become properly involved in the political debates about protest. All they can present are the facts as they saw them. Thus, my questions have been factual. Aside from observing that Sussex Police have not answered all the questions below, their answers are published without further commentary. The text below is my original post text as are the questions.

Here’s a list of straight questions, which Sussex Police need to answer following Operation Wheeler on Sunday 21st April 2013. Operation Wheeler was the name given to the massive policing operation in Brighton, which related to the “March for England”, a protest by a collection of far-right organisations. Yesterday, I published my personal account of the 2013 March for England.

Each question is numbered. I invite Sussex Police to reply to each specific question, using the contact form on this blog (they can identify themselves in a twitter Direct Message to verify answers received at this end come from them ~ I suggest they include a code in both the contact form and the Direct Message). My readers are welcome to put these questions to Sussex Police themselves. I’ll publish all the official answers in this post under each question.

Reports suggest that ten police forces were involved in Operation Wheeler. However, Sussex Police was in charge on the day. Therefore, all these questions are addressed to Sussex Police.

As a preface to the answers, please can we request that contrary to your usual ‘Comments Policy’, you publish our whole comment in full at first (including this introduction). That only seems fair since we have answered your questions in exactly the format requested.

It should also be noted by your readers that you were offered a face-to-face meeting with the operation commander, Supt Steve Whitton, prior to the answers being provided in writing. We suggested that you could record the full conversation in audio or writing, to publish here.

This was our preference, as it would allow you immediate reaction to, or clarification of, the answers provided. It would have reduced the time it has taken to provide the answers in writing. It would also, in our view, have provided a more meaningful and natural dialogue, particularly as some of your questions are a little loaded or without context, so have resulted in short answers without the ability for immediate two-way clarification.

The invite to meet with Supt Steve Whitton stands and, while we will do our best to engage with any resulting debate here or on Twitter, we must balance this with the time taken already to address your questions.

These answers have been compiled from information on operational systems and conversations with a number of people involved in the operation.

1. Who was in charge of Operation Wheeler?

Superintendent Steve Whitton.

2. What public order experience did the officer in charge have prior to 21st April 2013?

Supt Whitton is one of the most experienced public order commanders in Sussex Police and has commanded many public order events. He is nationally-accredited public order gold commander.

3. Why did Sussex Police allow the “March for England” to occur in Brighton on 21st April 2013?

There was no reason to request the local authority to make a banning order through the Home Secretary.

One of the guiding principles of our common law is that a citizen is free to do anything not forbidden by the law. Citizens of the UK are entitled to expect that peaceful assemblies, processions and demonstrations will not just be permitted, but will be positively facilitated by the police. This is emphasised by the European Court of Human Rights in a stated case which talks of the obligation of the state to go beyond non interference and extends into facilitation.

Police only have the power to approach the chief executive of the local authority, who in turn must approach the Home Secretary, in order to seek a ban. Only a procession can be banned and there is no power to prevent an assembly. The police can only approach the council where they believe serious disorder will occur and they cannot prevent this with the resources and legislation available to them. It is seen as a severe measure in relation to breaching people’s Human Rights.

4. Did Sussex Police consider the impact of the “March for England” on local residents, including the Scouts who subsequently decided to cancel their annual St George’s Day parade? If not, why not? If so, why was priority given to the “March for England”?

A multi-agency partnership meeting considered the impact at great length over several months of planning and Sussex Police engaged at length with local residents, businesses, traders and other interested parties. The scouts informed us that they had decided to change the date of their parade. There had been no conversation with them prior to that decision. With all policing operations, the impact on the wider community is balanced against the rights of others.

5. Why have Sussex Police allowed a man from Portsmouth to organise a march in Brighton for three years running?

There is no geographical restriction on organisers. It is not a factor we can legally consider.

6. Are Sussex Police aware of any local people joining the “March for England?” If so, how many? How many of those are what is commonly called “street drinkers”?

We do not know what percentage of the participants in the march were local.

7. What was the cost of Operation Wheeler?

The cost of the operation is still being established and will be made public in due course. It does take some time to collate all this information as we are dependent on receiving costs from mutual aid forces and we need to establish how long everyone involved was on duty and what other costs may have been incurred. We strive to keep costs as low as possible, but have already publicly indicated that the total cost will amount to several hundred thousand pounds.

8. Did Sussex Police have problems with the batteries in their cameras?

The Logistics Officer is not aware of any replacement batteries being requested during the operation.

9. Why did Sussex Police give permission to an organisation which has form for provoking large scale counter-protests to take over Brighton Seafront?

The seafront was established as the best option for the march, predominantly taking in consideration our key priority of keeping everyone safe – public, participants and police. The route was agreed by a multi-agency partnership meeting and considered the impact on city centre routes and business areas that were affected in previous years.

10. Does Sussex Police accept that its decision directly led to a massive loss of business for Brighton’s commercial economy, at a time of economic hardship and on a day which would otherwise have been lucrative?

We are aware that there was a negative impact on the city and the effect that the march would have was considered by the agencies and partners who discussed at great length the location of the march. While we recognise the problems experienced by local traders, the geographical scale of the impact was less than previous years and the majority of the city was unaffected directly by the march and the counter protestors. A neighbourhood policing inspector is personally visiting businesses along the route to better understand the impact the day’s events had on both residents and businesses.

11. Did Sussex Police consider suggesting an alternative venue for the “March for England”? If not, why not? If so, which venues were considered and why were they rejected? Was Preston Park considered?

A number of options were considered by the multi-agency partnership meeting. An open area such as Preston Park would be very difficult to effectively police with the prime objective of public safety without significantly increasing the number of police officers required to prevent violence and disorder. Had the march taken place elsewhere we consider that the impact would have been far greater.

12. Does Sussex Police accept that it, effectively, invited two groups of violent people into Brighton on 21st April 2013, because the “March for England” always attracts opposition, some of which is violent?

Sussex Police did not invite either of the groups and does not accept that point. We have an obligation, as outlined in answer 3, to facilitate peaceful protest and we are asked to do so for various groups in Brighton and Hove.

13. Why didn’t Sussex Police request that the “March for England” pay for the policing operation to protect it?

The march and counter protest are not organised commercial events, but protests and therefore do not incur policing costs. The role of the police is to facilitate people’s right to peaceful protest, which we do regularly for a variety of groups and causes. Brighton and Hove hosts the second highest number of protests in the UK, after London.

14. Did Sussex Police ask the “March for England” to make any financial contribution to the policing costs?

No and we don’t do. This could set a dangerous precedent or expectation for us to ask for cost recovery for every form of protest, which would be outside the spirit of current legislation and likely to be highly unacceptable to the public.

15. Did Sussex Police’s annual budgeting arrangements include a specific sum for policing the March for England? If not, why not? If so, what was that sum?

There are no budgeting arrangements considered in the annual budget for specific events, protests, etc., although there is overall contingency planning for those expected to take place across Sussex.

16. Why didn’t Sussex Police have any form of public address system on 21st April 2013? Was this option considered? If not, why not? If it was, why was it rejected?

Officers leading teams at various locations on the route of the march and its environs were equipped with portable megaphones and this proved sufficient. The matrix signs around the city warned of disruption and road closure, signs at Brighton railway station provided similar information and a large engagement process was undertaken to inform as many people as possible by many methods, including online, social media and traditional media updates on the day.

17. Did Sussex Police announce in advance that protesters would be arrested if they protested in zones designated for the opposing protesters?

No. It is not an offence to be in an ‘opposing’ protest zone. However, we would discourage this in the interests of personal safety and to prevent disorder and would consider arrests if offences were committed.

18. Do Sussex Police accept that no-one was arrested for protesting in the opposing protesters’ designated zones?

Yes, as it is not an offence.

19. Do Sussex Police accept that known supporters of the “March for England” entered the zone designated for the counter-protest and protested there?

We were made aware at the time that there may have been a handful of March for England supporters in the designated protest area for the counter protest. We were not aware until it was raised with us and it was then monitored, with action taken where appropriate to keep everyone as safe as possible.

20. Do Sussex Police accept that the “March for England” supporters who entered the official counter-protest zone were not arrested, despite that causing offence to those who considered themselves officially separated from the “March for England” supporters?

Being ‘offended by association’ is not a criminal offence. No arrests were made from either March supporters or the counter protest purely as a result of groups mingling, in line with answer 17.

21. Do Sussex Police accept that erecting a barrier which they themselves could not easily cross to remove “March for England” protesters from the counter-protest zone was a mistake, which could easily have prevented them from keeping the peace had more serious trouble occurred?

No, the barriers proved very successful and no serious disorder occurred in the areas where the barriers were deployed. Officers were deployed on both sides of the barriers in these areas and were very successful in limiting movement between opposing groups.

22. Do Sussex Police accept that deliberately and conspicuously photographing peaceful demonstrators is likely to alienate them from the police? Do Sussex Police regard anyone with a megaphone or a banner as a likely criminal?

Officers in many roles, including Evidence Gathering Teams, who were clearly distinguishable, were deployed to support the operation. No group was singled out or treated differently in relation to the use of cameras.

23. Why did Sussex Police search journalists on their way to cover the “March for England” under powers intended to combat terrorism?

A mini-bus containing nine journalists was stopped in an intelligence-led operation at Hickstead. They were treated as any other members of the public while searches were legally made.

One officer erroneously issued a ticket suggesting that the search was conducted under the Terrorism Act and they were quickly advised of their mistake, which we admitted to on Twitter the same day. The search was under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which does not make a distinction based on people’s employment.

Officers and media relations staff liaised with many journalists covering the march, providing information throughout the day, facilitating interviews with the police commander and continuing with updates into the evening and next day. Officers on the ground were briefed about dealing with media representatives and provision was in place for any accredited journalist to be allowed access to any areas, including the otherwise closed route of the march.

24. Do Sussex Police accept that Operation Wheeler was stopped too early because groups of people connected with the “March for England” and part of the counter-protest continued running fights around the city after 6pm?

No. While the operation nominally concluded at 6pm, enabling the stand down of the vast majority of officers, thus reducing costs, a number of units remained deployed and were able to deal with the few sporadic incidents that occurred after that time.

25. Do Sussex Police accept that its decision to pay for coaches for the “March for England” supporters either amounts to or directly leads to a widespread perception of helping the “March for England”?

While we are aware of this perception, the decision to use one coach inbound and two outbound was taken to reduce the risk of disorder or violence and the potential for bystanders to become inadvertently involved. We are satisfied that the decision was justified by its success in moving the participants in and out of the city without incident. This tactic has been used successfully to minimise disorder for similar marches in other areas of the country.

26. What other protest groups has Sussex Police given coaches to in the last five years?

None that we are aware of, but we are also not aware of any protest taking place where the level of opposition would be likely to pose a threat to those involved that required this tactic.

27. Why didn’t Sussex Police pay for coaches to help counter-protesters to travel to Brighton & Hove City centre?

The buses were not provided to help people into the city, they were provided to mitigate an identified risk to safety of all those involved. The buses ensured that people were able to exercise their rights without the threat of violence and ensured we were able to bring the march to a swifter conclusion.

28. Does Sussex Police accept that assisting anyone to demonstrate a partisan cause, by paying for their transport, is likely to lead to a breakdown in public trust and confidence in the police because it inevitably breaches police neutrality?

No. The provision of transport was for the mitigation of risk and in the interests of the safety of everyone involved – the public, participants in the March and the counter protest, and the police. If we had been approached by an organiser from the counter protestors, then consideration would have been given to offering the same facility. The same considerations would be made for any group in the future where the risk level was similar.

29. Why didn’t Sussex Police arrest people wearing masks and take them into custody?

Sussex Police had the power (Section 60AA) to request the removal of masks, hoods, etc. and if the person refused they could be arrested.

30. Do Sussex Police accept that in at least one instance they wrestled a mask wearer to the ground violently, rather than arresting him/her and taking him/her into custody?

While we are unable to identify the specific incident from your description, this probably would have been an arrest. While it may appear rather robust, if a person is resisting arrest or struggling in any way, officers are trained to secure them swiftly and safely with the minimum risk to both the arrested person and the arresting officer(s).

31. Why didn’t Sussex Police arrest “March for England” supporters wearing masks or other face coverings?

If a person wearing a mask or other face covering complies with a police officer’s request to remove it, there is no cause for arrest.

32. Why didn’t Sussex Police arrest “March for England” supporters making offensive gestures (eg raising their middle fingers, making Nazi salutes)?

A number of people were arrested for using threatening, abusive, insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear of/provoke unlawful violence. Two have subsequently been charged and will appear in court next month. The affiliation of an arrested person is not recorded as part of the custody process.

33. What steps have Sussex Police taken to identify those “March for England” Supporters who made violent threats on twitter in advance of the march?

Investigations are continuing into a number of threats and potential hate crimes and where it is possible to identify the perpetrators, action will be taken. These incidents were not confined to one particular faction.

34. How many police officers were injured on Sunday 21st April 2013?

There were no serious injuries, although one officer was withdrawn from duty after suffering a pulled ligament in his leg.

35. How many other people were injured on Sunday 21st April 2013 in connection with events relating to the March for England?

We do not hold this information conclusively, as we are not responsible for the treatment of patients. We would only be informed if injuries were associated with a crime.

36. Why did Sussex Police declare Operation Wheeler a success?

Sussex Police declared that it was satisfied with the operation. Our absolute priority was public safety, but we also had responsibilities to respond to crime and disorder, and to facilitate peaceful protest. These priorities potentially conflict at some times in protest situations and require careful balancing.

Overall, we believe we delivered an operation that kept the city relatively peaceful and free from serious disorder, despite the very high risks assessed and experience of similar events elsewhere in the country and previously in the city.

The final fascist “March for England” in Brighton

Yesterday various fascist groups mustered their followers with the intention of frightening the good people of Brighton on a sunny St George’s Day. This was their fourth visit to my home town and, arguably, the most disastrous for them so far. Their numbers were few, their march was pathetic, they were massively outnumbered by counter-protesters. Following the fiasco of the 2012 March for England, Sussex Police adopted a different strategy, namely to separate the visiting fascists from the local counter-protesters. As yesterday’s sunny afternoon turned into a chilly evening, the police were congratulating themselves on a successful operation. From a purely policing point of view, it appeared better than last year, when they found themselves overwhelmed by the numbers of anti-fascists, lost control of their plan for the day and even failed to arrest one fascist thug whom they had wrestled to the ground.

However, that superficial analysis breaks down when the facts on the ground are examined more closely. With a helicopter, approximately 700 officers, some mounted, three dozen riot vans and various roads sealed off with large metal barricades which would be the envy of any commercial event, their advance preparation was better organised. They arranged low level barricades, behind the bannister on the sea front, into a chain of pens which were slow and cumbersome to climb over. Presumably the idea was that the anti-fascists could not disrupt the march by bursting through that dead zone. Unfortunately, the police couldn’t easily cross the barrier either. Despite declaring in advance that protesters would not be tolerated outside their various designated zones, when known fascists entered the anti-fascist zones, the police could not enter it to contain them. I witnessed a group of six flag waving fascists at 12:53pm well inside the anti-fascist zone (opposite the Thistle Hotel). Local people called across to the police to remove them but for several minutes the police just stood around as if they were little more than lollipop men. I shouted over a request that they deal with the situation but the response was, “Stop shouting!” After many requests one police officer wandered over to his side of his barricade and asked the fascists to climb over it. Looking somewhat reluctant, he put a foot on the railing and said, “Are you going to climb out or do I have to climb in?” The fascists argued with him. He did not climb in. Two protest liaison officers were eventually seen strolling up towards the illegal immigrants, as if they had all the time in the world. They were escorted away but not, so far as I can tell, arrested.

