h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Kettling is a tactic used by the Metropolitan (i.e. London) Police to contain (and some say deter) street protests.

It consists of simply corralling large quantities of people into a limited area in the street and holding them there for a number of hours. No discrimination is made (or is possible) between participants in the protest or passersby. No allowance is made for age - children are kettled along with adults. For those contained thus by the police, no access is allowed to shelter, water, food, toilets, etc. "Kettled" crowds are simply required by the police to stand in the street in the open for anything up to ten hours, without being allowed to leave. This tactic has been used several times in the last couple of years, and was employed most recently at the student protests in London, containing children of 14 in freezing conditions until after dark.

Note: these people have not been incarcerated for committing an offence. They have not been convicted of anything. They have not been charged with anything. They've not been investigated at all. They've not had access to legal representation. They've not been arrested. They've not even been threatened with arrest. There is no apparent intention to arrest them. They've not even been warned they face incarceration. They are simply, temporarily, imprisoned against their will by the police, apparently legally. It is a form of indiscriminate collective punishment, enacted for the most part against persons either legally engaged in peaceful protest, or even worse against innocent passersby.

I predict this tactic will remain useful for approximately another year or so. Within that time, I predict one of two things will happen which means kettling will cease to be used.

EITHER:
A young person, unfit person, or elderly person, so incarcerated in the open for an extended period, will suffer some medical emergency directly attributable to their not being allowed to leave the area. They will die or suffer permanent disability as a result. No individual police officer will be held to account for this injury, but the tactic of kettling will be withdrawn after the force is successfully sued for negligence.

OR:
A kettled crowd will be of the correct psychological and physical composition to realise, collectively, that they substantially outnumber the force containing them. It may additionally be the case that the force containing them is not adequately resourced or equipped. As a group, they will forcibly exercise their right to leave the area, killing or seriously injuring one or more of those attempting to prevent them. Possibly several individuals in the area where the death(s) happened will subsequently be arrested and charged with murder. In any case, the policing of street protests will change to become significantly more heavy-handed and draconian.

I think which comes to pass depends on who dies first - a police officer or a protester.

Oh, this is "Ask".

So, I'm asking... discuss.

<>

Ian Tomlinson.

Police - 1
guy walking home after work - 0

And this is legal

I am inclined to agree with you, but it does leave open the question of what the authorities are to _do_ about violent thugs who attach themselves without invitation to peaceful protests, just for an opportunity to smash stuff.

The authorities normally give them stonking amounts of overtime pay...




There was a youtube clip from the student kettling showing a good dozen police officers in riot gear barge through the middle of the kettled crowd for no reason at all.

Love this pic of a police medic healing protestors with his magic stick of wellness

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2009/04/426870.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/426083.html&usg=___43tcTw6PF0XzNANm8WNdEAmD-A=&h=482&w=640&sz=90&hl=en&start=83&sig2=lfhRavVeESVva-0Van0y_Q&zoom=1&tbnid=Brot8cbQ7JEACM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=164&ei=ca3vTNW0GMvK4AaFs7ndBA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpolice%2Bambulance%2Bprotest%2Bimage%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26biw%3D1440%26bih%3D719%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C2090&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1148&vpy=265&dur=484&hovh=126&hovw=167&tx=145&ty=117&oei=Va3vTJOvHIGLhQf1otmoCg&esq=4&page=4&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:27,s:83&biw=1440&bih=719

What swl said: an innocent passer-by has already died as a result of kettling by the police.

As well as breaching habeas corpus, it is also a form of blackmail: if the protesters or others do try and force the police lines and break out of the kettle, they will be charged with assaulting a police officer and probably resisting arrest and breach of the peace to boot. The police use this to prevent people from forcing their lines.

Often when we discuss the death penalty, there seems to be a lot of consensus around the point that it's not desirable to kill one innocent person, and it's better to let the guilty go (relatively) free rather than that.

In the case of kettling, then, why is it ok to restrict the movement of anyone who is in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And if they don't have toilets - would they then be arrested for peeing (or worse) in the street?

Frankly, I'm shocked to see this in the UK.

Let's be clear - not for the first time "Honest"Iago is being dishonest. The facts surrounding Tomlinson's death were very widely reported, and anyone who was paying even the smallest amount of attention knows was NOT a direct result of kettling. Clue: he was walking home from work. His movements were not restricted.

He was the victim of an (apparently) unprovoked physical attack by a policeman, yes. But his death was NOT attributable to his being prevented from leaving an open public space for several hours without shelter, food or water. Conflating the Tomlinson death with kettling is the worst sort of self-defeating lies, because it's the sort of lie that so easily demolished it doesn't just make you look duplicitous, it makes you look stupid with it.

Re: is it legal. Yes, it clearly is, or the police wouldn't be able to do it, or at least not be able to do it more than once.

"the question of what the authorities are to _do_ about violent thugs who attach themselves without invitation to peaceful protests, just for an opportunity to smash stuff"

Arrest the thugs after the event, charge them with crimes against property, give their names and addresses to the owners of the property they damaged and deduct the cost of the damage from their benefits.

I fully support the argument that the police have a duty to get violent against persons if in response to violence against persons (including other police officers).

They have NO duty to act with indiscriminate violence to protect private property from damage.

"why is it ok to restrict the movement of anyone who is in the wrong place at the wrong time"

Indeed. That's why I struggle to see how it can remain legal for long. Has anyone yet successfully sued for wrongful arrest/imprisonment as a result of being kettled? Has anyone tried?

Don't know why you're picking on Honestlago when it was me that brought Tomlinson into this.

