The passing of wood through glass is a remarkable feat. There are those who believe that royalty can perform miracles – there is a well developed cult around the vain and vicious Charles I, for example. It now appears that the presence of the future Charles III also has the ability to suspend the laws of physics.
The police have now issued extensive CCTV footage of the attack on the vehicle of Charles and Camilla on the fringes of the anti-tuition fee demonstrations, and the media have been replete with more nonsense about Camilla being poked with a stick. Yet of all the CCTV footage and numerous photographs, there is no evidence at all of this attack and all the images show the car windows to be closed – as they would be. One gets cracked but not holed.
There is in fact no evidence at all of any intent to harm the persons of the expensive royal layabouts, as opposed to discomfiting them and damaging their vehicle. It is fascinating that the media continually repeats the “Camilla attacked with a stick” line when it is so blatantly untrue. There appears to be a closing of ranks by the whole Establishment to perpetuate the myth – both the Home Office and St James Palace have deliberately fostered the myth by refusing to confirm or deny.
Personally I would not touch Camilla with a bargepole. I dislike violence at demonstrations. Demonstrations, good, riots, bad is my basic mantra. Attacks on people in a civil demonstration are always wrong, including attacks on the police unless in self defence. I did not join in the outrage at the prosecutions of violent demonstrators after the big Lebanon demonstration in London, because I personally witnessed the group hurling dangerous missiles at police who were neither attacking, threatening nor kettling them. That is absolutely unacceptable.
But a policy as appalling as the withdrawal of state funding from university teaching, carried out by Nick Clegg by one of the most blatant political breaches of fatih with the public in history, , is bound to provoke huge anger. The government reaps what it sows. Demonstrators should not set out to hurt people. But all the evidence shows they had no intention of hurting Charles and Camilla.
I have personally worked closely with the royal family’s close protection officers in organising two state visits abroad, and plainly they too could see there was no intent to injure – that is why weapons were not drawn. They deserve commendation rather than the crap spouted out by Sky News, who seem to think they should have gunned down the odd student.
All of which serves to take the focus off vicious police attacks on students and the use of kettling to detain people who were seeking peacefully to express their views. Kettling people in extreme cold and with no access to toilet facilities raises questions on illegal detention which genuine liberals in government would wish to address. What is it? Is it a form of arrest? What is the status of the fenced pens into which people are herded? Should they not be formalised as places of police detention, and individuals booked in and given access to lawyers? If that is not possible, this detention – which can be for many hours – is not lawful.
Surely you mean the future king Charles III? We’ve already had an awful Charles II. Otherwise, hear, hear!
Hasn’t there already been a Charles II; so that the man you refer to is the future Charles III? I imagine it’s a typo rather than a gap in your historical knowledge!
I agree entirely with all the other details!
I think it very sad that people like you who wish to make serious comment are effectively forced to issue large amounts of boilerplate, like when you say “attacks on people in a civil demonstration are always wrong”.
It’s rather like 2001, when peace activists felt compelled to add “Obviously 9/11 was an awful and unjustifiable act, but …” to the beginning of every sentence.
Perhaps you can think of other examples of this phenomenon, where the crazy perspective of the media forces serious commentators to state the obvious for several paragraphs near the beginning of every article.
Hasn’t there already been a Charles II; so that the man you refer to is the future Charles III? I imagine it’s a typo rather than a gap in your historical knowledge!
I agree entirely with all the other details!
I think it very sad that people like you who wish to make serious comment are effectively forced to issue large amounts of boilerplate, like when you say “attacks on people in a civil demonstration are always wrong”.
It’s rather like 2001, when peace activists felt compelled to add “Obviously 9/11 was an awful and unjustifiable act, but …” to the beginning of every sentence.
Perhaps you can think of other examples of this phenomenon, where the crazy perspective of the media forces serious commentators to state the obvious for several paragraphs near the beginning of every article.
Kettling looks illegal to me. Probably the matter will be ignored until someone dies or is seriously injured within a police containment. Then, the legal status of the containment will need to be established.
Good points, all. Why were the Royal couple taken through a demonstration in the first place? Police helicopters fly over big demos – and of course the cops were very much there in numbers, on the ground. They knew fine well where the demo was taking place. So why not divert the Royal limo, well away from any trouble? It seems like bad management, at the very least. One might be more cynical and suggest it was deliberate, and some people have suggested that, but to be honest this seems extremely unlikely.
