In August I tried to review the incidents of rioting, the lootings and the five killings in some form of order which I am repeating my notes in two parts without a general updating before reviewing the various meetings of the Home Affairs Committee and the E petition debate Westminster Hall that have taken place since. I am also including extracts from Parliamentary debates immediately after the events using the published uncorrected transcripts. In the first part of this scene setting for subsequent hearings and debates I attempted an overview based primarily on information collated by Wikipedia and by individual media organisations including the BBC. In this second part I am concentrating on what happened on the Sunday night after the attacks on the police, the setting fire and the looting in Tottenham on the Saturday.
The first reported development was in Enfield where the police had advance intelligence that there was to be trouble and where initially it was believed that the attack was coming primarily from outside the area although subsequently this has been modified in terms of the balance between those arrested from within the area and from outside. As a consequence of the advance information the police therefore attended the end of the line metro station where people were searched on arrival. Riot and other police arrived at the town centre guarding the Palace Garden shopping centre in particular.
By mid afternoon small groups of hooded youths were viewed on CCTV and other police surveillance congregating on the town centre by early afternoon and therefore the police had time to determine their strategy and call for appropriate reinforcements if they did not have the numbers immediate available to deal with a situation where the expectation should have been a continuation of what had happened on the Saturday.
It will be important to learn what decisions the police took on that occasion and I am concerned that the government has decided so far to resist calls to have the specific actions of the police independently investigated except in general terms by the Home Affairs Committee. The operational guidance for such situations should be published, the degree of latitude for those commanding on the ground and in the CCTV and central operation centres. Only in this way can the decisions taken be effectively evaluated.
Commencing some two decades ago I had first hand experience of violent rioting causing physical harm and criminal damage associated with visiting football matches in central London. These experiences illustrated the different tactics operated by the Metropolitan police at different times and circumstances and it merits setting down the relevant aspects of my experiences which revealed some of the difficulties which the police face as well as different approaches that are taken. I commence with two experiences at the North London Clubs of Tottenham and Arsenal, and then located at Highbury and believe it is relevant that in these and the other incidents mentioned covering the involvement of several hundred youths and adult males my recollection is that they were all of white skin.
At Tottenham, reminding that there was a home game with police presence on the day of the rioting I attended an evening FA Cup match as an away supporter in the 1980’s having purchased a seat in advance and at a time when a substantial part of the crowd at games continued to stand on terracing and where the purchase of a seat did not result in being in an area segregated between home and away supporters.
While other away supporters packed the terrace below the stand, the seats area was largely unoccupied. There were less than a score of other away supporters sitting with at me in the front rows. There were perhaps thirty to forty others in various part of the stand and while there were a couple of stewards these disappeared . When the game commenced all the men in other parts of the stand came together and sat behind the away supporters with only a few rows separating and commenced a tirade of foul abuse directed at myself and the other seated supporters as well as those below. Their manner was threatening and they occasionally threw coins and filled plastic cup over our heads to those standing below.
On two separate occasions I left my seat and went out of the stand to the concourse to find a steward to complain. It was only midway during the match the police arrived and sat as a group behind the home supporters who intensified their vociferous threats and abuse as a consequence of their arrival. The police sat impassively taking no action,
I moved and sat with the police whereupon some of the home supporters moved and sat behind the police. Fortunately an incident on the pitch led to all the home supporters rushing to the front down the aisle so that seemed an opportune moment to literally run for my life out of the ground.
The response of the police contrasted to that at the Highbury stadium a few years later when I sat with a large number of away supporters in a segregated section of the stand. On this occasion there was a man a row in front who repeatedly stood up and shouted abuse. He was on his own and his behaviour struck me as odd at the time. During the second half several police officers moved along the rows of seats to remove the man. One young police officer came along our row brandishing a truncheon in an aggressive manner passing by to assist his colleagues to get the man to leave. My companion in the light of previous experiences was upset by the incident and we decided to leave the stadium. Before doing so we were stopped by a police inspector who asked why we were leaving and after explaining he suggested that we submit a complaint which was then investigated followed by a home visit. It was explained that the incident had been a demonstration event for visiting officials from Scandinavia, the position of the young police officer was also explained and I agreed to the way in which it was proposed to respond to the complaint made I emphasise at the instigation of a senior police officer.
