In a deeply unpredictable turn of events – anticipated by only the most casual students of the Metropolitan police – the force has made another howler. Howlers are the specific category of Met misuse of powers where nobody died, or got sexually assaulted, or both. Nevertheless, they can have serious significance. The anti-monarchy group Republic participated in months of briefings and meetings with the Met concerning their protest at last Saturday’s coronation, in which they were informed that their peaceful plans were lawful. As it turned out on the day, however, six members of the group, including its chief executive Graham Smith, were arrested before the protest even began. According to the Met’s account: “They were held on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance. We seized lock-on devices.”
And yet … did they? The police seem instead to have seized the luggage straps the protesters used to secure their placards. The force has now expressed “regret” that these arrests took place at all. This lengthy statement adds: “It was not clear at the time that at least one of the group stopped had been engaging with police protest liaison team officers ahead of the event.”
Hmmm. If only there had been some way of establishing this situation in the moment, perhaps on some kind of communication device? Mobile police have carried personal radios since the late 1960s, so maybe the technology still feels new and unwieldy to them, whereas the new Public Order Act – passed at speed into law a whole three calendar days previously – is something with which they are far keener to display an aggressive familiarity.
At time of writing, the allegation about the arrest of the Republic members remained up on the Met’s Twitter feed, despite it having also retracted it. In some ways this seems apt, allowing any users now catching up with the story to experience another play-by-play of Met incompetence and overreach as it happened. And of course, the Met indulges in so many displays of strength that later turn out to be cock-ups or accidental displays of weakness that they can’t possibly be expected to go back and delete every stupid, high-handed and arguably libellous tweet. The paperwork of correcting their paperwork would be a constant burden. As a made-up police officer might put it: “I think the public would prefer us to be out catching criminals!”
Or, indeed, staying in catching criminals, given that the Met is currently investigating more than 1,000 sexual assault and domestic abuse claims involving around 800 of its officers. Serving Met officers have been taken off serious and organised crime investigations and counter-terrorism in order to investigate wrongdoing within their own force. The Met remains in special measures, a mere two months having elapsed since the publication of Louise Casey’s devastating report that found it institutionally racist, sexist and homophobic, while the Met chief has publicly grappled with his ability to do something about the above. “In all cases, I don’t have the final say on who’s in the Metropolitan police,” he WTF-ed last month. “I know that sounds mad, I’m the commissioner.”
Anyway, back to these “regretted” arrests at the coronation, which shouldn’t be swept under the carpet even by people who fervently disagree with Republic’s cause. Unfortunately, rather a lot of sweeping seems to be under way by our politicians, supposedly freedom-lovers to a man and woman. I’m going to shock you here, but at time of writing, Labour leader and former lawyer Keir Starmer couldn’t say whether he did or didn’t condemn the arrests. A lack of clarity that suggests once again that Starmer’s favourite position is not so much sitting on the fence as locking on to it.
Prime minister Rishi Sunak is at pains to insist that “the police are operationally independent of government”, which might be a little too convenient. I’m not sure you get to pass draconian new legislation into law a mere three days before the coronation, then claim its prompt misuse has nothing to do with you. After all, you can hardly say the previous stab at draconian overhaul – the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 – didn’t give a clear warning as to how this might play out. (This was the act that allowed for greater sentences for attacking statues than women, encouragingly.) In that case, the police began quickly and frequently misusing their new powers, either because they didn’t understand them, or because they didn’t care to. The Sarah Everard vigil during the special circumstances of the pandemic was an earlier warning bell – we saw how the Met policed protest when given almost unlimited powers.
Yet they keep on getting more. Suella Braverman’s Home Office in particular should struggle with Macavity-ing its way out of this latest foul-up, given that it only very recently sent an official warning letter to Republic stressing that new laws had been brought forward to deal with “disruption at major sporting and cultural events”. According to the Home Office last week, this letter was meant to inform, not intimidate. A claim that possibly doesn’t hold up in light of events.
Then again, a whole lot of things don’t hold up, from the new act, rushed with such ill-advised haste on to the statute book, to the troubling fact that a mere 6% of those arrested for protesting against the coronation were charged with anything at all. If we looked at any other country and saw people being put in cells, without grounds, for peacefully protesting against the investiture of any type of leader, we would surely have an unfavourable view of it. Lawmakers who lack the courage to take these unfavourable views may think they are doing the popular thing. In fact, they are a danger to us all.
Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