And I did so because it's part of the whole picture of policing crowds, not just one particular tactic. We've come a long way from the days of Bobbies in greatcoats linking arms. Now the police resemble nothing so much as a paramilitary force with armour and weapons. Their tactics seem to be overly aggressive and borderline illegal (as you point out) and when you have an armed organisation using such tactics, is it surprising when people (like Tomlinson) get killed?

The whole issue of policing needs to be looked at in this country imo. There's a line between a force upholding the law by public consent and becoming enforcers.

Been a bit opf a daft bleedin heart liberal I have obviously been on a fair few marches and demos in my time.

A couple of observations are that there are always a number of utter wassocks who want to cause trouble and become Matrys (Ah the socialist Workers Party dontcha just love 'em?). I have never been on a march without a fair few idiotic pillocks.

But at the same time I have also never been on a March in which the lions share of the police have not been agressive violent bullies. I dont know what it is but when they put on the armour and stuff they seem to radically change in character and outlook.

Lastly every time I have ever seen things kick off from being more than a few wassock, wanna be matrys, to a more general mob behgavior has been in response to something the police have done/

None of this is very scientific being anecdoetal. I wondered if others experiences have been similar?

FB

Sorry that last post was really appallingly typed.

Very sorry.

FB

Hands up in the air, I wasn't certain if Tomlinson was killed during an actual kettling or whether it was just alongside others being kettled. I was considering posting something to that effect but I thought I'd just follow swl's lead.

As for why SoRB picked on me not you swl, we do this to each other, it's our way of showing affection.

Also congrats SoRB for being the most well-educated person to completely miss the point of my name. Always get a giggle out of someone calling me for supposedly being dishonest (though in this case, 'misinformed' or 'lazy writer' would be more accurate) by highlighting the 'Honest' in my name.

It does open that question Bob, but I dont think that kettling them until they figure out an alternative is particularly useful.

It's a major problem from an activist/protester's point of view though. It's almost impossible to arrange a large protest without having either a few people becoming violent or a large aggressive group attaching themselves to you. Or against you to cause problems. This nearly happened with a union march recently. The EDL announced a decision to march on the same day at the same time on the same route but with the aim of stopping at a restaurant that serves halal food and foreign cuisine and 'ending their protest' there. With violence, property damage etc. The march was almost called off except that the EDL backed down at the last minute.

I dont see how restricting people's movements forcibly and without any potential for conversation etc is a legal and acceptable. Of course if you're caught up in there and you try to get out, you're the trouble maker, not the policeman who stops you. (you: standing up for your right to freedom of movement in a public place, one would assume, them: doing their job). It's a rock and a hard place and the media love the 15 aggressors as opposed to the 350 peaceful protesters. Just because it's a difficult problem doesn't mean that a crude sledgehammer approach is acceptable

Personally I'm not a fan of mobs either way. They scare me.

way back when I was a soldierette, very occasionally we'd get called in to do NI training. And our part was to be the mob. Afterwards, in the bar, together with the guys who had been doing the actual training, some of them used to say that it was like putting on a character disguise for a play or a film or something and once they were helmeted and shielded up they became a totally different person. And some of them didn't particularly like that person.

It's a strange thing and maybe some of the police experience that too.

>>Re: is it legal. Yes, it clearly is, or the police wouldn't be able to do it, or at least not be able to do it more than once.<<

I wasn't really putting in doubt what you had written in Posting 1, but rather my mind boggled. Surely there must be some European regulations and Human Rights rulings which this sort of thing breaches. It doesn't stop French police for example (for police custody for example ).

Let's try again the last sentence.

These European Human Right Court rulings don't stop some French police to routinely perform illegal police custody. So just because it's illegal doesn't mean it can't happen repeatedly.

I'll just add a bit of Devil's Advocacy here. As I have heard it, 'kettling' was devised as an _alternative_ to more violent methods: by keeping tabs on all the potential perpetrators in one place, they can nip any trouble in the bud surgically, rather than running chaotically around a larger area and sledgehammering because you can't be sure who are the perpetrators. Fundamentally, 'kettling' is not supposes to involve force, nor even agitation! The police just stand calmly in the right places, and the now localized protest goes on.
That's the theory, at least. I don't remember it perfectly, as it was a quite brief news report several years ago.

I think the 'kettling' technique will work very nicely in deterring a lot of people from taking part in demonstrations now. When you hear descriptions by perfectly reasonable citizens, lawfully excercising their right to protest, describe what it actually feels like to be penned up in a kettle..you'd have to think very seriously about whether you could psychologically cope with it. I'm fairly sure I couldn't.

Of course people might be put off going on a demonstration anyway because they'd be aware that trouble makers might be involved. But you'd have the feeling that they might be in one place, doing whatever, and you could just keep well away from them.or leave anytime you wished.

But now with this new tactic of penning up people like cattle, irrespective of their mode of protest, it's far more off putting.

The hardliners not bothered by aggro, or even welcoming it..will already be planning ways of countering it. And subsequent violence can be shown on tv screens to discredit a cause in general.

I can see this tactic working out very nicely for the coalition in the future when cuts start to really hurt.

A kind of manipulation of police for political ends is nothing new though. Thatcher used them well during the miners' strike. But in that context it was the use of heavy handed tactics against angry working class men from mining communities that we saw on our tvs..showing an angry and loathsome mob.

I think in the coming times the people protesting about cuts will generally be quite a different cross section of people. This kettling tactic can be presented as something quite passive and almost civilised, and different from the scenes of horses and riot police with shields.

But I think it will snuff out much of the protest..because the idea of being trapped in a crowd of people for several hours..with *no means of escape*..sounds quite terrifying to me.