Something of the difficulties faced by the police the police at the time was experience in situations which developed into rioting with physical injuries and criminal damage witnessed.
On leaving Chelsea Football ground shortly before the final whistle small groups of youths and men were encountered in a side street when walking towards a station some distance from the ground in order to avoid the crush and potential problems. The groups appeared to be lounging about along the whole length of the street. In the distance could be heard be heard of the roar at the end of the match followed by the sound of away supporters making their way immediately out of the far side of ground to where there coaches were available. Walking down the full length of the street to get away from the situation without attracting attention, I saw a man raise a tattered umbrella and all those in the street formed in a silent column in the roadway and marched at the trot towards the noise created by the away fans, I assessed the number at the time as over fifty
Some time later going towards the metro station along a road with shops, it was necessary together with other pedestrians to shelter in shop entrance doorways as a larger number of youth and young men in total raced along the pavement and roadway, but in smaller groups, accompanied by police on horseback and in motor vehicles. About an hour after the game ended I ventured onto a Metro train going towards central London and stopping at the stations close to the Chelsea ground and at one of these the train was held while a small group of police with dogs accompanied a large group of youths and young men as they entered two compartments of the train adjacent to the one in which I was in, and which was filled with other early Saturday evening travellers. There was no indication that those the police accompanied had been to a football match.
At a subsequent station the length of the platform was filled with youths and young men, well over one hundred waiting in silence. The train remained stationary without the doors being opened. Someone on the platform shouted and immediately those on the platform smashed their way into the two adjacent compartments and commenced a vicious fight using the hanging holds to kick with heavy boots or hit with knuckle dusters. Some of those on the train managed to escape through the connecting doors which I then closed after them while others got into the compartment at the next station. The train was taken out of service at the next station to clear those fighting and because of its condition.
Travelling on the same line sometime later and also after Saturday football matches had ended I joined a metro train to find it filled with West Ham supporters who had been to a match at Wimbledon. Arriving at a station with raised platforms the doors of the train remained closed and the sound of fighting and breaking glass could be heard from below the platforms. At this a cry went up from the West Ham supporters who smashed their way out of the train onto the platform. The train was also then taken out of service at a subsequent station where a member of the railway police explained that the police had been at the station preventing Chelsea supporters getting onto the platforms and had then found themselves caught in the middle with the West Ham supporters attempting to reach the other supporters. The police were described as under siege from both sides and had called for reinforcements.
The other incident occurred in a full stadium also at Chelsea where I was watching an evening cup game seated in side stand where away supporters were intermixed with home supporters and where home supporters in the notorious shed end behind a goal mouth came on to the pitch in large numbers attempting to reach the away supporters at the end and were separated by a line of police and stewards. Some of the home supporters from the shed end entered the stand where I was sitting and started to physically attack away supporters they could identify.
It was these kind of incidents, largely unreported in the media and which I was told were a regular occurrence in the capital, that eventually led to the caging of supporters with the consequential death at Hillsborough, the provision of all seater stadiums and a national effort to tackle the fighting gangs associated with political extremism and football.
So having considerable sympathy with the position of the police as well as passers by, travellers and other local residents caught up in situations of organised gang violence I continue to argue that a detailed investigation of what happened in relation to the August rioting and the police tactics used is essential if such situations are to be prevented in the future.
According to Wikipedia on the Sunday some disorder sparked from around 5:30 in Enfield; a police car in Church Street was pelted with bricks. HMV's branch in Church Street was amongst the other shops that were reportedly attacked. A police helicopter hovered over the area to monitor events. At around 19:00, police tackled a group of around thirty youths to push them back onto Southbury Road towards the junction with Great Cambridge Road. Police dogs were also deployed at the scene. Similar action drove back approximately 50 people along Southbury Road via Queens Street, after a preceding clash with rioters outside a nearby supermarket.[At 19:30, both Metropolitan Police officers and reinforcements from Kent Police turned Enfield into a cordoned off "sterile area" and began to deal with local disturbances.These included robberies of the Enfield Retail Park.The scenes of Enfield were "reminiscent of Tottenham, though smaller. The evdience is therefore that that the police did directly engage with eith the rioters and looters.