Beautiful piece on Bella Caledonia.
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2010/12/10/mobs-and-monarchs/
Sorry, can’t stop, have to help Avon police frame some sock murderer. Cheery bye. (Was gonna mention Charlie the 3rd – or is it turd in Northern Ireland?)
I regard kettling as counterproductive – why wind up protestors when there’s already an adversarial relationship between them and the police already? Unless that’s the idea, of course – provoke protestors into something they can be arrested for.
James – agreed on your point about the cultural incentive to add disclaimers. Personally, I am in favour of riots – it’s the only language the state understands. But I’m not in favour of people getting hurt, only property (and that’s not a disclaimer :-).
Of course, in a media-driven age, the amount of disorder versus the amount of popular support is extremely relevant. Hence smashing up a Bentley to demonstrate opposition to increasing privilege and austerity probably commands a fair bit of public support; doing the same for the environment, to a lesser degree; and doing the same for animal rights, a smaller degree again.
There could be another purpose behind kettling – to intimidate people away from protesting. It would be interesting to know the political links behind kettling.
The point of kettling is simple. It’s designed to function as a form of ‘extra-judicial’ punishment of people engaged in a lawful demonstration, and ‘hopefully’ it will have a deterrent effect on those taking part. Whether this proactive, preemptive, confinement is legal or not, is a moot point.
It does though emphasize, that the streets are not the ‘property’ of the people, but spaces ‘owned’ and controlled by the state.
Thanks, Charles III typo corrected (though of course if you really are a proper monarchist Bonnie Prince Charlie was Charles III).
James, no I really do think it is helpful to clarify that I think attacking people is wrong, because of the Lebanon demonstration precedent. There is a fringe that dies use demos as an excuse for violence, a bit like soccer hooligans, and to pretend they don’t exist is not helpful.
I had close to contempt for Charles before I met him at charity fundraiser. We weren’t automatic best mates, but I did get the distinct impression that he was ‘to the left’ of the coalition turds on most issues, which isn’t saying much I know, but still worth considering.
writerman
I quite agree. Actually I think that both the Queen and Charles are very decent people, victims of the circumstances in which they were born.
The violent fringe that Craig mentions are very useful to the establishment; it gives them an excuse for kettling, for a start.
Using demos as an excuse for violence? I am not sure how that one can be proved, to be honest. I’d wager using a footie match was a great deal more obvious to the violent, and apolitical, hooligan.
That said, perhaps football violence has been controlled to the extent that thugs need a new avenue to exercise their violence. Interesting thought.
Perhaps we need an Independent Riot Authority. Everyone has the right to demonstrate, but to get involved in a bit of argy-bargy, you need to take a test and obtain a license :op
Jon, I think you’ve cracked it. The IRA (Independent Riot Authority) will issue one-year licences for £106.48, but to get one you need to attend a course costing £850, and buy approved riot clothing from certified suppliers only. I smell a growth industry!
It’s kind of amusing that Blair’s new bestest friend is another authoritarian accused of war crimes, and that Blair is sticking by him even as other western governments are distancing themselves.
“Tony Blair defends support for Rwandan leader Paul Kagame”
“Blair has described Rwanda’s president as a “visionary leader” and a friend after making the central African country the focus of the work of his charity, the Africa Governance Initiative (AGI), to turn around the continent’s fortunes.”
“But the relationship has come under increasing scrutiny following a UN report that accused Kagame’s forces of war crimes, including possibly genocide, in the east of Democratic Republic of Congo, and charges that the Rwandan government is increasingly authoritarian after the opposition was effectively barred from challenging Kagame in August’s presidential election. The White House has criticised Kagame for the suppression of political activity and made clear that it does not regard Rwanda as democratic.”
“Blair rolled his eyes at mention of the UN report, which he questions, and suggested that Rwanda’s occupation of eastern Congo for many years was justified by the continuing threat from Hutu extremists.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/31/tony-blair-rwanda-paul-kagame
@Tom
Actually it is not only Kagame’s forces accused, there is the Lords Resistance Army, Congolese Armed Forces, various desrters from all factions etc.