Sussex Police barriers between the beach and the seafront road on Sunday 21st April 2013

Bad luck if that’s your bicycle

This incident was repeated several times before the fascist march began. On the one occasion I witnessed when the police did climb across their barrier, it looked like a training exercise performed by Dad’s Army. When Sussex Police sat down to plan their day (Operation Wheeler), did they not ask themselves how they would cross their own barrier if they needed to?

Prior to the march beginning, known fascists were allowed to wander freely around town, waving flags and chanting “Eng-ger-land”. This behaviour is indistinguishable from their method of protest on their official march. Therefore, it is fair to call it protesting. Yet they do not seem to have been arrested for it. At 1:12pm two flag waving fascists managed to squeeze through a gap between two of the blue police vans shown above so that they could confront the hundreds of people occupying the roads to the North of the roundabout by the Palace Pier. They were pushed back by mounted officers fairly swiftly. Were they arrested? I don’t know, but Sussex Police should be able to answer that question.

More worryingly, no-one in Sussex Police seems to have thought about any form of public address system. With 150 uncooperative fascists and 3,000 angry locals to deal with, the police left themselves with no method to communicate with large parts of the crowd. Instead they seemed to rely on officers barking orders to whoever was in the mood to listen. At one point I found myself in conversation with several of the local councillors and the MP for Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas, all of whom were were protesting against the fascists. One of them informed me that the police had promised them that they would have a public address system. Why was this promise broken? Surely it could not have been for want of financial resources?

Perhaps that last question should be directed to Katy Bourne, the Conservative Party Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner. She is in charge of allocating the resources for Sussex Police. Every section of Brighton’s political and social community declared its opposition to the fascists, except the Conservative Party. Sadly, the local Tories spent most of 2011 and much of 2012 concentrating their fire power on whipping up hatred against Traveller groups living on the fringes of the city, with the result that they were widely accused of racism. Their silence on this year’s arrival of the blatant racists echoed their failure to comment the year before. The combination of their refusal to condemn racism on our streets, their encouragement of racist attitudes and one of them now running the police is exactly what people most feared when the Police and Crime Commissioner posts were created. With each step, the police look increasingly politicised. Of course there are some sections of society which will never trust the police. The tragedy is that now many of us, who previously were prepared to accept that policing is a complicated job, now distrust the police because of this politicisation. The Tories tell us that operational decisions remain purely in the hands of the Chief Constable but he can no longer be regarded as independent when a politician has the power to fire him and hire someone else. The Tories could easily have condemned the so-called March for England. That they didn’t must have been a deliberate decision. It sits uncomfortably with the kindly manner the police treated the fascists in comparison to the locals.

I arrived at the seafront hours before the march began. The first thing I did was ask a policeman with a camera to photograph me and take a note of my identity. I explained that I done the same thing the year before and that, consequently, the police had been able to safely ignore various unfounded allegations made against me online because they knew that the fascists had identified someone else as me (someone who threw an empty plastic water bottle). This year the policeman I spoke to refused. I was struck by them failing to understand my request. I had to explain it and the reasons for it three times. The officer with the camera told me, “We are only photographing people where a crime is committed or there is a risk to public order.” I suggested that, as with the year before, police time need not be wasted if they photographed me again. This generated a different response, “We’ve got a problem with our batteries and cannot take too many pictures.” Police officers should tell the truth, so it’s fair to presume that this wasn’t some petty lie to get me to go away. That’s another question for Katy Bourne to answer. She can talk to the officer who refused to photograph me because his colleague allowed me to photograph his number instead:

A police officer in Brighton, 21st April 2013

Luckily I didn’t have a battery problem

Later on, another police officer with a camera photographed me when I suggested to the fascists, through my megaphone, that having turned around to march back to the Palace Pier, they were now facing Mecca. Then I played them the Call To Prayer, which they didn’t seem to enjoy but with hundreds of police and their barrier separating us, it couldn’t possibly have been described as a threat to public order.

After the march, the police allowed some fascists to roam around town looking for fights, just like last year. Predictably, there were outbursts of violence around the town well into the evening. Some people blame the violence on Antifa, who were out in strength. However, Antifa only exist to prevent the fascists from taking to the streets. They don’t demonstrate on their own. Had the fascists not been given a licence to demonstrate wherever they wanted, there would have been no trouble. They were even escorted to a bar in West Street to enjoy a drink! The police showed the Antifa activists little mercy and repeatedly attacked them. At one point one of them was wrestled to the ground because he refused to take off a face mask. Yet I saw plenty fascists covering their faces. Again, it is now very hard not to see the police as a politically motivated force, much as they were in the Thatcher years. Further proof of police bias to the far right comes from the fact that Sussex Police paid for at least one coach to bus the fascists to the start of the march. I’ve been on plenty of demonstrations in my time but I never heard of the police sorting out protesters’ travel arrangements before. This is another question for Katy Bourne to address.

On the plus side, Brightonians excelled themselves in their mockery of the fascism. Unsatisfied with screaming abuse, all manner of creative counter-protest dominated the day. The top prize for sheer good humour goes to the new EDL. If you follow that link, you’ll see that it doesn’t go to the racist English Defence League but instead to the English Disco Lovers. Already they are close to their stated aim of being the first result in online searches for the EDL. Their disco danced its way along the seafront all day and proved the value of good humour as a challenge to hatred. After some of the fascists had been bussed out of the town centre by the police, I went off to speak to them. It would be inappropriate to reveal the details of that conversation now but suffice it to say that we can be confident the fascists will not dominate St George’s Day in Brighton next year. 2013 was their final march. Watch this space and the EDL website for more information. The English Disco Lovers appear at 0:53 in this video:

Yesterday should have seen all of Brighton united against fascism. Of course, no-one could have been surprised by the Tories’ attitude but the real shock of the day was seeing the local Labour Party’s official tweeter attempt to make political capital out of the fact that the Green Party administration of the City Council had previously declared itself supportive of the lawful right to protest. Early on in the afternoon, @BHLabour, tweeted, “Businesses closes and residents terrified as @BHGreens proclamation that we are a city of protest brings March for England to our city #labour

Brighton & Hove Labour Party tweet criticising the Green Party as if they welcomed fascists to Brighton. 21st April 2013

Brighton & Hove Labour Party’s official twitter account created division instead of unity

This tweet was met with a storm of protest from all sorts of people, including several prominent Labour Party members and local trades unionists, many of whom could not be described as sympathetic to the Green Party, such as Caroline Penn. Ever since 1936, whenever the fascists have taken to the streets in Britain, everyone else has put their differences aside and united against fascism. Aside from the nonsensical nature of the tweet (the fascists came to Brighton before the Greens won power in the city), much offence was caused by it. Who on earth was on Labour’s Sunday shift on twitter last week? It wasn’t just a single tweet. Here’s another, at 2:26pm.

Brighton & Hove Labour Party tweet, concentrating on division rather than unity against fascism. 21st April 2013

Another divisive tweet from the Brighton & Hove Labour Party

And another, at 3:48pm:

Brighton & Hove Labour Party tweet, concentrating on division rather than unity against fascism. 21st April 2013

Labour insists on division

The decision to allow the march was made purely by Sussex Police. There is no mechanism for a political party to “apply to have march banned.” It wasn’t just three divisive tweets. Here’s another at 4:44pm:

Brighton & Hove Labour Party tweet, concentrating on division rather than unity against fascism. 21st April 2013

Will Labour explain its policy on the law on protest?

Did the Labour Party ask Sussex Police to ban the fascist march? No, they did not. By 7:18pm, the local Labour Party seemed to have come to its senses. It offered this apology:

An apology from Brighton & Hove Labour Party for creating division instead of building unity against fascim. 21st April 2013

Brighton & Hove Labour Party makes first apology

Some people complained that this apology appeared to attempt to shift the blame onto those offended. Seeing the logic of that, Labour offered another apology, at 7:46pm:

False claim that Brighton & Hove Labour Party had removed offending tweet. 21st April 2013

Brighton & Hove Labour Party falsely claimed that it had removed offending tweets

At the time of writing this blog post, the first tweet has been removed but the three subsequent tweets, shown above, which make similar points and cannot be described as in the spirit of unity are still on twitter, for all the world to see. The Brighton & Hove Labour Party has a proud tradition of opposing fascism. It has long been involved in anti-fascist movements and must understand what unity means. Its insistence on abandoning unity against fascism is a very sad development indeed. Recently the local Labour Party suspended one of its local councillors (Anne Meadows). Will it now suspend its twitterers, who have chosen to create division rather than unite against fascism?

Tony Armstrong, UKIP’s Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner candidate is racist

Yesterday, I concluded my interviews with the main candidates in the forthcoming elections for Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner, by questioning the UKIP candidate, Tony Armstrong. Having already interviewed the evangelical Ian Chisnall (plus my post confirming Chisnall doesn’t disagree with the published version of the interview), the Conservative Katy Bourne and the Labour candidate, Godfrey Daniel, I don’t mind admitting that I was strongly tempted to cancel the interview and instead go to a Brighton Photo Biennial talk by some Urban Explorers in the Caroline of Brunswick pub instead. The trouble was, he had asked me to interview him so very nicely. That’s me being ironic. Making an arrangement to interview Mr Armstrong was a real palaver.

First I tweeted him an offer of an interview. He replied in a comment on one of my blog posts, suggesting that I telephone him and leaving a number. I asked him again to contact me via twitter. He replied with another comment, asking me to email him but warning, “I cannot guarantee that the email will work, as I have to set up this end, and every time I start I get diverted to something else…” I replied again, asking him to contact me via twitter. A week ago I woke up to discover that he had tweeted me, at 3:36 in the morning! Here’s his tweet:

UKIP Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner candidate Tony Armstrong reads rival interviews in the middle of the night

UKIP Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner candidate Tony Armstrong reads rival interviews in the middle of the night. Click to enlarge.

I replied immediately, asking him to make the arrangements via twitter’s private direct messaging system. Here’s my reply and his reply to that:

UKIP candidate Tony Armstrong doesn't know how to use twitter

Tony Armstrong doesn’t know how to use twitter (or grammar). Click to enlarge.

Of course everyone cuts corners when faced with twitter’s 140 character constraint but Mr Armstrong hasn’t got anywhere near that territory with this truncated message. Despite me asking him once for an interview via twitter, twice via my blog with requests that he use twitter to contact me, and now a fourth time on twitter itself again, he still wants to telephone me. Is this a man who can fit in with modern communication systems? Is this a man who would prefer all communications to be unrecorded? What’s his problem with twitter? Why doesn’t he just sort himself out and then reply as requested? Whatever it is, he clearly cannot manage to use the network without help. The exchange continued, with me unfortunately losing a grip on my own grammar, at the point of sheer exasperation with this fellow’s basic incompetence:

UKIP candidate asks for help with the internet

Scrapper Duncan deploys lmgtfy.com – click to enlarge.

I very rarely deploy Let Me Google That For You. It performs the bluntest of hints. Normally, its deployment is sufficient to warn off the requester from making further contact. If you haven’t seen it in action before, here’s it answering the question asked by Tony Armstrong. Before he got that last tweet, he sent me another public tweet. If you don’t tweet yourself, it’s worth knowing that every single one of the tweets so far could be read by the entire online world, whether or not the reader has a twitter account. It is difficult to think of a more public medium. Nevertheless, Mr Armstrong chipped back in with the incredibly misinformed:

UKIP candidate muddles up public with private

Tony Armstrong asks if the most public space in the world is private? Click to enlarge.

At this point I should have withdrawn the interview request. Being this unable to work out the basics of digital communication must surely act as a bar to being taken seriously as a candidate for such an important job as running all of Sussex Police? So there I am, yesterday evening, sitting in my usual seat by the fireplace in the Battle of Trafalgar pub, Guildford Road, Brighton and who should rush in, looking flustered and somewhat out of breath? Yes, Mr Armstrong. To be fair, he was on time. He said he had driven to Brighton for the interview but hadn’t realised how to navigate the one way system to the pub (I guess he doesn’t have SatNav?) and then (of course) had to negotiate the tricky business of finding somewhere to park. He told me that lives in Burgess Hill. Why didn’t he just travel down by train? He screwed up his eyes at that suggestion, as if I was asking him why didn’t he move to the moon? The pub we were in is less than a two minute walk from Brighton station. He could easily have parked near Burgess Hill station, caught the train directly to Brighton and walked to the pub. That would have been by far and away the easiest way to travel to meet me.

Once he had a pint of coke in his hand and was settled in a chair opposite, I started the interview. Before meeting him, I’d looked over his own statement of policies and UKIP’s Manifesto for these elections. Lest they get changed from how they were presented to me, here they are. First up is Mr Armstrong’s declared policies:

Tony Armstrong's policies

Tony Armstrong’s policies, as of 24th October 2012. Click to enlarge.

To summarise them, he wants value for money, no cuts in front line policing, evidence based preventative measures, targeting known prolific criminals, increased Neighbourhood Policing Teams, increased Special Constables and Police volunteers and greater deployment of Road Policing Officers. In other words, there’s no real difference between what he wants and what all the other candidates want. His actual list of policies is numbered but not in any coherent manner. For example, paragraph 5 adds nothing of substance and is, therefore, little more than padding. Now, let’s look at UKIP’s Manifesto for these elections. It’s a bit more wordy but I’m posting an image of their relevant web page as of the date of the interview, lest they change it too:

UKIP's Manifesto for the Police and Crime Commissioner elections 2012

UKIP’s Manifesto for the Police and Crime Commissioner elections 2012, as of 24th October 2012. Click to enlarge.

Now, call me old fashioned but I can’t see the point of an interview which simply repeats huge chunks of already published election material. Yet that seemed to be precisely what Mr Armstrong wanted to do. Despite his initial claim that he had only “skim read” his own party’s manifesto, the answers he gave to my questions were peppered with phrases directly lifted from either of the web pages above, as if he had read it over and over again and, whether accidentally or deliberately, memorised them. Several times, I stepped in to remind him that he was simply repeating what I had read online only a few hours before.

On Mr Armstrong’s own website (in his Q&A page), it says, “… before I became the official UKIP candidate, I made no secret that if UKIP policies clashed with what was best for Sussex, I would do what was best for Sussex. I repeated the same promise from the stage at my first public meeting at Lancing on 11th October, in the presence of the Leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage.” With this statement in mind I asked him if he agreed with all of UKIP’s manifesto? “I’ve only skim read it.” Later on he told me that it was only published five days earlier, after he had been declared as a UKIP candidate. He was keen to claim that he “wasn’t a politician” but did conceded that since he was an official representative of a political party that did make him a politician. He said a career politician was “someone who had spent their life in politics” and cited one of his rivals, Godfrey Daniel, the Labour candidate as an example of that. He went on, “I don’t want to be thought of as a politician.

I pressed him, was there any part of the UKIP manifesto which disagreed with? “No.” With that agreement established, my questions followed the statements in UKIP’s manifesto. It’s worth noting that this is their manifesto specifically tailored these elections for Police and Crime Commissioner. UKIP’s manifesto says it believes “in sentences that mean what they say” but Mr Armstrong accepted that the police had no power over criminal sentencing whatsoever. The manifesto says Mr Armstrong wants “More Police Officers on our streets” but when I asked him how many more police officers he would recruit, he couldn’t give a precise answer. It says Mr Armstrong wants “More Special Constables…“, so I asked him how many more would he recruit? “It depends…” On what did it depend? “On how many volunteer and are suitable.” How much did each one cost? “I don’t know.” How much would it cost to recruit them? “I’ll deal with that later. We’ll recruit them first and work out the budget after.” Really? Surely he would have to work out the budget before he could recruit anyone? “No, the recruitment will be before the budgeting decision.” I wanted to ask whether he thought there was a single organisation in the world that could operate on that basis but, for some reason I didn’t. Perhaps it was because he volunteered some more information: “I have no background in finance.” Didn’t the elected Police and Crime Commissioner need to understand finance? “No, I can hire people in to deal with that.” How much money would he spend on hiring in people who would do his job for him? “Dealing with financial stuff is not part of the job.” Didn’t the job include making decisions about the allocation of resources? “Yes.” Wasn’t any decision about how to allocate resources, a financial decision? “Yes but there will be a team to help me.” What was the cost of hiring the team he needed to help him perform this aspect of the job? “I don’t know but I will get whatever needs to be done.” He collected himself and said that the “existing team” would probably do most of the work but if they “couldn’t function” he would hire new people to help him.