Enfield and Ponders End saw more trouble on the morning of 8 August according to Wikipedia when several shops in Enfield Town and in the nearby A10 retail park were vandalised and looted, and there were reports of two vehicles set on fire. A large crowd of youths moved westwards, toward nearby Ponders End and wrecked a local Tesco. Hundreds of riot police and canine units arrived with vans and charging at groups of teenagers until they disappeared into local side streets, smashing cars and shop windows on the way. Looting had spread to Enfield. A large Sony distribution centre was set alight and the fire destroyed the building with couds of black smoke dominating the London Skyline. The jobs of some 80 people were affected.
Given the police presence on both days and the inability to stop the criminal damage and looting the reaction of the two local Members of Parliament is understandable as well as the decision of local men whatever their political leanings to start to patrol the streets in numbers or that some had taken a drink beforehand. They showed great courage given what had happened and their efforts as the actions of others who took similar action is to be applauded.
Following the statement of the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. Nick de Bois (Enfield North) Col 1063: “My constituents and I witnessed shocking events in Enfield on Sunday and Monday and then raised with the Prime Minister the school age of some deminstrators
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) Col 1085/86: After praising the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition then attacked comments of Ken Livingston adding “Although we provide unqualified support to our police, is this about not just resources but empowering our police—perhaps to get their hands on water cannon or rubber bullets, but to free them up by reducing both the time that it takes to process individual arrests and this risk-averse culture, which is tying their hands?” The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend used to work as a solicitor, he knows well that far too much time is taken up in paperwork after an arrest is made. We need to cut down that paperwork. Joint working between the police and the CPS is already helping with that. Virtual courts are helping, and the 24-hour courts that have been working around the clock have made a big difference, too.”
Mr Nick de Bois (Enfield North) Col 1166/67 then contributed to subsequent debate: “ I made a solemn promise to my constituents at half- past 9 on Sunday 7 August, having spent four hours witnessing what was happening to our constituency. That promise was simply that at the first opportunity I would come to this House so that Members could hear first hand what had happened and the views of my constituents. I will therefore focus entirely on that in the few minutes that I have to speak. It is important that those views are represented, because they are also reflected elsewhere.
At around 6 o’clock in the evening, as youths—generally under the age of 25—gathered in our town centre, it became clear that this had been built up by social media throughout the day. The first outbreak occurred at about 7 o’clock, when those youths—150 of them—took to the high street, having gathered together, and then started their rampage down Church street in Enfield town. Sadly, although that outbreak was contained relatively quickly by good police work, it led to the destruction of some very good shops that have been there for more than 30 years. Mantella, the jewellery store, which has been a sole trader for more than 30 years in Enfield, lost more than £40,000 of stock. Pearsons, one of the few independent retailers with a long legacy in Enfield, was damaged front and back. And what was stolen? It was the good quality leather handbags. With a clear target in mind, high-quality goods ware taken.
We lost many, many stores down our high street, but at that point it was not over. For about an hour, the youths increased their numbers. As I stood among them, I heard them on their phones organising to bring other people up and talking about what trains they should take. Indeed, some of them hinted at where they may be going next.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) intervened “Is my hon. Friend aware that there were riots recently in a holiday resort in Spain where the police used very robust tactics? We have heard talk about water cannon, but they used rubber bullets. Does my hon. Friend think that if the people rampaging through his constituency had seen pictures on TV of rubber bullets or water cannon being used, they would have had the incentive to go out and commit copycat crimes?
