The UK Riots- Impact on Policing
This
appears to be a season of protests in many countries. But what happened in some
cities of the United Kingdom recently was a very ugly kind of protest, if at
all it can be called that. It was rioting in its worst form, in which buildings
and vehicles were burnt; shops were looted; property was vandalized; and people
were killed and injured. What added to the ugliness of the disturbances was the
ease with which people, including young children and women, joined in the
looting and vandalising spree. It was “criminality, pure and simple,” as the
British Prime Minister called it, whatever its root causes might have been.
The
police came in for considerable criticism. This had to happen, as they were
involved in the event that triggered the riots. Their initial response to the
rioting that followed was weak and incompetent. They took considerably long to
reclaim the control of the streets and to bring some semblance of order. In the
beginning, the deployment of strength was inadequate and their tactics were softer
than what the situation required. Though the Metropolitan Police deputy
assistant commissioner, Steven Kavanagh denied the police were soft on rioters,
the fact that their initial tactics left a lot to be desired was acknowledged
by the government. The British Prime Minister, on returning from holidays,
referred to the inadequacy of deployment and said “the tactics they were using
weren’t working.” Michael Gove, the education secretary, told Channel 4 News
“the police response had not been robust enough...” Even the Home Secretary
Theresa May told the Parliament “…police only retain the confidence of the
wider community if they are seen to take clear and robust action in the face of
open criminality”, clearly implying action taken by police was not strong and
forceful enough to deter the rioters.
This
critical assessment about the initial handling of riots by the police created
unnecessary tensions between the political executive and police officers. There
was a sharp reaction from Sir Hugh Orde, president of the Association of Chief
Police Officers who felt the attacks on policing were totally unjustified and
negative. He also opposed the Prime Minister’s decision to invite former LAPD
Chief Bill Bratton to advise the government on policing in the UK. Occasionally
one got an impression as if these riots had created a wall of distrust between
the political executive and the police.
Will
the widespread mayhem that occurred in some cities of the United Kingdom (from
August 6 to 10, 2011) and the criticism of the police that followed their
initial handling of the riots change the face of public order policing in the
UK? The British Police till now have enjoyed the reputation of policing by
consensus as opposed to doing it by fear. They believe in the principle of
using minimum force and always tried to implement it uniformly throughout the
UK in the last few decades while dealing with public order disturbances. Is
this likely to change now? The question becomes relevant as increasing violence
in that country has produced responses, some of which are disturbing.
In
the United Kingdom at present, there is an overwhelming public sentiment in
favour of hard and tough public order policing. The government is definitely
giving an impression that police can no longer afford to be soft in dealing
with violent disturbances and want them to change their tactics as well as
their response equipment. The Prime Minister gave his support to “whatever
tactics” the police officers considered necessary to control riots. The police
are authorised to use baton rounds and plastic pellets and contingency plans to
use water cannon to break up disturbances are in place. The government is even
considering the use of CS gas on such occasions, if necessary. In addition,
they feel it is time to consider whether the police need powers "to impose
a general curfew in a particular area" and also to impose curfews on
individual teenagers under the age of 16.
The
Prime Minister said they would not let “phony human rights” obstruct the
criminal justice system to bring rioters to justice. The courts are swift and
harsh in inflicting punishment on those who took part in rioting. Even Social
networks were not spared, and two young men who instigated others through
entries in Facebook and Twitter were sentenced to four years imprisonment.
The
government is not content with subjecting the rioters merely to the rigours of
the criminal justice system. They want to cut off government benefits to
offenders and this includes evicting them and their family members from
publicly subsidised housing. This form of punishment reminds one of Section 15
of our Police Act of 1861, which authorised the colonial government in India to
impose collective fine on all the inhabitants of an area that suffered
disturbances, requiring the deployment of additional police. The government’s
action to evict the offenders and their family members who had nothing to do
with the disturbances has been called draconian by many within as well as
outside Britain. What is at stake is much more than just the image of the
British government and of their police force. As the New York Times states in
an editorial piece, "Fair play is one traditional British value we have
always admired. And one we fear is increasingly at risk."