How many more police stations would there be? “I don’t know.” Where would they be created? “I can’t give you a precise answer.”

In direct contradiction to his party’s manifesto, he accepted that the police did not have the power to “Axe the Crown Prosecution Service and return to police prosecutions“, could not “Build the prisons…” and had no function of law making (the manifesto says UKIP’s candidates want “More severe penalties for serial re-offenders“). These three claims alone destroy the idea that UKIP has got the slightest grip on the point of these elections. Who wrote this crap? What’s the point of claiming to the public that your candidate will be “dedicated to” these objectives, if you have no power whatsoever to make any progress on any of them?

The manifesto also says that UKIP wants, “More rehabilitation to turn offenders away from crime.” This is possible under the remit of the Police and Crime Commissioner because s/he will be able to allocate resources towards rehabilitation schemes. If they wanted to, they could use their funds to help start entirely new rehabilitation schemes, either in partnership with other community organisations or without them. I slipped my question about this in with my questions about the three manifesto claims above: did he agree that the police had no power to create rehabilitation schemes? “We can help with them but we can’t create them.” Here’s a fellow who has realised that he has contradicted the manifesto he wants to support, an interviewee who has realised that several questions in a row have only one logical answer and a careless listener. Either he doesn’t know what the powers of the Police and Crime Commissioner will be or he found it difficult to concentrate when being asked questions in quick succession and leapt at the easy answers, the ones that agreed with an apparently well informed interviewer. Here’s a man who will be easy meat for a Chief Constable.

Crucially, Mr Armstrong accepted that he would be obliged to follow the judgments from the European Court of Human Rights. He wasn’t keen on that question at all. I had to press him three times for a clear answer on that.

UKIP’s manifesto says it wants to, “Focus the Police on solving serious crimes, rather than concentrating on thought crime, political/diversity issues, gathering statistics and ‘soft targets’. For instance, speed cameras should be sited only where the community wants them – not where they’ll make the most money..” There’s a lot going on in that paragraph, so I broke the questions down. How much ‘thought crime’ was committed in Sussex? “Who knows?” Fair enough, it’s a good answer. Not exactly on message with his party manifesto though. “What does it mean?” I reminded him that it had come from his manifesto and suggested that since it was me who was interviewing him, he should tell me what it meant? “No idea. I would like to know what they mean by that. It’s not my turf.” Then he suggested that it could perhaps include “that B&B couple“. Was he talking about the Christian B&B owners who had turned away a gay couple? “Yes.” Didn’t he realise that whatever they were accused of, it was an action and not a thought? “Yes.” Surely he knew that they had not been prosecuted as criminals but had been subject to a claim made by way of civil litigation, which had nothing to do with crime? “What’s the difference?” Didn’t he know that many court actions were civil matters resolving disputes between citizens who had not been involved in any crime? “Yes, I see what you mean.

Did he agree that gathering statistics could help prevent racist behaviour by the police? “No, it’s a waste of time. If it shows an imbalance, then the problem has already occurred.” Didn’t he think that being able to audit such imbalances would act as a deterrent to certain police officers who tended to pick on members of ethnic minorities? “No.” He went to speak fondly of the “good old days“, when he said police officers could be expected to be “fair by everyone“. When I pointed out that we had since discovered all manner of police malpractice back in the days when nothing was monitored he simply shrugged his shoulders and insisted that they were all upstanding people who tried to do the right thing. I wondered whether this character paid any attention to the news at all? He joined the police in the 1960s. There have been so many instances of misbehaviour, malicious prosecutions and cover ups since then it is difficult to know when to start and where to end a list of them. An exercise like that wouldn’t just require a whole post, it would need a whole blog! Mr Armstrong told me that he didn’t want the police gathering statistical data because “that could be done by civilian staff back at the station“. Okay, I said, I’m out late at night and a couple of coppers stop me, question me, then rough me up a little but they don’t arrest me; didn’t that mean that I would never get entered in any data gathering exercise under his way of doing things? “No, erm… I think I have muddled up the words ‘gather’ and ‘collate’.” Nice try, I thought. I’ll ask again. Did he agree that gathering statistics could help prevent racist behaviour by the police, because it could prove that certain types of people were being disroportionately targeted? His answer was shocking: “there is a school of thought that if you’re black, you’re more likely to commit crime.” Really? What’s the evidence for that? “That’s why more black people get arrested in Brixton.

There is a school of thought which thinks that ~ it’s called racism. There really isn’t any other way of dressing this up. There’s no evidence whatsoever that people of any one ethnicity are more likely to commit crime than any other. This so-called ‘school of thought’ is a bigoted opinion based on fear and hatred but not on facts. This wasn’t a chat down the pub with one of his friends. This was him being interviewed by me in the full knowledge that I would publish what he said. Why would he mention this? Does he subscribe to this racist belief? If he doesn’t, what on earth was the point of introducing it into the conversation? In the context of the questions being asked, he appears to be using it as a defence to UKIP’s policy against gathering statistics. He’s saying that there’s no need to gather statistics to monitor how the police treat ethnic minorities, because ‘black people commit more crimes anyway’.

This is an outrageous statement. Mr Armstrong has been a member of UKIP since 2006. He’s met Nigel Farage, appeared on a platform with him and has declared that he completely agrees with their manifesto. At his first opportunity in this interview to distinguish his party from other, less savoury racist organisations, he jumps straight in with both feet and stamps on his chance. Does Mr Farage also think black people commit more crimes? Doubtless someone will ask him shortly.

I pointed out that speed cameras tend to be set up by local authorities. Didn’t that mean that UKIP’s claim that they should only be sited where the community wanted them put was already met, since the local authority was democratically elected? “I don’t know whether they are a police decision or not.” The manifesto declared that there would be, “No soft treatment of Police misdemeanours.” What was the most common police misdemeanour in Sussex? “No idea.” What sort of police misdemeanours did he have experience of? “I don’t know. None.” This was his party’s manifesto. The claim had to be based on something. He’d been a serving police officer for many years. Couldn’t he give an example of a police misdemeanour? “Lying was probably amongst the most common.” Great. Here’s an ex-police officer, whose eyes glaze over with a warm and rosy look when he recalls ‘the good old days’, when the police were not properly monitored and committed all sorts of outrages (from the Birmingham Six to the Hillsborough Ninety-Six and countless cases in between), who readily tells the public that lying is likely to be the most common fault in the force.

Towards the end of the interview, Mr Armstrong was keen to distance himself from the UKIP manifesto. “I’m not committing myself to anything,” he said and repeated that he had only read the manifesto in a hurry. It took me five minutes to read. I am a fast reader. Perhaps it took him ten. Perhaps fifteen. “I have no specific policies.” That’s an odd claim to make, considering he has been widely advertising his own website, which contains the page entitled “POLICIES.” Yet again he tried to insist that he had strongly considered being an independent candidate. He told me that originally his website contained a sentence explaining a now abandoned desire to be an independent candidate but he had been asked to remove it. By whom? “The powers that be.” Which powers were those? “UKIP.” Why had they told him to remove it? “Probably to achieve conformity with the other UKIP candidates.

He had some definite plans for Burgess Hill, where he lives. He wants to increase the work done by Road Police Officers. He used to be one of those. Here’s a man whose political vision is limited by his own experience. He doesn’t appear to grasp even the basics of political dialogue. “You do ask a lot of questions!” Yes, I said, this is what happens in a political interview. The interviewer asks questions. Did he agree that UKIP’s project intended to frustrate the Tories from winning some seats and thereby wring from them a concession over Europe which would be more carved in stone and written in blood? “No. UKIP’s project is to win power, to win freedom from European shackles.

At the very end of the interview, I threw in a quick question which was specifically designed to give him an opportunity to say that he needed more information. I asked him about his view of funding research into surveillance inside Jabber OTR channels. Instead of asking what Jabber was, he waffled a little about how important proper investigations were. What was Jabber? “I don’t know.” What was the question I just asked you? “I don’t know.” I gave a brief explanation and then he suddenly “did know“. Grinning, he told me that he had access to “secret knowledge“. What sort of ‘secret knowledge’? “I can’t tell you what secret knowledge I have or might have.” I’ve spent a lot of time in my previous career questioning people. Some of those people were liars. Others were merely bullshitters and, if I’m honest, the vast majority were just confused. This last stab at something special left Mr Armstrong looking like a liar. Whether he’s a liar or a bullshitter I cannot tell but he’s definitely racist.

Tories concentrate firepower on peace campaigners by calling them antisemitic

In recent months the Brighton & Hove Conservative Party has devoted much time to criticising some local peace campaigners. That the Tories would disagree with such people is hardly surprising. The long standing mutual aid relationship between the Tories and the arms traders, whose business is dependent on peace not breaking out too often, is plain to see. David Cameron visiting Egypt soon after the success of their revolution to promote British arms sales was just the last stark example of this. The surprising thing is the amount of time and effort that the Tories have devoted to their attack on key peace campaigners in Brighton.

Although a tweet is easy to fire off, professional tweeting and becoming embroiled in conversations on twitter can require quite a bit of effort. It’s too easy to say something stupid due to failing to properly follow all the links out of the conversation, or even all the relevant dialogue itself. It seems that no amount of effort is too small for the Tories, when they can bait some of Brighton’s peace campaigners.

Normally, the peace movement is the political constituency making all the effort in this argument. To the casual observer, this odd role reversal seems to suggest that the Tories have become rattled somehow by the peaceniks and are fighting back. We’d expect  politicians sure of their ground ignore people like this. Perhaps the campaigners have begun to worry EDO, the Brighton arms factory they campaign against? Were that the case, we could expect EDO to lean on the Tories for some tactical support and the Tories to respond by launching a diversionary assault, to distract the focus of the attack on their important political supporters and funders. This analysis not only makes sense, it also flatters the campaigners with a previously unacknowledged strength, such as may beguile them and their potential recruits into thinking that they are close to victory. If only it were so simple.

Whilst there can be little doubt that the Conservative Party would prefer the peace campaigners to give up altogether, in Brighton & Hove they’ve chosen a novel ideological battleground. They’ve played the race card but not in the conventional way. We’re well used to the Tories’ racist campaign against the Travellers’ community and their complete silence when the EDL marched “for England” in the City centre. Ever since Peter Griffiths’ shock victory against the national trend in 1964 (he campaigned on the slogan, “If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour“), the Tories have carefully cultivated the bigots in our communities, to win their votes. A few years later, Enoch Powell made his infamously inflammatory speech. Insisting that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist was the public face of their active support for apartheid – they consistently worked against the anti-apartheid movement. These days, a new generation of Tories may lack the deep seated fear of difference that their elders had but they still want those votes. Rather than lead on the issue, they are generally led, regarding the immigration issue as home territory. Despite all that history and tradition, the Brighton & Hove Conservative Party now make the startling claim that it is the peace campaigners who are racist. Specifically, they allege that the peace campaigners are antisemitic.

Until recently, this allegation has been fostered by certain Conservative Party activists, notably Robert Németh and Linda Freedman. Németh The Unelectable (so-called for his habit of losing very winnable elections) is the Deputy Political Chairman of the local Tory Party. Plenty of other Tory activists have joined the charge led by Németh:

Conservative Party activist Linda Freedman speaks out

Conservative Party activist Linda Freedman alleges anti-semiticism. Click to enlarge image.

Conservative Party supporter Rob Buckwell claims anti-semiticism.

Conservative Party supporter Rob Buckwell claims anti-semiticism. Click to enlarge.

There are dozens and dozens of tweets like this. For the record, here’s a whole bunch of them from Németh:

Robert Nemeth leads campaign claiming peace campaigners are anti-semitic.

Robert Németh leads campaign claiming peace campaigners are anti-semitic. Click to enlarge.

A recent political stunt by some activists, upset by Mike Weatherley Tory MP for Hove and Portslade) championing a new law to criminalise squatting, involved Németh being showered with pink glitter. The local Tories regard the squatters’ movement and the peace movement as being only populated by the same people. Of course, that’s a simplistic view which overlooks the number of perfectly respectable property owners who distrust the radical left but would still like to see the EDO factory closed. Brighton & Hove is stuffed with people like that. The City Council’s official statistics reveal we’ve got more graduates than anywhere else in the country. There’s plenty of psephological evidence to suggest that the more highly educated a population is, the more likely it is to vote for progressive candidates, which goes a long way to explain the number of Green voters here. Here’s how Németh described the glitterer:

Robert Németh describes man who threw glitter on him as "Some insane squatter thug".

Robert Németh describes man who threw glitter on him as “Some insane squatter thug”. Click to enlarge.

Personally, I dislike glitter very much. My wife sometimes goes to parties where it gets spread around. Several times, when I was a practising barrister, I found myself on the receiving end of odd judicial glances and later discovered that it had transferred itself to me, doubtless in our affectionate moments. The three piece black suit look is somewhat undermined by a dusting of shiny metal particles. Clearly, this was stunt was designed to grab the headlines rather than intimidate anyone. It is on a par with cream pie throwing. Describing the glitter merchant as a thug is ridiculous. Describing them as insane is risible. The day after his glittering, Németh publicly associated the incident with SmashEDO, the campaign against the arms factory:

Robert Németh links glitter attack to SmashEDO

Robert Németh links glitter attack to SmashEDO. Click to enlarge.

Presumably, in his mind there cannot be a separation between the two completely separate issues of housing and war. Having persistently characterised SmashEDO as an antis-emitic campaign, this rather looks like Németh attempting to tar all his political opponents with the brush of anti-semiticism. Reading through Tory activists’ public pronouncements on the SmashEDO campaign, you’d believe this was a brutal underground front organisation for the Iranian mullahs, hell bent on the genocide of the Jewish people. They’ve propagated unsubstantiated claims that SmashEDO has driven out Jewish members. At best that allegation reveals a chronic lack of attention to detail. At worst, it amounts to a smear campaign. Incidentally, I’ve been reliably informed that the glitter wielding thug, Alex Cline, is Jewish himself.

These allegations are simplistic in the extreme. The debate about the behaviour of Israel towards territories it has illegally occupied was for many years dominated by overly simplistic analysis like this. However, in recent years the issues have broadened out in mainstream debate. Clearly, the fault lines are complex. One thing is clear though: criticising a country for bombing innocent civilians does not amount to a racist campaign against the dominant demographic inside that country. Scrutiny and objective investigative enquiry are hallmarks of our democratic values. Refusing to acknowledge the merits of critical dissent is not. Despite wanting the votes of our highly educated population, the local Tories’ obsession about this one small apolitical peace group has become a long running theme in their local profile. Yesterday, they issued the following statement on their website:

Official Brighton & Hove Conservative Party statement on 3rd July 2012 which links peace campaign with attacks on local Jewish community.

Official Brighton & Hove Conservative Party statement on 3rd July 2012 which links peace campaign with attacks on local Jewish community. Click to enlarge.

This statement completely ignores the fact that there has been a rise in hate crimes since the recession began. There have been attacks against the disabled. The Tories are not particularly bothered about organisations which explicitly promoted racial hatred – if they were, they would have made a public statement condemning the EDL’s parade around Brighton on St George’s Day.

All of this amounts to a deliberate smear campaign. The question is why are the Tories doing this? If they carried on like this elsewhere in the country, they would risk alienating loyal voters. The sort of people who swung from Labour to them in Griffiths’ consituency. The sort of people who still praise Enoch Powell. These people regularly turn out for the Tories, although in recent years some of them have gone over to UKIP instead.