Nick de Bois: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Indeed, he reflects the views of my constituents in advance of what I was going to say. Of course they were very distressed, and one of the questions—one of the wishes—was, “Why do we not use water cannons or rubber bullets?” They have proved effective in other locations. I accept that they are limited in their effectiveness in some parts—indeed, around London it would be difficult—but this case was a classic example of a wide town centre where dispersal could have been achieved, which might have changed things. Indeed, I believe that the mere threat would also restrict any future activity.
Unfortunately, later in the evening, when the outburst grew more serious and the thugs attacked a police vehicle containing a territorial support group unit, they would disperse and run up nearby residential streets—quiet, detached streets. It was there, at around 9.30, that 30 or 40 of them ran past me, pushing a 70-year-old man out of the way. We were face to face with them in the garden of some neighbours, and as they ran past, with their foul-mouthed abuse—these brave individuals, hidden behind their hoodies across their faces, clutching their expensive mobile phones—they embarked on finding their rather souped-up cars, which were parked in the same residential street. This was no moral crusade. This was not a campaign for social justice; this was simply criminal activity by those determined to profit from it. My constituents are furious at what happened to their town, but what is worrying was the extreme arrogance of the individuals involved. They had no fear of being recognised and no sense of right and wrong. As a country we now have to address this issue, and we will look at how to deal with such issues in the future. After an intervention and other comments Mr De Bois had three questions which he wanted answers.
The railway line ends at Enfield Town station. During the course of the day, the trains were packed with people coming to cause mayhem. A request was made to Transport for London to stop some of those trains, and the buses that were coming from other parts of London. It never happened, and my constituents would like to know why.
Secondly, we believe that the vast majority of these criminals were not from Enfield, as I saw first hand myself. If we share information from CCTV and YouTube with the education authorities and the police, they can work together to identify more of them. Thirdly, why were we not able to disperse the more than 100 people who were there in the early hours?
Let me pay tribute to the borough commander, Dave Tucker, and his team, and to Enfield council, who are now working together. Enfield is open for business. It has recovered well and our last legacy sadly” the time limit was reached.
The Education Cabinet Minister Michael Gove commented Col 1201 : My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) drew a vivid and affecting picture of how one of London’s most attractive suburbs could be convulsed by violence, as individuals intent on wrongdoing took to the streets in the most wicked of ways. He asked detailed and constructive questions about the roles that the local authority, schools and TFL can play in making sure that our response to future events is sharper. We will write to him to ensure that his constituents’ concerns are addressed..”
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) then had the opportunity to also address the House col 1192/3 who first trubute to his colleaue and Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), “who gave a good account of those awful events. They also washed into Waltham Cross, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who has taken a close interest in the issue, and into my constituency.
My constituents would want me to express a number of emotions on their behalf during the brief period available to me. Those emotions include, of course, sympathy for the businesses whose livelihoods simply went in a matter of hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) made the good point that we must never understate the importance of the livelihoods of those businesses, and that must be reflected in how we enforce the law and punish those who seek to denigrate it.
Another of those emotions is shame: shame that one of the oldest department stores in north London, and in Enfield itself, has had to bring in counsellors to counsel members of staff who are still traumatised by what happened on Sunday night, and a dog team to reassure staff and customers about future trade. A jeweller has put sandbags in front of a shop that was raided, and other shops are boarded up because their owners are still in fear.
A further important emotion is the feeling of support for the emergency services, which have made such a brave and sterling effort in Enfield: for the action of the local police, for the strong leadership of David Tucker, their borough commander, and for their bravery and—despite enormous provocation—extraordinary restraint. However, my constituents want, and wanted at the time, tougher action and more police. The wave of violence that hit Enfield was intolerable, and it then crashed down on Croydon, Clapham Junction and Ealing, and beyond. My constituents have a serious question to ask: why did it take until Tuesday for that particularly robust policing to arrive on the streets? They want to give their unqualified support to our police, in terms of not just numbers but empowerment. They want the police to be free from the time-consuming process of processing individuals from arrest to charge, and from the risk-averse culture that advocates containment rather than confrontation.”
I also looked in depth at two other situations in London that occurred on the Monday night. The first in Ealing where I worked for three years and where I was not surprised as some that there was trouble, One death occurred.
