The events surrounding the police in the past 10 days are all too familiar - heavy-handed treatment of innocent bystanders, followed by botched cover-ups. Meanwhile, Bob Quick's inadvertent exposure of highly sensitive information follows a tradition of lost discs, while the government demands to collect our personal data to protect us. The only comic side to the recent sad events is that they were all caught on camera, many of which were owned by the police themselves. Rough justice or what?
That makes Quick risking his briefing papers for an anti-terrorist operation being photographed quite extraordinary. And the behaviour of the police officer attacking Ian Tomlinson from behind even more so. What could they have presumed would be the reaction of anyone seeing those pictures? They must have known cameras were everywhere.
They may have felt safe from criticism because of Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act, which came into force on 16 February. That makes it an offence to photograph any police officer or member of the armed services in ways that could aid terrorism. This problematic legislation risks discouraging an ever more precious weapon in holding police accountable when the government gives them powers to treat peaceful demonstrators as a threat not only to order, but to the state itself.
How else to explain the trashing of the Climate Camp earlier this month, just the latest heavy-handed response to environmental protests and other causes. These include even the green-wellied phalanxes on the Countryside March. Many of these questionable police actions are taken under anti-terrorism legislation, fuelled by uncritical ministers seemingly unaware of the perverse outcome. They are undermining the social contract between police and the public that is central to good order: policing by consent.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/12/g20-protests-cameras-intelligent-policing
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