The answer lies in Brighton’s unusual demographic. SmashEDO’s analysis of the smearing rests on the fact that the Tories no longer regard the Green Party as purely Labour’s problem. Certainly, the Greens have been winning votes in areas normally associated with the Tories. Doutbless, this unexpected development has rattled them. SmashEDO argues that the Tories are seeking to scare voters away from the Greens. The idea here is that the Greens support for the SmashEDO campaign will prove that they are extremists too. In other words, not the sort of people the peace loving population of Brighton & Hove can afford to love.

There’s a lot of truth in this analysis but it’s only part of the picture. The bigger part relates to the fact that Brighton & Hove has an unusually large community comprised of gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gender people. The Tories are desperate to win these votes. With them onside they believe that they can eradicate both Labour and the Greens from local politics. It’s worth remembering that Brighton had a Tory council for 154 years before the graduates of Red Sussex (the University of Sussex’s nickname of old) changed the political map. They know that this community is well aware of the persecution that they would face in places like Iran, Zimbabwe & Syria. Therefore, it is convenient to the Tories to establish a link between the peace campaigners and the ‘mad mullahs’ of Iran, by means of the anti-semitic slur. Similarly, they relentlessly criticise SmashEDO for failing to oppose tyrannical regimes like Mugabe’s and the current Syrian dictatorship.

That last point is absurd. SmashEDO are a single issue campaign. They want to close down a factory which makes parts for weapons systems which are used to commit crimes against humanity. That’s it. That’s all the campaign is interested in – that one factory. In fact, last night I tried to persuade one of the campaign’s founders to join the Green Party but he point blank refused. He believes that his campaign would be weakened if he was involved in any political party. The EDO factory does not supply Syria, Zimbabwe or Iran. Why should SmashEDO launch campaigns against these regimes? There’s plenty of other campaigns tackling those tasks. Though you’ll not find the Tories championing them.

The whole thing is a sign of the Tories’ political desperation. They can no longer described as the natural party of government. They failed to win the last general election and look unlikely to win the next. Our local Tories have failed to win power in Brighton & Hove. The average age of the Tory associations is said to be 68 years old and rising. Without so many young recruits, it is increasingly hard for them to manage elections. Although their traditional canvassing methods focuses on mail shots, which they can easily afford, they lack the bodies on the ground who actually get the walking (as opposed to the postal) vote out. This is a long term problem for them, with no easy solution in sight. In times like these, people are not flocking to join them. Our local Tories know that if they don’t recruit a new generation, they will be doomed. This problem has become so acute for them that in March of this year, they publicly announced that they would accept non-party members to stand as candidates for them!

Brighton & Hove Conservative Party asks for non members to become election candidates.

Brighton & Hove Conservative Party asks for non members to become election candidates. Click to enlarge.

For years there’s been a power struggle inside the Brighton & Hove Conservative Party. There are two camps. On one side there is the older generation, which would prefer that the internet would somehow just go away and the old ways will come back. The younger generation recognise the futility of this way of thinking. Németh The Unelectable leads the youthful upstarts. Determined to live down his nickname, it is he who makes most use of social media and other modern communication strategies. It is he who realises which parts of the local community the Tories must convert to their cause. The trouble is, he’s got less experience of community life than he does of policy wonkdom. Knowing where he wants his party to go, he’s adopted ruthless tactics to get there. Free from attention to awkward details, he’s able to adopt any means necessary to achieve that ambition, including a smear campaigns.

More free speech than the racists can handle

On 22nd April 2012, a front organisation for the profoundly racist English Defence League (EDL) rounded up some supporters and headed to Brighton to hold a so-called “March for England“. Whilst it may be easy to understand why they would want to dress up in patriotic sentiment, the reason for coming to Brighton was less clear. Virtually none of them were from Brighton. The reason appears to lie in their identification of my home town as being very different from their mistaken perception of Englishness.

We have a long tradition of successfully opposing fascism and racism. In my youth some old Labour Party members described to me in detail what happened when Oswald Moseley attempted to create a regional base for his fascist movement in Brighton. His British Union of Fascists were physically run out of their meeting in the Corn Exchange. There was the so-called Battle of Lewes Road too. After that, he called off the idea. Ever since then Brighton has steadily fed progressive politics into the country at large. That’s why the EDL hate Brightonians and everything we stand for.

We have a very vibrant culture which positively welcomes all, normally. A special exception is made for bigots. Our City Council insisted that the EDL would be allowed to exercise their democratic right to protest, in keeping with the Green Party’s policy of encouraging people to express their political views. Sussex Police turned out in force to protect the racists from the inevitable welcoming committee. The people of Brighton ruined the racists’ day trip to the seaside.

Here’s my video of the day’s events. It isn’t a documentary. I was too busy joining in the counter demonstration to film everything. However, it does show the happy calm on the streets before the racists commenced their march, the mounting tensions inside their group whilst they mustered at the station, the fiasco of their march itself, our local MP Caroline Lucas turning out to oppose them and their aborted rally in Victoria Gardens. The film ends before they are escorted at speed back to the station to go home.

As you can see, there was no shortage of free speech in Brighton that day. It was the biggest shouting competition I have ever been to. The marchers did not enjoy their day out because they could not make themselves heard over our cries. My favourite banner of the day said, “Suck on my diversity!

No place on our streets for violent demonstrators

Yesterday I discussed the evolution of the policing of political protests, particularly in Brighton, noting that much improvement had been made but that there was still a considerable distance to go before the police performed their job properly in this regard. Today’s post is concerned with the tactics of those who would turn various public political events into a physical fighting ground for Their Revolution. Sometimes the established media calls these people Anarchists but that’s a slur on some of our greatest philosophers and some of my best friends. The people I’m discussing are just thugs really and, frankly, there isn’t a great deal of difference between them and the various fascist and racist groupings which they love to hate the most.

Not everyone who acts violently is a thug. Sometimes it is necessary, in self-defence or the defence of others. This is not only recognised in law but also our culture generally and rightly so. Therefore any discussion of violence by the public, as opposed to the police, at political events is fraught with complication. Clearly, there are more numerous occasions than would be appropriate to mention in a short blog post like this when the police have either started the violence or deliberately created situations where it would become inevitable and people have reacted accordingly. The most infamous example in recent times was the Poll Tax Riot of 1991 in London. This video is contains a record of how the day’s events unfolded and is narrated by some the demonstration’s organisers:

I wasn’t in London that day but I knew plenty people who were. The chronology of events described in that video and others like it (better ones, which I couldn’t locate this morning) prove beyond doubt the culpability of the police that day and the complete lack of investigative journalism by the mainstream media at the time. Regardless of the inflammatory policing before the events narrated from 22m onwards, anyone caught in or near the path of the police vans driving at speed directly into the crowd was, in my clear opinion, legally fully entitled to attack the vans, their drivers and supporting police in self-defence and the defence of others. Of course, at the time, the press coverage was such that the courts took a different view.

With the benefit of hindsight, the view that the police started the riot that day is generally accepted. This scenario has been so common and its consequences so serious that any discussion along the lines of today’s post can too easily be taken as a criticism of all unruly and/or riotous crowds. There are so many examples of the mainstream media failing to report events properly close to the time, that people on the ground often feel extremely defensive towards any critical point of view. With that context properly acknowledged, we can turn back to those who attend public demonstrations with the intention of physically attacking the police.

These people turn up at almost every demonstration which has a left-wing point to make. That’s hardly surprising. Traditionally, right-wing political views were not demonstrated on the streets, largely because they are already manifested in the rules by which our society is governed. That changed with the emergence of the Countryside Alliance. The joke that they were the armed wing of the Tory Party was funny because was obviously untrue. Since then other right-wing groups have exercised their democratic right to assemble and protest their views. Campaigners against the right to choose abortion have followed in the footsteps of their political cousins across the pond and taken to harassing women entering termination clinics, by holding static demonstrations outside. People bent on violence against the police do not join those groups. In the last few years an ultra right-wing group called the English Defence League (EDL) has begun to hold provocative marches. Although undoubtedly responsible for much covert violence, they themselves do not attract into their own ranks the sort of people being discussed here. However, they always attract large crowds of all sorts of people opposed to their racist views. The people looking for a fight with the police routinely join the resistance to the EDL and use the occasion to attack the police without prior provocation.

In the various political events I have attended, my worst experience of these people was in Plumstead, in October 1993. Earlier that year a racist gang had murdered Stephen Lawrence. There had been a rising number of racially motivated attacks in South-East London. It seemed clear that the British National Party (BNP) was behind these crimes, either directly or indirectly. Consequently, various community groups, trades unions, sections of the Labour Party and various other left-wing parties, came together and organised a demonstration against the BNP. The BNP had it’s headquarters in a bookshop in Plumstead. The march was billed under the title, “Close Down The BNP”. At least, that was the official title. There were plenty of leaflets circulating (we didn’t have a workable internet in those days) with the title, “Burn Down The BNP HQ”.

I cannot imagine any civil society which would permit a march with those intentions to get anywhere near its target. Any community which wants its police force to turn a blind eye to that sort of behaviour hasn’t got a police force as we understand the term. Nevertheless, I went along to the protest. I was young and, like many other people at the time, I was very angry about the lack of a clear crackdown on these racist thugs by the authorities. The police banned the march but the coaches were hired anyway and we all descended on London.

As usual, it is difficult to obtain accurate figures for the numbers on the day. The organisers claimed that there were 60,000. I think the figure was probably closer to between 8-12,000. Numbers do tend to fluctuate at this sort of thing. It’s not a football crowd watching a match. My estimate is based on me counting a section of the crowd when it was densely packed and then multiplying it up by physical space, from a vantage point on a wall in Wickham Lane. Whatever the true figure, the vast majority of people were not intent on violence against the police. To what extent they were intent on violence against the BNP was unclear. However, it’s fair to assume that had the crowd got anywhere near the so-called bookshop, it would have been dismantled, brick by brick. More than likely, anyone inside would have been murdered. We wanted revenge for the violence they had visited on our communities.

Faced with substantial numbers of people attending an unlawful demonstration, the police sensibly chose to route the march along a route which they could control. We marched down this picturesque suburban lane:

Wickam Lane, Plumstead, London.

Wickam Lane, Plumstead, London.

If the residents of Wickham Lane didn’t previously know about the proximity of the BNP’s headquarters before that day, they certainly did afterwards. Those that were in that day must have been staggered by the sheer weight of numbers and deafened by the noise.

At the end of Wickham Lane the police made another sensible decision and chose a spot that was easy to defend and provided us with an exit route to our left up Lodge Hill, where they had directed our coaches to take park up ready to take us home. Here’s the cross roads:

Scene of the Plumstead Riot on a quiet day

Scene of the Plumstead Riot on a quiet day

Of course, at the time it looked very different. The police blocked the road straight ahead, which took the most direct route to our destination. The road to the right, going up hill was also blocked and the road to the left is Lodge Hill. The police allowed us to walk a little way down the road straight ahead (Okehampton Crescent) and made their stand there. During the stand off between the crowd and the police, dressed in riot gear, I walked up and down the gap between the two sides. It was about two yards wide. I remember wishing I’d brought a camera because it would have made for some excellent photography. For a while, everything was calm.

However, the protestors were determined to make progress. When the pushing began, I found myself pressed up against a riot shield, with the pressure of thousands of people behind me and thousands of police officers in front. It was a frightening crush. I remember realising that the front row of a rugby scrum turned out to be little more than a cuddle compared to it. Somehow I managed to get back from the front line.

Then someone in the crowd made a clever announcement through their megaphone. He said, “There’s a couple of thousand of them and twenty thousand of us. If we coordinate ourselves, they won’t be able to resist our great force. Link arms and a-left!” Without any warning, we all spontaneously cried out, “Left!” As we did so, we put simultaneously put our left foots forward. The megaphone man cried out, “… and a-right!” We all cried out, “Right!” In this manner we walked effortlessly up the road. There was no shoving or violence in the normal sense of the word. The police could not resist the physics of the situation. We advanced ten or twelve steps like this. Suddenly it was going to be easy. The megaphone man called out again: “Now, untangle your legs!” That was a good idea, below waist height in the crush we were all caught up with one another. After 30 seconds, he started coordinating us again and again we were on the move.

This was obviously a tactic which the police had not foreseen. They reacted to it by charging the crowd with horses and arresting the man with the megaphone. Without him it was harder to manage the process but the idea had taken root and we took it in turns to call out the coordinating commands. It worked because we all took each step in unison. Although force was being used, it didn’t feel like a violent situation. However, it was getting increasingly dangerous. The pressure was immense. I felt an arm slip through the nook of my elbow and heard a short woman next to me asking if I could hold help her stay upright. This sort of situation is how people get trampled underfoot. Without warning the police horses broke though their side of the front line and charged us. We ran back to the junction and regrouped. The police regrouped and there was another stand off, this time with a wider gap between the two sides.

Whilst charging mounted officers into the crowd was dangerous, I could see why the police had done it. They couldn’t allow us to break through their ranks and burn down the BNP headquarters. They had allowed us space to the left at the junction to escape through. We weren’t taking that option. Instead we were clearly capable of overwhelming them, without resorting to an actual attack.

I was about two or three lines from the front of the protestors, when suddenly a brick dropped out of the air right beside me. It landed on someone’s head, gashed it and took them down. The crush had collapsed the wall of the old cemetery on Wickham Lane. Masked men, dressed in black had started to break the remnants of the wall up and were throwing them.

I suppose they meant to throw them at the police. I could understand their anger towards the police. We all knew that the police were racist. Even today, there’s evidence that large sections of the police still are institutionally racist. Back then, we knew that they had deliberately bungled investigations into racist crimes. If they’d have done their job properly, we wouldn’t have had to wait 20 years for Stephen Lawrence’s murderers to be convicted.

However, they weren’t throwing them at the police. They were throwing them at us. Plainly, they couldn’t throw their missiles far enough to reach the police lines. They stood behind those of us at the front and threw large bits of masonry into our own numbers. We called out, with increasing desperation, for them to stop. They shouted back that we should join them. Someone shouted a suggestion that they throw their bricks from the front of the crowd and not at the crowd but they weren’t interested. They just wanted to hurt people.

The person on the ground next to me was helped up Lodge Hill by various people, some of whom were holding their hands in the air to show that they were covered in blood. As soon as they had fled the scene, the police charged again. This time, it wasn’t a controlled maneouvre. It was a violent attack on us. As they charged in, they lashed out with their batons at anyone they could reach. They weren’t trying to get specific individuals, they were after all of us. To be fair, we had all chosen to take them on and push them back.

The stone throwers turned and ran with the rest of us. Then the police retreated to the junction, which again provided us with an escape route to up Lodge Hill. This episode became repetitive for the next few hours. During this time the stone throwers injured many people in our crowd and rarely hit a police officer or contributed to the general effort to push the police back. In my view, they created the riot themselves. Without their antisocial behaviour the police may have attacked us anyway but these people didn’t wait for that. Responsibility for the injuries and fear that day lies firmly with them. I’d estimate their numbers at no more than 30. That a group so tiny could cause so much trouble and not be held back by the vast numbers of ordinary people mystifies me.

Eventually the police must have decided that they had to move us out of the lane and towards where our coaches were. Another contingent pushed us from behind and we were corralled up Lodge Hill. They repeatedly charged us with horses. Although I’d had more than enough fear and loathing for one day, I was keen to stay put. I felt strongly that we had to make our mark, we had to make sure that the issue made the news. That certainly happened but not in a good way:

Incidentally, a word to the wise. I discovered that a crowd’s sudden unity can evaporate equally quickly. During one of the final stand offs, I called out to the crowd on Lodge Hill and asked them to recall that scene in the film Ghandi, where the protestors lay down in front of the British mounted officers. In the film, the horses refuse to trample on the people on the ground. I suggested that this was true and suggested that we all lie down. About a hundred people, maybe more did precisely that. I lay down at the front, looking towards the horses and thought, “this had better work.” Having encouraged this form of peaceful resistance, I didn’t feel able to abandon it when the horses charged again. Unsure of the film’s veracity, at the last moment I turned my head to cover it with my arm. I saw everyone else get up and run. I was lying down on my own directly in front of a dozen charging horses. They ran around me.