According to Wikipedia some Ealing businesses were asked by police to close at 5 pm. On Ealing Broadway a group of 200 people attacked police cars and vandalised and looted shops.
Later on around Haven Green, by Ealing Broadway tube station, cars and a bus were set alight and many other cars vandalised, shops had their windows smashed and a supermarket was looted and nearby residential properties were burgled. Near Ealing Green several more shops were looted and several cars torched and a supermarket set alight with petrol bombs. Rioters attempting to vandalise two pubs in this area were dissuaded by the customers and staff. Later on hundreds of young people looted shops in West Ealing. There was also minor trouble in Ealing Green. A man was assaulted and robbed when he tried to remonstrate with rioters. He was taken to hospital with life-threatening injuries and later died in hospital.
Richard Mannington Bowes was a 68-year-old British retired accountant was attacked by members of a mob on 8 August 2011, while attempting to extinguish a fire that had been deliberately started in industrial bins on Spring Bridge Road. The attack inflicted severe head injuries which resulted in a coma. The assault was caught on CCTV and filmed on mobile phones by associates of the man who hit him.
Police officers arrived at 10:45pm in response to reports of looting at the Arcadia shopping centre. They were not wearing protective gear, and were greatly outnumbered by approximately 120 rioters. The attack on Bowes was witnessed by several police officers, but they were unable to respond in time. They requested assistance as they were showered with missiles, including bottles and bricks. Riot squad officers who responded to the call for assistance had to push back the rioters while being attacked in order to reach Bowes. A line of officers then held back the rioters as paramedics arrived. Bowes was found without a wallet or phone as they had been stolen, and police initially faced difficulty in identifying him. He died of his injuries in St Mary's Hospital on 11 August 2011 after being removed from life support
A 22-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of murder, rioting and committing three burglaries. He was released on bail. A 16-year-old boy has been arrested on suspicion of murdering Bowes, and for burglary. Bowes had moved to Ealing in 1994.He lived alone in a flat in Haven Green, a neighbourhood of Ealing. He has been described as having been quiet and shy, and a loner. He is reported to have previously challenged anti-social behaviour in the area. On one occasion, ten years earlier, he was fined for confronting youths who were urinating outside his home. Revulsion at Bowes's death has been widespread. His local council is considering naming the alleyway where he was attacked after him. Ealing Council flew the Union Flag at half-mast over its town hall as a mark of respect for the pensioner following his death. It also announced that it was launching the Richard Mannington Bowes Relief Fund in his memory. Bowes has been hailed as a hero for his actions by both the media and politicians. Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, has been particularly vocal: "I feel desperately sorry and sad for him, and what a hero he is. He walked straight up in front of the looters and tried to stop what was happening. He is an example to everybody.
The noteworthy aspect is that Mr Bowes acted as others did while the police held back because they did not possess body armour and riot shields?
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con): said Col 1160 Ealing town centre was smashed up badly on Monday night and the damage was devastating and heart-breaking to see. It was also terrifying for those people who found themselves innocently caught up when the mayhem kicked off. A quiet suburb was literally turned into a war zone for one dreadful night. A 68-year-old man is lying critically ill in hospital after being attacked near Ealing Broadway for trying to stop some youths setting a litter bin on fire. Frankly, we are all still finding this hard to get our heads around.” She then spoke how the community had rallied and showed courage and determination to get on with their lives.
I have heard various accounts of what happened on the night, but there is a thread running through what most people have told me: they feel that they did not get the policing they needed. I understand their frustration, but it is important to say that this is not a debate about cuts in police numbers. In London, police numbers are actually going up and the borough commander in Ealing has told me that he is happy with his police numbers. The concern is about the deployment on the night. I must put on the record my admiration for the way the police were prepared to put themselves in harm’s way in order to protect the public as best they could. (I omit the next section already included above) The Member then focussed on the parents of the children involved, on the minority young people involved and on the majority, describing a recent positive and inspiring experience of a meeting with them.