And of course the UN itself accused of child prostitution and illegal gold and diamond smuggling. Believe me, the UN should clean up it’s own act before pointing fingers.
Hi,
Have you got any information regarding the use of remote, non-passive, non-invasive inner ear cochlea sound transmission via either the ultrasonic hearing effect (or hypersonic effect), or the microwave auditory effect (or microwave hearing effect or Frey effect), incorporating hybrid carrier wave sound (or overlay sound) propagation using ambient and subliminal sound techniques? Possible uses could be non-lethal weaponry, psychological warfare or private message transmission.
Query is regarding the increased use of remote, non-invasive, non-passive, non-lethal military weapons, being used by security agencies, as well as in the UK, in the ‘surveillance war against terror’, against political dissidence, political activism and public demonstrations! They are being used along side more traditional remote, passive, covert full intrusive surveillance methods, and other abuses of RIPA.
These include the use of ‘under the radar’ remote non-invasive, non-passive weaponised instruments that shoot intense radiations and emissions (ionizing or non-ionizing), to target individuals from nearby properties and vehicles, to cause a detrimental effect to their neurological and physiological well-being; surveillance war in an urban environment.
There are serious human-rights & civil-liberties issues at stake with this kind of growing urban warfare, being rolled out in the UK since at least 2007. The legal issues regarding the use of suspect radioactive isotopes outside controlled laboratory environments, and the violation of ‘The Radioactive Substances Act 1993 – Prohibition of use of radioactive material without registration’ now known as ‘The Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010’ are a blatant disregard and abuse to our freedoms and liberties.
There maybe growing evidence that the security services have diversified their tactics, and are using ‘local instruments of government’ (particularly the ‘NHS’ – Over 2,000 organisations in England and Wales, including hospitals, research organisations, radiographers and process industries, use radioactive materials!) as a front and illegal loop-hole to allow them to orchestrate acts equatable to torture and interrogation within the UK.
To isolate and identify the exact legal & technical definitions of these illegal, unlicensed, non-passive, non-lethal military weapons being used within the UK is nearly impossible, so that the correct ‘Freedom of information Requests’ can be made to the relevant non-/governmental institutions!
Regards
Mr Humanus Wright
Kettling has been proved unlawful in Germany a number of times.
“Kettling has been challenged in the German courts on several occasions. The 1986 Hamburger Kessel was ruled unlawful by the administrative court of Hamburg. The district court found German police guilty of wrongful deprivation of personal liberty.
Following an anti-nuclear protest in 2002 in Hitzacker, Lower Saxony, a protestor took a case to court because she had been denied access to toilets when she was held within a police kettle. The district court found that she had been handled inhumanely and that the police had acted unlawfully.[11]”
The British courts take a more authoritarian view:
“Following the use of “kettling” during the May Day riots in 2001, two people who had been corralled by the police at Oxford Circus sued the Metropolitan Police for wrongful detention, alleging that it was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights, and that they had been held without access to food, water or toilets.[13] The pair lost their court action in 2005,[14] and their appeal failed in 2007[15] when the Court of Appeal backed the High Court ruling.
In 2009, Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,[16] a ruling by the House of Lords, decided that the High Court was entitled to take into consideration the “purpose” of the deprivation of liberty before deciding if human rights laws applied at all.[17] Summing up, Lord Hope said:
There is room, even in the case of fundamental rights as to whose application no restriction or limitation is permitted by the Convention, for a pragmatic approach which takes full account of all the circumstances.
[18]
One of the 2001 plaintiffs now plans to take her appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. It was reported:
Austin, who the court accepted was a lawful and peaceful demonstrator prevented by her detention from collecting her child, is to take her case to the European Court of Human Rights. It is to be hoped the ECHR will look again at the question of whether the “balance” and “public safety” is all on the side of allowing the police to carry out long containments or whether such imprisonment does not after all breach fundamental rights.
?”Louise Christian, The Guardian[18]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling
I really love this bit where British judge Lord Hope opines:
“There is room, even in the case of fundamental rights as to whose application no restriction or limitation is permitted by the Convention, for a pragmatic approach which takes full account of all the circumstances.”
Now there’s a master of twisting at work.
Soft silly Germans, eh.