Occupy London made many mistakes but it did work out a solution to the problem caused by the thugs bent on getting punch drunk fighting the police. Immediately that we had occupied St Paul’s Churchyard, we received messages of support from various shady groups who declared that if the police came into clear us out, they would turn up and defend us physically. Privately, the activists who took on most responsibility for the various essential features of camp life asked them not to. Right from the start, there was much talk about how to deal with these people. We regarded them as agents provocateurs. The consensus view was that if anyone saw anyone being violent (without reason), we would stand back from them and point at them. Early on myself (and others, it wasn’t just the legal team doing this) spoke to as many officers as we could to inform them that we would facilitate their arrests. We made these communications as official as possible by tweeting the numbers of the police we had spoken to or videoing the conversations. From time to time, I’d hear someone say that if the police came in to clear us out, he’d attack them. Every time I heard that, I’d hear other people immediately tell them that if they did that, they would stand back, point at them and assist the police in arresting them. There was no violence.

At the recent so-called March for England by the EDL in Brighton on St George’s Day, more than a thousand people from all walks of life turned up to line the streets and boo and harangue the racist protestors. Me included. Amongst our numbers there were about thirty young men dressed in black and masking their faces. Doubtless some of these people were just worried about losing their jobs. Not all the objects thrown at the EDL came from their ranks (I saw one man open an upstairs window and throw a bottle at them). However, it is fair to say that yet again there was a tiny group of people who deliberately used violence against both the EDL and the police. They threw bottles and fireworks. Yet again, they weren’t too fussed about who they hit with their missiles. The EDL have persistently complained that a young girl was hit by a bottle. This claim has embarrassed the anti-racists organising the counter-protests that day. By and large they have been silent about it. Those bottles were gifts to the racists. They were thrown on several occasions. Some of them sailed directly over the thick heads of the EDL supporters and into the large crowd of Brightonians on the other side of the moving police kettle. More than once, I had to duck a flying bottle and a firework landed close to my feet. Whilst walking down North Street, I spotted my local MP, Caroline Lucas, and suggested that she stand back a little to avoid the flying glass. “We need you to be able to work hard for us in Parliament, not go to hospital“, was what I said.

We were rightly proud that both the then Leader of Brighton & Hove City Council (Bill Randall) and our local MP turned up in person to oppose the racists on our streets. What on earth was the point of throwing bottles at them? At anyone? As Plato famously put it, cui bono?

Clearly this tiny minority of thugs benefits. They get to have their excitement, in much the same way as football hooligans fighting have theirs. Previously, those parts of the police and our political classes who want ever stronger powers to control us, also benefit from this behaviour. That begs the question of how many of them are actually undercover police agents? Perhaps we’ll never know. Although the law on self-defence permits someone to strike first, the facts of the situations I witnessed in Plumstead and in Brighton do not give rise to that defence. In neither situation were we being attacked or under immediate risk of attack by the police (or anyone else) until these people became violent.

I’m heartily sick of having our rebel culture hijacked by these troublemakers. I’d like to see the Left discuss the issues involved far more readily. We must adopt solutions to the problems these people cause us. If we don’t, we’ll be permanently stymied in our ability to recruit others to our cause. For all its failings, the good people in Occupy London have provided us with a tactic which works. When we film trouble at demonstrations, we should unequivocally film all of it and make it all available publicly. If the police cannot or will not arrest the thugs and we don’t feel able to do so, we should stand back and point at them, so as to distance their behaviour from our beliefs. If we can do that on every occasion, it won’t take long before they stop trying to railroad our beautiful peace movement. Our inactivity shelters them and encourages them.

No wonder the vast numbers of people angered by the current crisis of capitalism still don’t join the ranks of political activists, socialist, Green, or otherwise. How on earth can we recruit if we can’t root out this systemic problem? Seven years after the Plumstead riot, I was working as a law reporter in London. During a pub lunch myself and the editor were encouraging the rest of the staff to become more politically active. One fellow declared that he would never get involved in any public demonstration because they so often turned violent. He told us a story about such an occasion in the road he grew up in. He told us that the protestors had broken up a graveyard wall to throw the constituent bricks at the police! I asked if he had lived in Plumstead and he said, yes, near there. I blurted out that I had been there that day and tried to explain what happened. He wasn’t interested. After our crowd had gone, the rain had come and the skeletal residents of the graveyard had emerged from the earth which had previously been hidden by the broken retaining wall. We hadn’t just broken the wall that day, we’d broken any chance of recruiting him and his neighbours to an active political life. Whether it is broken windows or dead bodies we leave behind, neither is a good calling card.

Brighton has long been at the forefront of the peace movement. That’s why the EDL want to parade around on our streets. They hate us and want to provoke us. Although this year we humiliated them, we also allowed them to argue that they have good reason to hate us. We need to tackle that issue properly before next year’s confrontation. The confrontation isn’t the problem, it’s the manner in which we handle it. We must raise our game. We need to stop avoiding our own issues about how we handle ourselves and the misguided people amongst us. Next year, the police may want to kettle the anti-racists again, as they did two years ago. We need to be clear that the violent idiots will be treated as the criminals that they are. Practical steps must be taken to ensure that Sussex Police understand there has been a definite change in our strategy. They’ve been making efforts recently to build trust with our activist communities. We’ve got to make some effort too.

How far has policing political protest evolved in Brighton?

Sussex Police wantonly attacked a peaceful political demonstration on 24th August 1996 in Brighton. The occasion was billed as a Reclaim The Streets. For the uninitiated, that’s a celebratory protest against car culture, which makes its mark with peaceful protestors physically standing in the road. It was intended to be a beach party. As far as I could tell, the word was to attend dressed for the seaside and be ready for beach games.

That morning I had a wisdom tooth extracted. Head full of anaesthetic and minus one large tooth, I strolled into town to join in with the fun. I was expecting a nice fluffy event and a rare break from my legal training. I had returned home to live with my parents so as to be able to afford my studies and this was exactly the sort of thing I imagined that they most feared – me apparently returning to old party driven lifestyle. Nowadays, I look back on the rock ‘n’ roll years of being a fire-eater and fondly call them The Soft Years. Back then, I was as keen as my folks were to see the back of them. All the same, I chose not to mention this protest party to them, lest they got the wrong idea.

When I arrived in Churchill Square, there was a rather tense atmosphere. There were a lot of police. Hundreds of them. There were also a few hundred people standing in a loose group some distance from the police. I asked someone what was happening. They explained that a couple of Legal Observers had just been arrested and the others had been warned that they would be arrested too. That resulted in all of them taking off their orange bibs and concealing them. One of them had apparently been arrested for handing out leaflets explaining a person’s rights on arrest. I didn’t like the sound of that.

Whilst I was digesting this information and wondering what to do about it, someone else told me that the people with the sand had been arrested in a pre-dawn raid. Their idea had been to arrive at the Clock Tower with a massive truck and tip a huge quantity of sand onto the road around it, so that we could have a genuine beach party. I was never all that convinced by the merits of this plan. It would have been a very dramatic form of defiance. It could easily have created dangerous road conditions in the wet. Drivers could hardly be expected to foresee slippery sand on this junction, on a hill or deal with it competently in busy traffic. Overall, although I could see that it would grab the headlines and probably get a photographs onto the front pages (we still read newspapers in those days), it was very provocative. Having sniffed the story out, the police were bound to come down hard on those they perceived responsible.

The sand boys had been frustrated but the police were probably wondering what other ideas were up which sleeves. Reclaim The Streets, Critical Mass and similar events were a direct response to legislative changes designed to curtail demonstrations. Since official organisers would get into serious trouble in so many scenarios, people just abandoned any attempt at official organisation for anything. The resulting chaos was and is much harder for the police to cope with. Like the original Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, it was a classic knee-jerk law-making; arguably it created more problems than it solved. These days, the police have become a little used to the idea that we do not trouble ourselves with organising committees. Back then, they found our new methodology simply incredible. Their view seemed to be that the organisation had gone underground: organisers had become conspirators. Instead, an idea was launched and people made their own arrangements around that.

The police and the protesters continued to eye each other nervously. I borrowed a Legal Observer’s bib. Various people, none of whom I knew, urged me not to put it on. I didn’t know anyone there. I crossed the physical space between the two groups and spoke to the police officer in charge: Chief Inspector Streeter. I told him my name and address. I told him that I was about to start the Bar Vocational Course at the Inns of Court School of Law and asked him why the Legal Observers had been arrested. He declined to comment. I said that in the absence of any explanation as to why a Legal Observer should be arrested, I intended to become one there and then. I explained that I had borrowed a bib from a stranger. I suggested that if he wanted to arrest me, perhaps he could let me know. He said, “So long as you don’t play any part in the demonstration, you won’t be arrested.” I put the bib on and walked back.

The police moved to the other side of Western Road. The crowd exhorted itself to get the show on the road. We collectively tiptoed after the police. Just as we got to the kerb, someone shouted, “They’re not going to stop us!” Suddenly beach balls were being thrown in the air, the traffic was blocked and there was partying on the road.

It was a short lived party. The police lined up into ranks and advanced. West Street seemed to have been closed off for our benefit. Looking back now, I wonder whether the people who shouted that we were being allowed to take over West Street were in fact undercover officers. We were corralled down West Street. As we did the police at the bottom advanced towards us. Then the police appeared on both sides of us. The police on all sides pushed and shoved us into an increasingly small rectangle until there was only just room to turn on the spot. I didn’t know to call it a kettle then.

People were shouting and asking for more room. It got very ugly, very quickly. Pleas to leave were ignored. Between us and the police was a thin strip of space. It was as wide as the length of a copper’s arm. Anyone straying into this region was attacked by the police, physically. Realising that this was not going to end well, I decided to ask a police officer if I could leave. Hands by my side, I asked the nearest officer. His neighbouring colleague drew his truncheon and stabbed it into my chest repeatedly.

The standard issue truncheon had just been replaced. He stabbed me four or five times and only stopped when I pushed the tip of his weapon away. I said, “There’s no need for that, I only asked to leave. You could just say no.” Whatever was going through that man’s mind is anyone’s guess. Perhaps he was worried about being obliged to defend himself from having to articulate a response with his extendible rod? He raised it and tried to beat the top of my head with it! I caught the end of it in my hand and said, “What do you think you’re doing? If you can’t talk, you could just ignore me. There’s no need to try to kill me. You must know the risk of death or serious injury involved in hitting someone on the head?” As I said those words, we played an absurd version of unbreakable crackers. He yanked his end of the truncheon and I pulled back at the offensive end. When I let go, he knew it was because I had chosen to. He looked sheepish and put his weapon away. I asked him again if I could leave and he ignored me, avoiding eye contact.

One of his colleagues ordered me to move away. “Where am I supposed to go? You’ve left me no room to move.” He could see my point. There were people standing directly behind me and people behind them. At this point I felt someone tap me on the shoulder from behind. I turned around. A large furry microphone was pushed in my face. Next to the boom operator was a man holding a large video camera. A woman asked me if I wouldn’t mind being interviewed for French television. “Sure, I don’t have anything else to do.

She asked me if I was hurt. I said no. Then she mentioned that they had seen the police hitting me with his truncheon. I said something about him not wanting to let me leave and go home. She pressed her point and asked, more insistently, that it must have hurt me. Although not keen to help the police at this point, I didn’t want to lie either so I said, “Oh no, it was nothing.” Her face was incredulous, as if she was annoyed that I hadn’t immediately complained of maltreatment by the heavy hand of authority. She pressed again, saying that I looked really badly hurt and I replied that I wasn’t, that there was nothing to worry about. She pointed to the blood running down my chin. Wiping my chin, I discovered that I there was blood on it. I felt the back of my mouth. Realising that this wasn’t too hygienic, I pulled my hand out and wiped it on my hankerchief, which I then wiped my lips with. It turned from white to red. The interviewer said something like, “Look, you are bleeding quite badly! You are hurt!” My reply must have reinforced every cultural stereotype possible about the British stiff upper lip: “I’m telling you, this blood has got nothing to do with anything. I’m not hurt.” Her face was complete confusion.

I realised that I could use the blood as a means to escape the inevitable fracas. I approached the police again. I pointed out that I was bleeding, took off my bib and asked to be allowed to attend hospital. That worked. On the way home, the anaesthetic wore off and the pain kicked in. Sitting in my kitchen at home, my Mum asked me what I’d got up to that afternoon. “Nothing much“, I replied. Then she told me that one of our neighbours had seen me on BBC South Today in the middle of a riot. Oh dear. The neighbour had related the whole incident to her. “Better not tell your Father“, was all she said.

Now that’s my personal recollection of the events on the day. Luckily, there were people taking a proper record of what actually happened. I’m the Legal Observer mentioned at 14:50 at that link. The following day there were extensive press reports, focussing in particular on the exceptionally high arrest rate. The police broke the law repeatedly that day. The demonstrators did not. Although the Human Rights Act had not yet been drafted, the UK was a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights: it was the first country to sign it and the last to legislate. The legislation made remedial action swifter and clarified the relationship between the Convention and all our other laws to some extent but it didn’t actually introduce any new rights. The police broke those rights over and again. Let me be completely objective about this: the policing was a bloody disgrace.

I knew no-one at the protest. I went back to my studies. I kept my newly acquired bib. Since then I’ve moved house over sixty times. I’ve given away all my possessions, lost stuff, sold stuff and been separated from stuff. I’ve treasured the bib. When I was completing my barristerial training in London I sometimes turned up at events like Critical Mass. I put my bib on and watched the police very very carefully. I would hear people say things like, “Who’s he? The other observers don’t know him.” Other people would note that a few words from me and the police would change their behaviour. A little. Normally Legal Observers have training to ensure they remain in role. I never did. Effectively, I acted as a freelance observer. I’m not pretending to have saved any days but I did contribute to keeping the peace on a few occasions. I wish I could say the same for the police. I’ve observed them breaking whatever laws they want until they heard me recording everything into a time stamped dictaphone.

At Occupy London the police attacked us on the first night. However, a combination of events kept them at bay after their initial foray. One was the fact that the City of London Police had little experience at dealing with civil disobedience. Another factor was that man of the cloth turfing them off the Cathedral steps first thing in the morning, creating the possibility of a political crisis between the City and the Church of England. There are more factors than I care to name in this essay but one of them was the fact that they knew that right from the start we had an excellent legal team. Once more I had turned up on my own and put my legal head to work. On the first night I recruited John Cooper QC (to advise me on behalf of Occupy London). I suggested warning them via twitter that there were children asleep in the tents and that they ought to read the Children Act before piling in. The tweet went out. A moment later, their lines pulled back. It could have been a coincidence, of course.

The biggest factor was almost certainly their knowledge that no matter how much they filmed and photographed us, we were capturing their every movement and streaming it directly to the world. Probably with better cameras than them. The name Ian Tomlinson was doubtless on every officer’s mind. His death was a tragedy. It was also part of a pattern. The police have form for injuring and killing people at protests. People they are supposed to protect. Previously, they got away with murder because they could cover up the evidence and we couldn’t collect it ourselves. There’s no point stopping people handing out leaflets explaining your rights on arrest any more because everyone has a video camera.