I admit that it was the burning down of the Reeves store in Croydon which affected me most before that of the woman jumping to safety from the burning down of her home above a store. I also was struck by the line of residents who had stopped rioters from entering their town centre estate which I have passed during a Croydon Walkabout and those at New Addington who had prevented their shops as well as homes from being attacked,
As mentioned I spent my earliest years, (apart from one summer in officers quarters in the countryside part of Catterick Camp in North Yorkshire), hearing bombs and rockets drop when in an air raid shelter close to Croydon airport, and saw one rocket stop on my way from the house to the shelter. I worked for Croydon County Borough Council for two years 1957- 1959. I also alighted from buses at Reeves Corner when visiting the city centre. In Wallington with Waddon and Croydon on one side and Carshalton and Sutton the other residents were aware during the day that there would be trouble.
According to Wikipedia Police closed the entire area around West Croydon station on the evening of 8 August. Bricks, bottles, stones and fireworks were thrown at police. An Argos shop was broken into and looted as well as many other shops including Iceland, House of Fraser, and Orange, Maplin Electronics and Tesco’s as well as many small other businesses. A large furniture shop, House of Reeves, which had been in Croydon since 1867, was set alight and burned to the ground. Arsonists struck later that night and destroyed another building in the Reeves Corner district of Croydon. A Sky News satellite van came under attack and many shops, cars and buses were set alight in West Croydon. At 7.45pm Croydon Advertiser reporter Gareth Davies was attacked and mugged while reporting on rioting and looting in Surrey Street and Church Street. A man aged 26, was shot and killed in South Croydon on Warrington Road.
In the House of Commons Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con) Col 1153/54: spoke with great emotion about the “thousands of public servants, businessmen and people who work in the community and voluntary sector day by day do their best to make our town a better place to live. On Monday night a few hundred people (other reports suggest the numbers were higher) did their worst to undo all that good work to attack our community. Shops and people’s homes above the shops were burned out in old town, west Croydon and New Addington, including Reeves, an iconic family business that survived the great depression and the blitz. More than 50 people were forced from their homes. More than 200 businesses were devastated and our tram system was put out of action. Let us be clear: there is no justification whatever for such organised criminality. Contrary to some reports, those responsible were not all young and they came from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds. They represent only a tiny minority. What has happened over the past few days is a big test for the Government. For too long in this country we have been too soft on those who break the law and too tolerant of those who have no respect for other people. My constituents are looking for four things. The first is to restore order. The Prime Minister came to Croydon on Tuesday and I am deeply grateful. He promised extra police and different tactics and he delivered on that, but those numbers and those tactics need to continue and we need to know why they were not in place on Monday. I also welcome what he said in the House about fresh powers on curfews and on modern social network technology and on powers for the police in relation to people who cover their faces. “Secondly, people want criminals brought to justice. The third thing relates to compensation, and I warmly welcome what the Prime Minister had to say about compensation for residents and businesses. The fourth thing is trying to sort out the underlying issues that led to the behaviour we saw. Just because there is absolutely no excuse for what happened does not mean that we in the House should not try to understand.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents. Does he agree that the deployment of 16,000 officers in the capital meant that yobs were off the street, and that the Government’s proposed plans to cut police numbers mean that yobbos will be on our streets? Gavin Barwell: I want the level of visible policing to continue. I recognise that we have to cut police budgets because of the economic position we face, but I want the current level of visible policing to continue. I do not pretend to have all the answers to the long-term problems.” He went to explain what had happened to his son and argued that the problem for some was the issue of upbringing at home in school...