I bought Prince Charles’s book ‘Harmony’ after reading cynical right-wing reviews which slated it for being weird and mystical. It’s actually pretty sound and in touch with prevailing philosophical zeitgeist, although it’s not very academic or rigorous. I’d recommend it to give some insight into his thinking. Seems his heart’s in the right place.
When you go against the state, you need a lever. Generally demonstrations have little leverage but if a demonstration is so huge that manning it to stay under control would be impossible then that would be a threat to the government in that it could disable government and take over power. But of course from what I understand members of the armed forces have already been asked if they would be prepared to shot their own citizens. So unless you want to be shot, demonstrations offer little scope to redress our grievances. Perhaps guerilla warfare would be more successful.
Ruth, if mass mobilisation were possible on an issue of widespread and long-standing concern, then the media would incrementally (though not entirely) come on board too. While the MSM carries out a function of representing establishment interests, they ultimately want to sell more papers – and they can’t do that if they go too forcefully against burgeoning public opinion.
I am somewhat of the view that the public sector cuts could become such a flashpoint, in a way that the protests against the wars did not. Sadly, I think self-interest tends to trump humanitarianism, but opposition to the cuts is still a good thing.
Firstly, there is no such thing as non violent mass protests, even Ghandi had to acknowledge this.
The incident described leaves many questions open and I don’t think the simplicity of them has yet come through to the papers.
1. why was the driver told to go this route when he was warned off by police from taking it due to the demo?
2. Which nasty protester wound down the window? Was it Charles who asked for it? did he do it himself and why?
3. Was this route taken for somekind of frisson? somethin g to spice up the boring routine, i.e. ‘silly police students never hurt me, lets go that way see whats going on’?
If there was a stick that was pushed at Camilla, that precedes a window to be wound down.
far from having a go at protesters for kicking/dare to touch the car, what of those throwing bins, something I detest, none of those were highlighted.
I knew of the Hamburg judgement it made for better policing.
kettling is a form of punishment for peacefull protesters, it allows the police to stoke already high emotions, like poking someone with a stick.
It can also be used to encourage violence, the police knows this well.
If, like at the first demo, you police it with 250 cops for 50.000 demonstrators, then you are making a conscious decision to allow those with a different agenda a free reign.
So its OK to suggest to cut the FCO civil service in order to save money, local, overstaffed Government denuded of services, but the chutney maker gets subsidies for his farming, 15% from the Crown estate receipts and is really a good ol’ boy? come again?
The chutney maker should be answering questions, as well as those protesters who threw the bins at his car. I don’t think you can do anyone for touching a royal car, can you?
At the risk of incensing our royalist friend from BC Canada, I will repeat the rude joke that was going about at the time.
‘It’s not the first time that Camilla has been poked in the back of a Rolls.’
I agree that the whole thing was inflated by the press esp the execrable Sky News and even think that there was some evidence of agents provocateurs at work. How many protesters go around with pots of paint? And why did not the HRHs get taken through this route when they could have gone through Mayfair?
Heather Brook has a book out about what a corrupt shithole Britain has become.
Here’s a review:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/known-as-book-of-expenses-scandal-silent-state-has-much-more-to-say-on-brita
Heather Brook has a book out about what a corrupt shithole Britain has become.
Here’s a review:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/known-as-book-of-expenses-scandal-silent-state-has-much-more-to-say-on-brita
Excellent blog article as usual Craig.
Thousands of school-children were kettled and worse by the police – yet no tabloid outrage at this obvious mass child-abuse!
The government spending-cuts are also plunging lots of British children into poverty – why isn’t that counted as child-abuse either I wonder?
Take care.
Ingo, it’s not just the tins of paint but where did the bins come from?
No excuse for the attack on the cars or on police – but equally no excuse for the officer who almost killed non-violent protester Alfie Meadows, or those who tried to turn the ambulance away from the nearest hospital on the insane grounds that he was a demonstrator and police were being treated there. Luckily the ambulance crew refused and he survived after 3 hours of brain surgery.
(see this blogpost for links to news reports on this
http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2010/12/police-violence-against-peaceful.html
I suspect the attack on the royals is being used by the police to distract attention from the far more serious Meadows case, so it keeps the focus on demonstrator violence and away from polcie violence against peaceful demonstrators and passers by caught up in “kettling”