Back to Brighton. Sussex Police have recently developed a new approach to policing protests. They deploy protest liaison officers. We first saw them used when they turned out in force at Brighton Uncut‘s Never Mind The Jubilee Street Party in Churchill Square. Elsewhere in the town, large numbers of officers kept a close eye on a day trip to the seaside by the EDL. Afterwards, Sussex Police made attempts to discuss this new form of engagement with people interested in the protests, by talking to them via twitter. Some of us, myself included, tried to engage with them. Others rejected the approach out of hand. Others still were indifferent. After all, the police have a lot to prove. It is them who have to win trust, not the people.

Although there is a long way to go before this new initiative could be described as a turning point in the relationship between the police and people protesting their rights and their political views, we have also come a long way since 1996. The Brighton Uncut street party was just as unlawful as the ‘beach’ party, yet the police did not just pile in, beat anyone who dared to speak to them and arrest as many people as their cells could hold. Instead they talked to us. That looked like an improvement to me.

Unfortunately, after that the new look protest policing faltered. The protest liaison officers were next deployed at a demonstration by the SmashEDO campaign, which protested against the possibility of war with Iran on 4th June 2012. Sussex Police have been coy about the behaviour of the protest liaison officers on this occasion. It has become clear that they tried to mingle with the protesters and only left the crowd when the protesters mocked them so much that their continuing presence had become inflammatory. Having already discussed the new strategy with the police via twitter, shortly after that protest I asked them whether those reports were true. Instead of replying that they were waiting for reports to be filed and would answer later or admitting it or denying it, instead the police tried to duck the question. (10th paragraph at that link & screenshots of conversation below it.)

These people work for us! They are public servants. I’ve paid tax. I’ve paid their wages. Why they think that they should treat any enquiry much as a politician treats a journalistic question is baffling. I fear it reveals much about police culture. Close ranks, cover up and kill the story. When will they understand that these old tactics won’t work? We have video. We own the internet. The more intelligent approach would be to get straight to the point and admit the truth. Then the merits of the facts could be discussed.

Let’s park the issue of Sussex Police being unable or unwilling to just confirm the facts on the ground. The decision to deploy officers charged with engaging with protesters uninvited inside the protesters’ ranks must be categorised under “Undiplomatic”. There is a deep seated suspicion amongst many political activists that these officers are simply on an intelligence gathering mission. For my part, I suspect that even the police would realise this technique would be an utter waste of resources. Last year’s half a million plus requests to snoop on our communications was much more likely to bear fruit than donning a uniform and walking amongst us. Film is more useful than individual personal recollection. Undercover agents who are still allowed to rape their way around the activist community will certainly acquire more information than watching people wave donuts on sticks at you. The average plod may not be the brightest soul in the force but surely those further up the chain of command cannot have really intended these particular officers to gather intelligence? It’s much more likely that the decision to deploy them like that was a bungled attempt at public relations and the slowness to withdraw them a reflection on the reflexes of the command structure. After being pinned down on this issue, Sussex Police later implied to me that their officers had as much right to the public space as anyone else. That’s true but it isn’t the way to develop new community relations. It’s like the landlord turning up at your birthday party and telling you he owns the house.

Many local political activists point to the officers wearing the liaison bibs being the same people employed on more pernicious tasks. There’s not much mileage in that point. These liaison officers are not a completely separate unit from the rest of the police. They’re just performing a role on the day. Performing different roles is a feature of professional life. Rather than picking on the people involved, we should point out the problems with the new role in the hope that they can be ironed out.

It is early days still. The gap of understanding between the two sides is wide. There is too much distrust on both sides. There will always be some political activists who view the police as a front line in their battle for regime change. There will always be some police who regard anyone who isn’t shopping for retail therapy to be a troublemaker. In between, there are many who would like to find a better approach. The problem is that the police have all the power. The ball is in their court. My guess is that they get a few more chances to serve us properly but only a few. If they fail to get those right, this new initiative will crash. They’ve come a long way from mindlessly attacking everyone in sight but that’s happened because we have empowered ourselves. As Marx argued, a change in technology has ushered in a change in the relationship between the powerful and the weak. Therefore, the police don’t get any credit for abating their traditional methods. They need to win credit by backing off.

At Occupy London the City of London police won much sympathy with the protestors by keeping their distance. Sure, they walked through our camp but only in ones and twos and even then only occasionally. They stood back. I knew when they followed me through the streets because they weren’t that clever about it. I expected them to anyway. Often they followed me and other conspicuous people whilst others took on more important tasks, online. These days we don’t talk to the people we’re standing next to by using our voices. We use direct messages on twitter, off the record encrypted channels, the tor project and various other methods.

Brighton & Hove is now officially a City. It is run by the Green Party, which openly welcomes citizens’ asserting their democratic rights to protest. The City Council has explicitly stated that everyone has the right to protest and they expect the police to facilitate those protests. Thus the EDL was allowed to march under the cover of the so-called “March for England“, even though every member of the local administration is deeply opposed to everything they stand for. That event was bound to carry big risks of trouble. There were people determined to disrupt the march, themselves exercising their lawful right to a static demonstration without advance permission. There was trouble. Bottles were thrown at the racist EDL. Some EDL supporters attacked local people (myself included). The police had a complicated job to do that day and on the whole they managed it very well, which is why I have not pursued a complaint against them for failing to arrest the man who attacked me. They probably didn’t deploy sufficient numbers to cope with the predictable stress lines across town that day. No doubt lessons are being learnt for next year.

The point the police have to grasp is that it is not for them to control demonstrations, let alone become involved in them to any extent. Their job is to maintain the peace. Nothing more, nothing less. If a protest group doesn’t want to engage with them, there’s nothing they can do about it. Without any threat of violence, there’s no need whatsoever for more than half a dozen police officers. Two at the front, two at the back and one walking along either side. If they want to park greater numbers around the corner, to be ready for spontaneous trouble, fine. Barging in on a political demonstration which they cannot support is not engagement, it is incitement. If the police don’t understand this, they need to take a long hard look at themselves and their role in our society. We all know what it should be – to keep the peace, not to keep control.

Rather than try to stop political protests, the police should allow people to make their point and, if necessary, use their power to arrest people for a breach of the peace. Peaceful activists will not resist that type of arrest. Activists will make more impact by getting arrested for civil disobedience than for fighting. The police need to make a judgment call on when such arrests are justified. We can have the arguments in court later, rather than on the ground. If an activist is released, they should be allowed to move freely again. If the police lack the resources to deal with large numbers of protestors in this way, then they have a political argument with the government.

People must be able to talk to any police officer, without fearing violence. If there is a role for specific protest liaison officers, the police need to spell out how it differs from all other police officers. Having justified that distinction, it must be maintained cogently. Bibs on bobbies is meaningless unless there’s a properly understood role. At the present time, the purpose of the new role is far from clear. I’d like to see Sussex Police complete their journey from their nasty behaviour in the nineties, to transform themselves from being political tools to being the protectors of the peace. To promote the chances of their success, several sections of the activist community are giving them the benefit of the doubt, for now. The next outing of the new protest liaison officers will be watched very closely indeed. The pressure is on the police to behave like concerned citizens, not control freaks.

Guest Post by Ian Beck: If You’re Not Pissed Off You’re Not Paying Attention

So the youth of Worthing are restless. The UK creeps towards a police state, with public order measures concocted to combat terrorism and riot deployed to stop the yeomen of Worthing congregating after dark. Or at least an order under Section 30 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, providing for “dispersal of groups and removal of persons under 16 to their place of residence.” I’ve been to Worthing many times, generally just passing through on the A27. It’s no hotbed of sedition. I’ve always thought of it an elephants’ graveyard, where the well-heeled bourgeois of conservative Sussex buy expensive coastal retirement bungalows to quietly await the inevitable. Of course this is a caricature, and unfair. I’ve also heard, anecdotally, of a small but seething youth counter-culture down there; if you know the right people, you can have a surprisingly good time. After all it’s not far from Brighton, most people there have money. Apparently Worthing’s not as dull as it looks.

I heard about the Worthing Freedom Campaign on Twitter from @SchNews, the Twitter account of an organisation known to have a nifty line in radical political satire, and to be supportive of direct action against the kind of criminality and immorality that the rightwing and mainstream media don’t tend to highlight. Their by-line: “If you’re not pissed off you’re not paying attention.” Well, I too am disturbed, not to mention angry, at the way things are going in this country. Those responsible for the current, worsening, financial and economic crisis have not been held to account. They appear to continue as if nothing has changed, for they are insulated from the consequences of their mistakes, indeed these same mistakes would seem to result, for them, in ever larger bonuses and other rewards. Austerity is clearly failing, the coalition’s mandate is uncertain. A lot of other bad stuff is going on here and in the wider world that needs to be challenged. There’s a big international crisis, on several fronts (in case you weren’t paying attention.) Though I’m no spring chicken these days, have a job to hold down, and live far from Sussex, I would hope to make common cause with a lot of what SchNews do.

Surely to win any challenge from a position of material weakness you must win the argument first? You must choose your weapons carefully. I wasn’t that impressed with the Worthing Freedom Campaign’s blog, with its links to other news sheets sporting brutish satire. Not terribly edgy, not terribly original, not terribly funny, and not awfully constructive. Perhaps I shouldn’t be so harsh? The authors of Pork-Bolter could well be kids; at least they take an interest, exercise creativity and are asking questions. But in my experience the police are far more open to negotiation and reason when treated like the human beings they in fact are. A respectful and constructive attitude tends to be reciprocated, though you may take issue with the laws the police are enforcing, or whether their methods are always proportionate and lawful. But a report from the Brighton Evening Argus – it has to be said a paper not noted for political neutrality or detailed factual accuracy – linked to by @SchNews caught my eye, the reported use of the Nazi swastika by this Worthing Freedom Campaign.

At this point I should confess that I think about the Nazis a lot. More than most people do, and possibly more than is healthy. But that’s a function of my day job as a history teacher, and because a lot of dark, evil and perverted stuff happened during the brief but spectacular period the Nazis inhabit. So what sort of “Freedom Campaign” deploys the swastika? To me, that’s an interesting question. Hitler’s concept of “freedom” was somewhat different to that understood by @SchNews, and, one would hope, the Worthing Freedom Campaign. What Hitler meant by freedom was, in the first instance, the freedom of ethnic Germans and other “Nordics” (if they were up for it, though in the end choice would not apply) to join the same big or “Greater” Germany, regardless of the wishes of other peoples who happened to dwell thereabouts. To achieve this collective “freedom” Hitler’s people would need an invincible war machine that would ultimately enslave or exterminate their enemies and rivals. Individual Germans wouldn’t have any choice about participating in this “freedom” project either. Hitler’s idea of freedom was not freedom at all.

A side issue, then, to the main event, but an important one to this interested party. @SchNews did not at first respond to my questions. Snubbed and disappointed, I provoked them to respond. I’m new to Twitter. Once their “hive mind” had worked out what on earth I was on about, they said the story wasn’t true, they wrongly blamed the Argus. @SchNews did then concede that the swastika had been used on a leaflet which was “not the cleverest we’ve seen” but in the end no big deal. The image itself is no longer available but reportedly the swastika had been used in juxtaposition with a Sussex Police badge, so as to suggest, ironically or not, that Sussex Police are Nazis. Soon @Sussex_Police were in touch too. They said that this Nazi emblem had appeared on the Worthing Freedom Campaign’s website too, but had been removed. The message left by Sussex Police to complain had been deleted. The police account made the glib but fair point that censorship was hardly in the spirit of freedom too.

Scrapper Duncan has blogged about all this already, and very well. My point with @SchNews was that this use of the swastika was at best inflammatory and hysterical, hardly likely to help the credibility of the campaign. At worst, it’s lot more disturbing than that. Their defence was that the use of the swastika was by a couple of silly individuals not representative of  the campaign, and was a bit of an irrelevance. Worthing’s Freedom Campaign seemed to have thought better of it, which must be a good thing? Just when I thought I was making some progress with @SchNews, edging them towards a condemnation of this sort of imagery, they made the questionable assertion that the meanings of these symbols change over time. The hive was perhaps not in harmony. My understanding of the symbols of Nazism is no longer current, then. It doesn’t really matter. These days the Nazis aren’t so bad.

Here’s how they responded to Scrapper Duncan’s post (unfortunately Jo Makepeace’s remains incomplete, and seems set to remain so. Two further comments in response by Scrapper Duncan and by me are also reproduced):

Jo Makepeace 11 June 2012 at 12:45 pm

Wow – our first Twitter row! #welcome to the 21stCentury.

Thanks for the fulsome praise in the first few paragraphs by the way!

Our remit is definitely to defend grass-roots groups trying to resist authority, although it seems unfair to charge us with ‘fundamentalism’ on this basis. We stated that we didn’t think it was the cleverest of leaflets, although no doubt we’ve been guilty of equally crass behaviour in the past in pursuit of some splendidly satirical objective or other.

Ian’s point struck us as nitpicking – having a go at a small group trying their best to stand up to over-weening police power by pointing out an exaggerated claim in a single leaflet.

Ian seemed to be suggesting that an ‘even-handed’ approach be taken between the Worthing Freedom Campaign and Sussex Police, which given the power imbalance between them is laughable. The fact that the cops have the power to sweep you off the streets and incarcerate you (with increasingly little redress) is precisely why they shouldn’t be welcomed into the rhizomatic world of twitter and blogging as equals. Certainly they shouldn’t be shedding crocodile tears about hurt feelings!

There may have been a point in the past when Naziism wasn’t trivialised but that’s long ago now. I don’t think that the Worthing Freedom Campaign are responsible for Allo, Allo, the Download spoofs etc etc. The meanings of symbols do change and the power of the Swastika emblem to shock has been eroded over time.

Cultural saturation with the idea that Naziism represented some black hole sui generis apex of evil that effectively stands outside history has ironically aided that erosion. Without an…

Scrapper Duncan 11 June 2012 at 2:07 pm

Thanks for your comment. You seem to have been interrupted by the character limit? Imposed to stop time wasters, which are definitely not one. Still, same rule for everyone! If you finish elsewhere, I’ll publish your pingback.

@ian_bec 11 June 2012 at 3:29 pm

Thank you Duncan for this post and your support in this matter. My interest here was purely to query and challenge the use of the swastika by no doubt a small minority of these protesters in Worthing. I was not attempting to question or pass judgement on the basis of the protest, nor the tactics of Sussex police. From the point of view of Schnews this is not an important issue and I was “nitpicking.” This would explain why my first two questions to Schnews about this were ignored. Neither is the association of protesters – who no doubt would regard themselves as on the left and supporters of liberty -the narrative Schnews would want to propagate.

The fact that the swastika was deployed on a single leaflet only, and quickly removed from the website of these protesters, indicates that they thought better of it. Good. Though there’s enough in Jo Makepeace’s response here to take issue with, I’d rather see the whole comment before responding item by item. It was just getting interesting, though I’m not sure the Latin (or Greek?) adds to its clarity. So I’ll leave it a few hours in the hope that the full comment is published.

If you want to debate Nazism, its implications, and the real meaning of their symbols I’m happy to do that, Jo Makepeace. If you don’t, then just say, clearly and unequivocally, that the deployment of the swastika in this context was wrong.

Ian Beck

More than a few hours later, I’ll continue. Jo Makepeace here concedes that this use of the swastika was “crass“, but then in mitigation implies that this is the sort of oversight anybody (radical left activists?) “in pursuit of some splendidly satirical objective or other” could make. It remains a bit of a joke. I was “nit-picking” and “having a go at a small group” trying to stand up against “over-weening police powers“. I’m not disputing that incidents where the police obtain restrictive public order powers, on what appear slender justifications, need to be questioned or challenged. The authoritarian trends initiated by the New Labour government continue, as society becomes more unequal our privacy and our rights to protest are increasingly curtailed. This is not in dispute. But by saying this use of Nazi symbolism was “an exaggerated claim” Jo Makepeace also implies that the police in Sussex are not so very far from Nazism, that the problem is one of emphasis. You do not condemn the use of this imagery, Jo. You think the right of kids to assemble as they please in Worthing is the more important issue. Ultimately, you do not get it.