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con): As my hon. Friend will recall, I have a faint connection with Croydon Central. My hon. Friend’s second and fourth points are united. One of the problems is the feral children aspect. It is all very well to talk about parenting, but they have no parents of any value, and conviction would not keep them away from crime. Gavin Barwell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is a great charity in Croydon called Lives Not Knives that tries to help people out of gang culture. Many of the former gang members whom I meet have come from backgrounds with no parental role models. Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children have been passed from foster home to foster home, and people have been abused while in care. That is absolutely an issue. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is in the House, but we must consider intervening earlier when young people first show signs of getting into difficulty, rather than waiting until there are real problems. My real hope is that something positive will come out of what has happened over the past few days and that we will see in this country not just measures for a few days to restore public order, but a completely fresh approach to how we tackle crime, how we treat our young people, how we interact with them, how we bring them up, how we listen to what they have to say and how we try to build a stronger, more cohesive society in this country. My constituents sent me a clear message before I came to the House today. They are not looking for party political bickering, squabbling or point scoring; they are looking for Members to show some leadership, to look into the underlying problems, to restore order and to find a long-term solution. I hope that all Members will focus on exactly that point as we go forward in the debate.
Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab) col 1175/76: As soon as I heard that there were riots—and they were riots—in my constituency and in the borough of Croydon, I left my family holiday, and I have spent the last two days talking to many hundreds of victims. I think it is best, in the brief time available to me, to report to the House on what I have heard. There were hundreds of people on the rampage in Croydon, ranging, I am told, from those aged eight or 10 to those in their 50s, but obviously most were teenagers and people in their 20s. As the House knows, major buildings were torched; there were absolutely devastating fires. Those buildings, many of which housed businesses and accommodation, have now been demolished. When I looked at the area on Tuesday morning, I realised that it could be London during the blitz, or Berlin in 1945. It is no soundbite to say that it was a war zone. Many were lucky to escape with their lives, and not to be burned to death. A woman jumped from a burning building. Many dozens of small businesses—offices and shops—were trashed or robbed. There was theft on a gigantic scale. Those small businesses were mainly owned by people from our ethnic communities—hard-working, enterprising people who put their life savings into their businesses. They worked to build them up, and now they have seen them devastated. Of course there were brave police officers, fire-fighters and ambulance staff, but the thin blue line was very thin indeed; frankly, in my constituency of Croydon North it was virtually invisible, in the minds of the victims. It is interesting that the centre of Croydon, with big national offices such as those of Nestlé, major superstores such as Marks & Spencer and national brands, was protected by the police, so the mobs descended towards west Croydon, and came into my constituency—the poorer part of the borough, where enterprises are small and tend to be owned by hard-working families. I heard dozens of reports, as I ducked into shops to look at the devastation, that the police had effectively been nowhere to be seen. 999 calls were sometimes unanswered. When people got through they were told that no officers were available. If they dared to call again out of fear about what was happening, they were told they were being a nuisance and, “Please do not call again.”
The thugs ruled the roost. Looking at it objectively, the thugs were more mobile, certainly more numerous and made more effective use of technology than the police. That is the reality as I see it. The looters in Croydon North did not have just an hour or two; they had all night to loot and loot again. The shopkeepers told me that people were returning hour after hour to take everything away. None of this was helped by the absurd decision of Metropolitan police commanders to withdraw our very able and experienced police commander from Croydon to look after strategy at Scotland Yard, meaning that when the riots kicked off that experience was not available. I have to say to the House on behalf of my constituents that there was no law in Corydon North that night. There was just lawlessness. There was no order, but there was grave disorder. There were virtually no police; the vandals were in command. People are angry and upset and we have got to do better in future.
Tom Brake the Liberal Democrat Member for Carshalton and Wallington where I was a Labour Party member in the late 1950’s and early 1960's and the again in the 1990’s until moving to South Shields in 2004 was concerned at proposals for more robust policing: “Members have proposed the deployment of water cannon, rubber bullets and curfews as a possible solution. We need to consider that very carefully indeed, particularly as other Members have quoted their police officers and said that many believe, for instance, that water cannons are completely unsuited to fast-moving scenarios, with groups of people moving around quickly. We also need to consider the tactics and training that have been used. For instance, if it is correct, as I have been informed by an ex-senior police officer, that the Met plan for no more than three or four disturbances taking place at the same time, that will clearly need to be considered. The past four days have been extremely depressing. They have done enormous damage to our international reputation. They have left families in mourning and businesses damaged. They have rocked our fundamental freedoms to their foundations. Today, the fight back begins. It will be a long campaign, but it is one that we cannot afford to lose.”