Jo Makepeace may believe that by discussing issues with the police I’m siding with them. I’m accused of failing to acknowledge the “power imbalance” between police and protesters by advocating an “even-handed approach.” Why not discuss the swastika in an even-handed way? I do not buy the implication that because I’m criticising the protesters I’m taking sides with the cops, and by extension buying into “their” value system by being shocked at the swastika. You assert that the “power of the swastika to shock has been eroded over time.” I’m not sure that’s true, and if it is, it needs to be challenged. You also contend that I shouldn’t be communicating with the police on social media “as equals” even in serious discussion, however constructively. A superficial grasp of the historiography leads you to argue that because ‘great minds’ have ‘discovered’ that Nazism does not stand “outside history” (whatever that means), and because of ‘Allo, ‘Allo and the “Download spoofs” (sic), Nazism is now “trivialised” and has been for some time. You say that ultimately the Nazis were a pretty normal sort of evil, nothing unique (which is how I understood your “sui generis apex of evil“). Summary: I don’t hate the police enough, and I hate the Nazis too much.

Well, for my part I was just saying people should treat each other with respect. It’s an essential component of resolving any dispute without force. Further, that this trivialisation of Nazism is problematic, and in this case counter-productive for your protest, and your credibility. It’s ridiculous, wrong and offensive to excuse the use of the swastika in this way. I would say that if you had paid any attention to the Nazis, Jo Makepeace, you would be a good deal more “pissed off” with them. For a “hive” of radicals @SchNews is really nowhere near angry at the Nazis enough. I think you should get your ideas in order. There’s a lot more to the symbolism of the swastika than the abuse of authority. To throw that symbol around is to cheapen it further, and to cheapen yourself.

In a very clumsy way, I suppose you are accusing the police of fascism. If the Worthing Freedom Campaign had chosen a symbol of fascism to associate with Sussex Police I wouldn’t have agreed, but also wouldn’t have bothered to query it with @SchNews. The symbols of “fascism” do not quite resonate like the swastika. Meanwhile fascism is notoriously difficult to define, partly because it doesn’t, in the end, make a lot of sense nor stand up to very much scrutiny. We should perhaps pay heed to Mussolini, who coined the term. He defined fascism as “state power plus corporate power”, a marriage of capitalist and state interests in which the concerns or ambitions or rights of individuals had no intrinsic value. Into the mix also: a bellicose, imperialist nationalism and obsessive militarism, a fondness for uniforms, command hierarchies, discipline, machismo, aggression, hardness, strength, self-sacrifice, traditionalism, and obviously violence.

Perhaps this is a persuasive definition? If you consider the way the USA conducts its foreign policy, or the way the London Olympics is being organised, you could soon be peppering your after-dinner conversation with “fascism”, and sounding quite authoritative. There’s always the narrative of the threat to civilisation, too, to justify the restriction or suspension of civil liberties. For Mussolini and Hitler the primary threat was communism. The Bolsheviks and their enemies had indeed brought catastrophic upheaval and millions of unearned deaths to a society already strained to crisis by the First World War in the wake of the Russian Revolutions of 1917. Communism was and is an international conspiracy against the capitalist order. What little was known about events within Russia in the early 1920s made Revolution a frightening prospect to those with wealth or status or values to lose. In our time the primary recent threat has been Islamic terrorism. But there are always others: organised crime, the internet, mass immigration, the collapse of the banking system and so on. These are all in some ways threatening. The fascist way is to exaggerate the gravity and to lie about the nature of the threat, then ignore human values in pursuit of a forceful and total victory.

Scrapper Duncan blogged some bad photographs I took a few weeks ago. The Olympic Torch relay passed directly outside my home. At 6.30 am there was no ignoring it. It was certainly an “event” as the Council had even swept the streets in this unglamorous neighbourhood. So I suppressed my principled reservations and went to take a look. Now, like Scrapper, I’m all in favour of the sport but have misgivings about a lot of the other stuff that’s going on. As we all know the Torch relay is no ancient Greek ritual but a practice invented for the Berlin Games of 1936, an event the Nazis used to showcase their achievements to the world. The Nazis were very good at this sort of thing. It would be facile to suggest those taking part in the Torch Relay were pro-Nazi. But, overall, the parade, lasting a good 20 minutes, was a distinctly hostile spectacle. In cocktail terms maybe 4 parts police, 1 part Corporations, and a dash of athletics – a single runner near the back, who’d probably paid for the privilege, and appearing late in the parade as if an afterthought. A terrorist threat to the Torch could be real enough, who knows? I suppose we must trust that the Torch needs such an impressive police guard, and be glad that they are very careful indeed to look after it. The torch relay looked like fascism to me. It did not make me feel good about the Olympics. But even in early morning there were people cheering and waving flags so it was popular, and mine was the minority view.

I don’t dispute that there are valid reasons to be concerned about policing matters in this country. On the corporatisation front, our esteemed Home Secretary’s plans to open more policing and prison services to private companies smells of fascism, certainly. But the police themselves are hostile to and angry at that prospect, and in common with all other public sector workers other than regime itself and its corporate donors and cosseted beneficiaries, are up in arms about jobs, pay, pensions, and the insidious process the politicians call “reform.” (This word could do with re-definition.) Meanwhile, and specifically with regard to the Metropolitan Police, the Leveson Enquiry continues to cast light on the corruptible nexus between political leaders, the right-wing media, and the police. The cases of Daniel Morgan, Stephen Lawrence, and Ian Tomlinson are amongst a number of open wounds for the Met’s credibility. Of course there are also the important issues surrounding the policing of protest. SchNews will know about those.

In the real world, at our current stage of ethical development, we need police. There are bad people out there who do bad things, and it’s definitely necessary to stop some people from mixing freely with the general population. Be realistic: there are accidents, horrible crimes, acts of terrorism, tragic events. Policing is a tough job, and stressful, who else should deal with this stuff? We should not be surprised that the police defend the rights of property and companies, of those who produce wealth and provide jobs. Neither should we be surprised that from their perspective, more sweeping powers would make their task easier. Would SchNews suggest instead a force of ordinary citizens as right-on vigilantes in some ‘Big Society’ dystopia? Or, people more to their liking doing much the same service, in a similar structure, and vulnerable to the same institutional and cultural problems as the current police? If you have an ideological objection to capitalism or the government or the law or whatever, fine. Don’t confuse that with a justification for hating every individual police officer. Don’t be stupid. Really – and I admittedly bear fewer grudges against the police, based on personal experience, than some – any opportunity for constructive dialogue in any media should be used to persuade them of the justice of your cause, and to display humanity and respect. Are those not the values you stand for?

But we’re being self-indulgent building this argument that the police are a bunch of fascists, and serve a fascist system. We are letting fascism off the hook. To really “get” fascism we have to see it on an emotional level, the vast number of its adherents could never be accused of thinking too hard. We see this in the EDL. The ‘original’ fascists in Italy and Germany and elsewhere had some sort of excuse, as they were veterans of the Great War of 1914-18 and many were quite frankly unhinged by the things they had experienced. In the modern parlance many had PTSD. Suffering in defeat, as the Germans did, and believing the defeat and the chaotic aftermath to have been born of conspiracy was particularly traumatising. The root of fascism is a mess of boiling fears and hatreds, an urge to destroy. There was hatred of communists, obviously. Also hatred of socialists, anarchists, liberals, free-thinkers, eccentrics, homosexuals, feminists, protesters, the workshy, the poor, the weak, smart-alecs, non-conformists, uncooperative priests, foreigners, and anybody they took a dislike to, even each other. They would certainly hate SchNews and work to destroy the hive. Getting beaten up – in Italy perhaps they would have made you drink castor oil and stab you playfully in the backside – would be the very least you could hope for. If Sussex Police really were fascist this is what they would be doing. If SchNews has evidence of this, publish it.

But the swastika is not actually a symbol of fascism. The Nazis shared the superficial characteristics of fascism, certainly, but they were actually something different, and far worse. Jo Makepeace takes her cues on the Nazis and their meaning these days from ‘Allo ‘Allo and from Downfall spoofs. I’m no fan of the former, though clearly many have differed, but for a while the Downfall spoofs could be funny. “Every joke is a tiny revolution,” as Orwell said, and in telling good jokes about difficult topics we are asserting our freedom, and examining assumptions that need to be tested. I’m not above a snicker at Herr Flick or a titter at Bruno Ganz ranting about the football dressed as a late-period bunker-bound Hitler. But neither of these are actually about Nazism, they’re about the war, and in losing the war the Nazis become ridiculous, mad, defeated, no longer a threat, denatured, emasculated, pathetic, a joke. This image does not describe what the Nazis actually were. It’s more about us.

We British are obsessed with the Second World War. The point of “cultural saturation” was reached long ago, before my time. We have to keep on reminding ourselves that we won. 1940 is the British national foundation myth: the Dunkirk spirit, Churchill, standing against Hitler alone though massively outgunned, Spitfires and Hurricanes the blitz and all that. We should indeed be proud of the stand we took in 1940 and our broader contribution to victory, and what it hopefully says about us. Hitler could not believe we would be so stupid as to risk our Empire, suffer austerity and terror bombing from the air, maybe end up a bankrupted satellite state of the USA if we survived at all. Hitler was right about something then, but he was wrong to believe the UK would make the sensible play and fold. He saw no pressing need to invade Britain, though for obvious reasons he was keen for us to believe he would. Beginning new conflicts against the USSR and the USA in 1941 without first neutralising our little stepping-stone on the edge of Europe was a catastrophic strategic error. Hitler was wrong about Britain because he, like Nazism, was blind to morality and incapable of ethical judgment.

There does come a point when all this forced British jocularity about the Nazis hits the wrong note, causing offence to those who do not share our smug view of the war, and becomes morbid. The villagers of Haworth must still be scratching their heads at why members of a German delegation from their twin town burst into tears upon sight of some clown prancing about in an SS uniform. No doubt they’re still chortling down at the Golf Club. Obviously there is a long history now of the misappropriation of more specifically Nazi symbols, like the fine Hugo Boss tailoring of the SS uniform (which was certainly a selling-point for aspirant SS at the time). The Nazis did look kind of cool by the standards of 1930s paramilitary couture. There is certain brand of Russian neo-Nazi who in their ignorance forgets that Hitler tried to wipe out the people of that land, and all sorts of nutters in the USA of course, but let’s restrict ourselves here to stupid British people. We all laughed at Prince Harry’s notorious Nazi fancy dress incident. We’re not laughing with Harry, or because the Nazis are amusing these days, are we? We’re laughing at Harry because of his lack of knowledge and awareness, and what he may be unconsciously revealing about the values of his class and his family. Edward VIII’s sorry little clique were not the only Windsors enamoured of Hitlerian order and dynamism before 1940. What did those communists and those Jews matter anyway?

Sid Vicious Wears Nazi Swastika in Jewish Quarter in Paris

Sid Vicious

If these incidents provoke ironic detachment, what of Aidan Burley MP (Conservative, obviously), and that unfortunate stag party? There are laws about this sort of thing in France, it’s not such a triviality over there. And what peculiar company Mr Burley keeps. Company Jo Makepeace might find convivial, perhaps, as they too would have it that Nazism and its symbols are trivial these days, or irresistibly cool? Or a punk statement of irreverence? I hope you’re not going to tell me it was cool for Sid Vicious to stumble around the Jewish quarter of Paris sporting a swastika t-shirt? There was nothing cool about Sid, actually. He was a derelict heroin addict, he used to attack people in nightclubs with a bicycle chain, couldn’t play the bass, was culpable – along with the idiotic management who put him in the band and egged him on – for the swift derailment of one of the greatest English rock’n’roll bands. Worse, Sid was responsible also for the death of his girlfriend, most probably, and his own demise at the tender age of 21. He tarnished the punk movement with violence, heroin, racism and neo-Nazism. Not cool, but at least Sid had the integrity to preserve the association of the swastika with death. Make no mistake, the Nazis brought death in unimaginable quantities.

Like our humour, British myths about the war don’t always translate too well. At root, we were white people from the north, Nordics with a strong Saxon strain, not a priority in the Nazi order of things. As a result we were fortunate to not experience Hitler’s war in the same way it was experienced on the Continent, and worst of all by the peoples then resident in Poland, Russia, the Baltic States, Ukraine, and ultimately Germany too. We did not suffer occupation and repression, armies fighting through our landscape, the horrors of forced labour, mass starvation, racial extermination (beyond the indefensible Channel Islands at any rate). Just compare the figures, brutally: the UK lost 0.94%, just under half a million, of its pre-war population; Belarus, to pick just one area of intense combat and lengthy occupation lost 25.3%, more than 2 millions. Then check the figures for the whole Soviet Union as was, for Poland, and Germany. The large majority of these deaths are civilians, people who did not always choose to fight but were unfortunate to be in the way as across Eastern Europe the Nazis made war against humanity itself, indiscriminately. Perhaps I should apologise for linking to the Daily Mail? But I make no apology for linking to Wikipedia. On controversial subjects like the Nazi crimes of WW2 it’s reliable, because (ahem) it is ‘policed’.

A single human death is a tragedy, a million a statistic” said Stalin, who knew quite a lot about this topic, as a prolific mass-murderer himself. We do not have the ability to process the truth of the destroyed human beings represented by these numbers, and we’ve heard it all before. Maybe we are lucky that we can’t feel this flood of human misery and tragedy as those who lived then did. We forget, too, that the truth of the war cannot be simply measured in deaths. There were refugees by the tens of millions, displaced people, traumatised people, people who fought and people who suffered, people who survived. We forget, too, that many of this generation remain alive. We forget that this is the living past. We seek respect for our own youthful preferences without a care for this dying generation’s memories, sacrifices, and struggles. We forget respect is a two way street. We would pretend that the rights of kids to assemble in Worthing are on a par with all this. What savage injustice.

The swastika is also a symbol of the most pernicious and destructive racism. Hitler’s radical Social Darwinism not only normalised war and conflict, but also established a racial hierarchy in which those adjudged inferior were not merely deprived of rights, but of the right to exist. The swastika is specifically anti-semitic, anti-Gypsy, and anti-Slav. This is reason enough to refrain from its careless use. During Hitler’s war the Nazis and their allies conducted a quite insane industrialised mass murder campaign against Europe’s Jews, wiping out between 6 and 8 million of them by means of starvation, forced labour, mass shootings, and the gas chamber. The legacy of this baleful tragedy lives on, it is a key motor of the most intractable and dangerous conflict in the world today, in Palestine. Without the Nazis, there would be no Israel. Every year thousands of young Israelis visit Auschwitz and they are told: “this is what happens when we don’t fight back.” It’s not so very long ago either that millions of Eastern Europeans lived under repressive communist regimes, as a direct result of Nazism. When you deploy the swastika you are directly insulting those who were destroyed, those whose families were destroyed, those who struggled to defeat this thing, and those whose lives were determined or blighted by the consequences of this destruction.

We can draw banal lessons from Nazism: be nice to minorities, be tolerant, don’t invade Poland. Or we can draw more disturbing warnings much more relevant to the now. You can go read Ian Kershaw and discover that as a result of a disorderly system of government, a lazy leader who did not deal in detail and spoke in visions, the abrogation of humane values, and problems on an ever-increasing scale, they were making a lot of it up as they went along; the lesser bods were “Working towards the Fuehrer.” It’s been a long time since Hans Mommsen identified a unique vector of “cumulative radicalism” in Nazism: the longer it lasted, the madder it got. From 1933 they murdered communists, socialists, trade unionists, people like SchNews; at this stage usually murder wasn’t necessary as a short spell in Dachau would often get the message across. After all the communists would have done the same. Nazism progressed to destroy Protestant sectarians, turbulent priests, some Jews; disobedient women were sterilised and died under the knife by the thousand. By 1939 German doctors were murdering disabled people in hospitals on their own initiative, more or less, finding their own little work-arounds to make life less bureaucratic. During the war itself the really big crimes occurred, and very large numbers of people made them happen. Go read Zygmunt Bauman on the role of a modern bureaucracy, not so different from our own, in this, and how responsibility was spread so thinly that nobody really had to feel guilty as an individual, and through a process of double-think could even claim a clear conscience or that they were just following orders. Or go look in the street at the Mercedes and BMWs and ponder the amorality of capitalism. How with barely a step-change these corporations went from dealing in mass murder and the machines of destruction back to making luxury cars for rich people.

SchNews should be standing against all this and not excusing, humorising, or normalising its symbolism. Even if you accept that it ever went away, this kind of sickness is on the way back. In Greece at the weekend the vote for Golden Dawn held up. It takes an economic crisis, an authoritarian mindset, a normalisation of violence, a scapegoating of immigrants and foreigners to set this ball rolling. Golden Dawn are not yet Nazis, though we can see their contempt for humanity in the behaviour of Ilias Kasidiaris in that well-publicised TV incident. We should be disturbed too, that Kasidiaris was not quickly arrested and that the police in Greece are playing, reportedly, a big part in their electoral success and legal impunity. We cannot say where Golden Dawn will go. We cannot be sure the same conditions that have brought them to the forefront of Greek politics will not, in time, happen here. We must be watchful. There can be no accommodation, no normalisation, no negotiation with the likes of Golden Dawn because we know where this road can lead. We should remember.

No kid in my class will get too hard a time for footwear or a hairstyle or even the odd expletive, if they treat me and their peers right. But if they draw a swastika on their exercise book I’m going to remind them what it means, and whether they understand what they’re doing. If they do, it’s a whole different set of problems for us all.

Ian Beck, Cardiff, June 2012
Follow @ian_bec on Twitter

From Scrapper Duncan: I’ve located a copy of the image used by the Worthing Freedom Campaign, which comprised of a Nazi Swastika superimposed on the Sussex Police Logo and included it in my previous post on this topic.

Are the Sussex Police Protest Liaison Officers a good idea?

Yesterday afternoon I noticed that I’d gained a few extra followers on twitter. One struck me as particularly unusual: @SusPolPLO. It is administered by Sussex Police on behalf of their ‘Protest Liaison Officers’. I’d first seen officers wearing orange bibs with this slogan at the Brighton Uncut Austerity 1940s style street party in Churchill Square on Saturday 2nd June. Sussex Police’s website isn’t very helpful as to who they are (at the time of writing that link generates a search which draws a blank). At the street party there were rather a lot of them, given that only about a hundred people attended the protest. There were also a lot of police officers in the regular uniform. At the time, I understood that they had all been briefed to protect the left-wingers from a potential attack from the fascist English Defence League (EDL). Little did I know that down the road, there were an awful lot more police coralling the EDL very carefully. After a while, I abandoned the street party and went to a pub on Church Street with some friends. We sat in the back garden. All of a sudden, the landlord appeared in the garden and said, “The police have just warned me that the EDL are marching up the road so I’m going to lock the front door. If you want to leave, you can use the back gate.” The garden emptied immediately – out the front door! However, the EDL did not march past. Around about that time, I tweeted whatever I knew about their movements:

Scrapper Duncan's tweets about the EDL on Saturday 2nd June 2012

These tweets appear in reverse order (earliest ones are at bottom). Click on image to enlarge.

I also spent some of my twitter time, tweeting about the street party and the jubilee in general. With regard to the latter, I was part of an attempt by scurrilous types to get the hashtag #buntingkills trending.

The Sussex Police Protest Liason Officers’ twitter account seems to have come into being on 1st June 2012. The twitter account’s first few tweets were direct requests to certain groups and people for information about the protest plans for the weekend’s protest. The requests were aimed at @UKUncut, @MarinaPepper, @LewesUncut, @smash_edo, @uaf, @Official_EDL, @EDLNewsXtra and @WeAreTheBrits. Those last three are fascist accounts, so no links for them. @MarinaPepper responded with a request that the police follow her on twitter (which they already had) and @LewesUncut won the witty refusal prize with, “Mum says I’m not to talk to police and I can’t tweet tomorrow cos I’m not allowed to take my phone“. The police kept up the spirit of the exchange with this reply: “Shame! You can message us here if she changes her mind…“.

Thus conversations between the police and protestors began as never before. Some people were supportive of the notion, others suspicious. The police tried to reassure people that the initiative intended to start a genuine conversation. The Commander of Brighton & Hove Police weighed in by declaring that he had a, “passion for improving engagement with protestors“. I hope his out of focus bio pic on twitter isn’t indicative of his grasp on the crucial issues. The legendary @Schnews joined in the chitter chatter with a link to Steve Bell cartoon. The police complained that the link was broken. It wasn’t. Just after 11am on 1st June, the police broke new ground by retweeting instructions from the street party protestors on what to bring to the, erm, party:

Tweets by Brighton Uncut which were retweeted by Sussex Police on 1st June 2012

Sussex Police promote political demonstration? These tweets appear in reverse order. Click to enlarge image.

On the day of the demonstrations, the Protest Liason Officers’s twitter account (Can’t bring myself to call them the PLO, for obvious reasons), broadcast generally nice messages about how everyone was having a great time and everything was spiffing. The following day, they actively engaged with the twittersphere by asking whether people thought their role had been successful or not. They declared that this was the first time that they had taken this approach. By 4th June 2012, Sussex Police had admitted that a Protest Liaison Officer had used a baton to defend himself from two opposing sides on 2nd June.:

Sussex Police Protest Liaison Officer used baton against protestors on 2nd June 2012

Sussex Police Protest Liaison Officer used baton against protestors on 2nd June 2012. These tweets appear in reverse order. Click on image to enlarge.

I wasn’t on the scene when this incident happened but I can’t help thinking that the justification for the use of the baton is flawed. If this officer was “caught between two opposing groups“, personal flight would probably have been an effective form of self-defence. If the baton was used to defend others, the question arises, whom?

Smash EDO‘s demonstration against the threat of a war with Iran marched between North Street and Hove Town Hall on 4th June. The police twitter account engaged actively with all comers and posted messages about the position of the protestors, including where their march rendez-vous point was. It even retweeted a message from Smash EDO itself:

Sussex Police retweet a message from Smash EDO on 4th June 2012

Sussex Police retweet a message from Smash EDO on 4th June 2012. Click on the image to enlarge.

The Protest Liaison Officers twitter feed then tweeted the march’s progress along Western Road. Astonishingly, it even retweeted a message from @policemonitor:

Sussex Police retweet activist message pointing out the police are being ejected from demonstration on 4th June 2012

Sussex Police retweet activist message pointing out the police are being ejected from demonstration on 4th June 2012. Click on, oh you know!

When the demonstration ended, the police rounded off their commentary with a summary of the Protest Liaison Officers’ involvement. Yesterday, the conversation on twitter continued with a couple of accounts basically telling the police to get lost and accusing them of information gathering. The police countered with the claim that plenty of demonstrators had been happy to talk to them, although it is notable that they didn’t tweet anything about that on the day of the Smash EDO demonstration. The most intelligent exchange was between the estimable @MarinaPepper and the police:

Marina Pepper discusses role of Protest Liaison Officers with Sussex Police on 5th June 2012

Marina Pepper discusses role of Protest Liaison Officers with Sussex Police on 5th June 2012. Click on image to enlarge.

It’s good that Sussex Police admit that there’s, “lots to do to build more trust.” There certainly is. On one hand, the use of these orange-bibbed officers does appear to be a bridge building exercise with protestors, on the other it might make the regular coppers appear more unreachable than others. Surely any and every police officer should be someone who anyone can talk to? If these officers can intermingle with a crowd which doesn’t want them in it, use batons against people because they get into the wrong place at the right time and cannot acknowledge that they are getting unceremoniously ejected from a demonstration, there is still a very long way to go. I wasn’t on the Smash EDO demonstration but having heard about it, I asked whether the Protest Liaison Officers had indeed effected entry into the ranks of the protestors. The reply was a bit like the sort of Orwellian Newspeak which we are all too familiar with in the world of corporate denial of responsibilities culture.

Scrapper Duncan talks to Sussex Police (1)

Scrapper Duncan talks to Sussex Police (1). Click on image to enlarge.

Scrapper Duncan talks to Sussex Police (2)

Scrapper Duncan talks to Sussex Police (2). Click on image to enlarge

 

Scrapper Duncan talks to Sussex Police (3).

Scrapper Duncan talks to Sussex Police (3). Click on image to enlarge

Scrapper Duncan talks to Sussex Police (4)

Scrapper Duncan talks to Sussex Police (4). Click on image to enlarge

Perhaps I’m being too hard on the police? To me, it seemed like a straight forward question but I had to struggle to get a straight forward answer. Yes, undoubtedly the demonstration took place in a public place. However, that is beside the point. Sadly, Sussex police do not currently have good relations with Smash EDO. Generally, the police do not have good relations with left-wing protestors. Most of us on the Left have learnt to distrust the police, unfortunately. This has much to do with their politicisation during the Thatcher years. They’ve also got form for killing demonstrators and fitting you up for crimes if your skin is black or you’re Irish. Deliberately putting themselves into a crowd where they are unlikely to be welcome, only to be ejected, is a shot in the foot for better relations.

That said, I welcome the fact that the police are attempting to turn the poor relations around. They’ve only mustered a couple of outings for this new strategem. I’d like to see them develop the role before passing judgment. They seem to be acknowledging past failures. Make no mistake, policing is a complicated job. Much as though many of us might like to see the EDL thrown into the sea and forced to swim to France, we cannot have a police which would allow even the risk of that situation develop. Very sensibly, they kept the EDL well away from other protests in Brighton on Saturday.

One obvious issue is that the police tweeted much about the Brighton Uncut street party but not about the EDL rally. Neither had permission according to the letter of the law. The former was announced in advance. The latter was ostensibly not a public protest, although anyone with half a brain could see that this was a poor smokescreen. In their forums, the EDL have boasted that they sent people along to the Uncut street party. Had they chosen to attack, could the police have been held responsible for advertising it? I doubt it; lots of other people were advertising it too. Some reports say that the EDL was attacked (and the use of the police baton mentioned above seems to hint that a violent situation did arise). Had the police tweeted that event, a truly massive crowd might have joined in. However, it does seem unfair in principle that the police effectively advertise one side of politics (ie the left-wing ones) and not the opposing faction (ie the right-wing ones).

On a personal note, I was attacked by an EDL man during the so-called March for England in Brighton. Three police officers brought by attacker to the ground but failed to arrest him. Despite me requesting at the time (via a megaphone – mine was easily the loudest voice at the time, via twitter and later on via the telephone; I made my complaint in person the following day) that he be prosecuted for assault, all I have received so far is an acknowledgement letter. I was also so dangerously cut up in 2011 by a motorist whilst I was cycling that I complained to the police. The incident appears at 0:40 in the video at that link, filmed in High Definition detail. I complained about this dangerous motorist via Sussex Police’s Operation Crackdown but only ever received an acknowledgment email. I appreciate that sometimes incidents will slip through the net but it does beg the question of the police’s priorities. If they cannot protect people from fascist attackers or cyclists from dangerous motorists, putting orange bibs on and tweeting galore runs the very real risk of looking like an avant-garde public relations exercise.

The EDL have a violent message. Anyone who looks at their forums can see that they are closely allied with violent groups and spew out hate speech, which is also a crime. Almost all of the fascist protestors that day came from outside Brighton. The intention was clear – to provoke the leftwingers in Brighton. Yet  the police gave them permission for a protest rally on St George’s Day in Brighton. Why was permission given for this provocative act? Will the police be refusing permission for another march of a similar nature? If the EDL wish to hold a national rally, let them do it in central London. That’s where everyone else goes for national events. If the EDL is given permission to rally in Brighton on St George’s day next year, will we find orange-bibbed officers being available to talk to at some points and weilding batons at others? If such a march is given permission next year, the turnout from the good folk of Brighton can be expected to be much larger – the word is out properly now. Even my next door neighbour in Patcham, who is utterly disinterested in politics, told me the other day that he doesn’t think the EDL should have been allowed to march in our streets because of their violent and discriminatory message. Note, that there was at least one arrest for racist chanting in Brighton on Saturday.

The law on political protests in the UK is in a bit of a mess. The Human Rights Act (HRA) has finally, at last, guaranteed the right to protest but the courts have been slow to develop that right in any meaningful way. As with all the other rights in the HRA, the right to protest has to be balanced in law against various other rights. Consequently, the police have various powers to curtail it. Most of these powers existed before the HRA.

Notably, the Public Order Act (POA) provides a power of prosecution of a march organiser if six days’ notice is not given. Although at the time this legislation was enacted much fuss was made about the introduction of these provisions, the British people have reacted with customary creativity. Sometimes the police are informed about a march and sometimes they are not. Usually the request to protest is made if it is considered inconceivable for the police to refuse it. More often than not, no permission is sought and no-one will admit to being the organiser. Modern social networking has replaced pub talk but the principle is the same: a distributed ‘command structure’ for dissent prevents scapegoating of any one individual. The POA was introduced by the theiving Tory bastards to limit political protest. Ironically, it has just made the police’s job harder and more costly.

Finally, for a detailed summary (If that’s not a contradiction of terms!) on the rights to and law on protest, check out Liberty’s Your Right To Peaceful Protest.

English Defence League – the ‘Mighty Brighton Infidels’

I guess these people were the technical host behind Sunday’s shouting match. Definitely the hundreds of people united against fascism won the utter freedom of speech competition, scored with the traditional volumonitor. Probably that’s why the so-called Brighton Mighty Infidels declared “no surrender” to a picture on their facebook page which appeared to suggest that they had set up something called Anti Anti Fascist Action.

“No surrender” seems to be a bit of buzzword with this lot. Actually, it’s more of a general greeting, appearing on every post, usually on its own.

Remember, the English Defence League insists that it is purely motivated by fear of Islam rising up and dominating them. Their worst nightmare is turning up in Brighton on St George’s Day next year only to face spectacularly huge sound systems blasting them with the call to prayer. What better way to declare everyone welcome?! If you can’t quite get your head around it, put your headphones on, turn it to 11, and listen whilst watching the Mighty Brighton Infidels parading around town.

We’d need something extraordinarily powerful to blast these hauntingly lovely vocals into the fascist ears. Not a problem, we’ve got every DJ on earth in town just now. I digress.

As they’ve established themselves, the English Defence League does not trust Muslims. It would seem that they also distrust people with left-wing opinions.

That’s one solution to the age old fascist problem of lacking the necessary equipment for a decent rhetorical flourish. Something tells me that the Mighty Brighton Infidels have got a bit of an issue with the Green Party in Brighton & Hove. The man photographed can answer for himself with far more eloquence than me: Ben Duncan blogs – here’s him on the EDL demonstration in Brighton.

Here’s another Green councillor, this time representing Hove.

Oh and that’s Bill Randall over on the right. Not much explanation of the political analysis these images represent, aside from the bit about “no surrender”. So far, we’ve got “no surrender” to anti anti fascist action, “no surrender” to a vegan marathon running councillor, “no surrender” to another councillor and her with friend the witch and “no surrender to Bill Randall”.

What’s missing? Is it any collection of political policies? Perhaps even some ideas for change? Praise for someone who has done something worthwhile, something positive? No… clearly there needs to be a David Icke style suggestion that our Green Party Brighton & Hove City overlords have used their lizard powers to shape shift and subvert democracy, thus proving that it needs to be taken away for ever! Of course…

That’s better. Now the local division of the English Defence League can truly live up to their name! You’d have to be, very literally, the Brighton Mighty Infidels to stand up to the awesomely frightening lizard Queen from outer space who befuddles English minds with her alien chattering.