Given the testimony of so many live on camera and the considered statements by Members of Parliament it is evident that the police response varied. In Croydon for example as mentioned by one Member and from other reports, the police used their available personnel to successfully guard the entrances to the two shopping centres on either side of the High Street, leaving other areas which includes shopping and restaurants for over half a mile further West to the North and to the South vulnerable to the rampaging mob. Around Clapham Junction, which I also know well, the police were present in small numbers but left stores to be looted for several hours. Elsewhere there were numerous accounts of a similar nature.
These reports followed closely on the similar reports and allegations which followed the demonstrations against the raising of University Tuition fees and Government cuts towards the end of 2010 The allegations included under policy and the failure to intervene so that government buildings, a ticket machine was set on fire, and the Royal car carrying the Prince of Wales and his wife was attacked as well as stores looted in Oxford Street. Police officers were attacked and injured. There were also attacks on the Conservative Party Headquarters at Millbank London and the Liberal Democratic Headquarters at Crawley. I do not understand that given these events there was not consideration at cabinet level and discussion and planning within and between the Home Office and Metropolitan Police about the likelihood of further demonstrations and unrest as the cuts begin to bite.
It could also be argued that a factor in the new situation is the presence of 24/7 media and the ability of everyone and anyone not just to take a photo with their camera but to film an event and then post it immediately with the media including the social media site You Tube. Part of the police tactics in some instances appeared to disperse rioters away from the cameras and then arrest.
This was a concern raised by the Home Office in 1991 and mentioned in the Second Report, Vol I of the Home Affairs Committee on Policing Football Hooliganism published in that year.
The Home Office said: The mere presence of cameras, particularly at events like the European Championships and the World Cup, and the contingents of news reporters apparently unconcerned with the game itself may have the effect of encouraging Acts of hooligan behaviour. “The report described the relationship as symbiotic.
The Scottish office also referred to the media “excited by football hooliganism,” I comment I would make about some media coverage which also reported that some participants expressed excitement about their involvement. This was countered by the Football Writers association which argued that there was an escalation in hooliganism following their voluntary moratorium. The report also commented that “the fear of crime saps the confidence of citizens as badly as crime itself and that it was not the job of the press to stoke up such fears. We believe that the press ought to exercise much greater responsibility when reporting football hooliganism.”
The Committee however failed to agree with Sir James Anderton who reminded that, “we will always have a problem akin to football in and around football grounds and we will always have a problem on public transport and in areas akin to football grounds.”
One of they key issues which requires further consideration is that of intelligence within what many already believe has come to be the Surveillance Society. Why did the police not know what was to happen and therefore take appropriate action sooner?
When the rioting commenced I had just finished “examining” rather than having undertaken an in depth read of the Information Commissioner’s Reports who first warned that we were on a slippery slope, the Liberty Report Overlooked: Surveillance and Personal Privacy in Modern Britain 2007 and the two Parliamentary reviews House of Lords Surveillance: Citizens and the State and Home Affairs Committee Fifth Report 2007-2008 and these reinforce the question : how did the Police get the situation so wrong, especially if as had been suggested by the police to the Media and taken up by the politicians that the spread of criminal rioting was caused by some of the 200 plus estate gangs getting together via social media across greater London and then copied by similar groups elsewhere?
I assume one argument is that the focus of British Intelligence internal security has been on counter terrorist activity. Another is that the police have always used a network of low level criminals to catch the ringleaders, tolerating their influence within their communities.
There is also the viewpoint that two tier policing has developed in the England with upper and middleclass areas and High Street shopping being afford greater `
security and personal protection, in part by the growth of private security and personal protections services.
I have separately mentioned the important role of CCTV in crime prevention detection although given the nature of what the public was already doing without regard to being on camera and what happened during the riots the extent of crime prevention appears to have become more limited and it appears that many local police commanders took the view that they would use CCTV and 24/7 media to afterward detect the looters, given that the store owner would be compensated for their losses.
Those who argue that it is time for a review of what we require from the police, and do not, have a good point.
No comments:
Post a Comment