Police, the Media, and the Errosion of Liberty

It is readily apparent that in the UK today our civil liberties are not merely under attack, but are already rapidly disappearing, and are doing so with seemingly little reaction from the majority of the British public. And why is this? One has to conclude that a large part of the reason for this state of affairs is the collusion between the government, their politicised anti-libertarian anti-protest stance, the supposed terrorist threat, and the mainstream media.

In order to continue to keep the general population supine, docile and malleable, the government, through the media, must maintain fear and present examples of the ‘threat’ which we now face. Coupled with this they must continually seek to discredit those who raise questions about this state of affairs, and who exercise their democratic rights to voice their opposition through protest.

The main way of maintaining the status quo of fear and suspicion has been through the media’s continuous reporting of the terror threat, and their role in regurgitating without critical enquiry or questioning, the government spin on this issue. If you were to believe everything you hear spouting forth from the mouths of government and the media, you would be forgiven for believing that we are living in unprecedented times, where a large number of radicalised UK muslims, supported by a huge number of foreigners and other undesirables who have infiltrated this country in order to sponge off our benefits and visit terror upon us, have placed each and every one of us in clear and present danger of being blown up in some horrific terror plot.

In order to maintain this clearly preposterous position the government continually give more power to our police – supposedly the thin blue line between us and the ever present threat of terror. The police are then encouraged to use these increased powers (not that they require any encouragement) to create spectacles – flagship events designed to ram home to the populous the sheer scale of the terror-threat that lurks just around the corner.

As an example, in recent times, we have witnessed the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes (and subsequent attempts to deny or avoid blame or responsibility by the Metropolitan Police), and the Forest Gate raids where two local residents were shot and wounded in their own home in a high profile terror raid, only to be released without charge on the quiet a few weeks later.

And it is this pattern that concerns me – the high profile public terror raids and arrests, the much publicised ‘items of suspicion’ found in these peoples homes, the 24 hour media focus on the arrest of ‘home grown terrorists’, then days or weeks later the quiet release without charge of these people, which is never seemingly reported by the media so keen to slander them in the first place, and so happy to regurgitate without question or criticism the words of the police and government ministers (and of course when the information is too laughable to even attribute to a specific police officer or government minister there is always the recourse to “an unnamed government spokesman”).

Another example: four weeks ago a convoy of aid from the UK to Gaza was attacked in a high profile public policing operation – I keep repeating ‘high profile public policing’ as it is entirely deliberate that the media are always ‘embedded’ during these operations. So, ten muslim men were arrested at gun point on the M48, with the country’s media watching on in glee. The headlines the next day spoke of links between UK supporters of Palestine and unspecified ‘terrorists’. By extension the entire UK population who had supported the Palestinians during the Israelis brutal assault on Gaza were implicated as having ‘supported terrorism’. The message was clear – be more careful what causes you support and where you give your money to’. Of course what was not reported was that while this was happening the convoy continued through Europe, into north Africa, and finally through Egypt to Gaza where they successfully delivered many tonnes of much needed humanitarian aid to the besieged people of Gaza. What was also not reported was that two weeks later all ten men were released without charge. How is it now possible, yet alone permissible, in this country for the police to be allowed to arrest ten men, hold them without charge for two weeks, then release them on the basis of ‘lack of evidence’. Two alarming thoughts follow from this – do we still have habeas corpus in this country, the presumption of innocence until PROOF of guilt is established through supporting evidence? And even if these men were a terrorist threat (which they never were), is the most sensible way to defuse that threat to let them wander around under observation for weeks on end, then let them board a convoy of heavy goods vehicles, before having half of Manchester’s police force pull them over at gun point on part of the UK’s motorway network? Does this sound like sensible policing, or politicised actions by the police planned for, and played out for, the watching UK media.

Yet another example. Over Easter there was series of high profile police operations in the northwest of England which claimed to have uncovered a major UK terror plot. Newspapers spoke of plans to bomb Old Trafford, Anfield and the Trafford Shopping Centre. Twelve muslim men were arrested. Eleven of the twelve currently remain in custody. Under Britain’s draconian anti-terror laws terror these men have another week to wait before they are likely to be released. But you can bet your bottom dollar they will all be released without charge. And you can bet the media won’t report that. After all, the less sensationalist media are already reporting that “security sources” (i.e. government spokespeople too embarrassed to put their name against this ridiculous story) have stated that they expect few, if any, terror-related charges to result from the arrests. Raids on the men’s homes and business premises in the northwest of England have so far failed to turn up any evidence of bombs, chemical explosives, weapons or ammunition. They did find a quantity of table sugar at one property, in the kitchen. For more on that read on….. One “senior security source” was cited in the Guardian as stating that “nothing of huge significance” had been uncovered. This is a far cry from the hysterical claims that originally attended the arrests. Then police sources claimed that they had thwarted a massive Al Qaeda-directed operation to launch large-scale suicide bomb attacks over the Easter holiday. Citing information from “MI6 operations targeted on Pakistan”, “anonymous security officials” claimed there had been a high risk of an “imminent attack” that would cause “mass casualties.” Prime Minister Gordon Brown described the apparent terror plot as “very big.” Wow, “very big” – is that a technical term? And who are these ‘unnamed sources’? Is it any more newsworthy than me reporting that I heard a man down the pub tell his friend over a glass of strong cider that Elvis is alive and well and living in Glasgow? Such is the subsequent backpedalling over this alleged terrorist conspiracy that the Guardian stated, “A central mystery remains how counterterrorism officials could believe such a serious plot existed when they were unsure of seemingly basic elements of the alleged conspiracy, such as the targets.” Indeed. The “evidence” now being presented for the existence of a terror threat appears to centre on reports that several of those detained—most of whom were in the UK on student visas—had been seen taking photographs near a Manchester shopping centre and other public venues. This behaviour, it is argued, is consistent with terrorist reconnaissance. A surveillance team also reportedly heard discussions about certain dates over the Easter holiday, prompting the arrests. So, it is now enough to prove ‘reasonable suspicion’ to the forces of law and order in the UK for someone to be ‘muslim with a camera’ or to discuss dates over a public holiday with their friends. Does this seem strong enough evidence to stage a series of ‘high profile anti-terror operations’? Ask yourself the question – are we under more of a threat now than during the Irish Troubles? I believe not. The Troubles lasted over fifty years, and saw organised guerilla armies (the IRA amongst others) arm themselves with a range of modern weaponry and explosives, receive widespread financial and political backing across the globe as well as in Ireland and parts of England, and engage in a prolonged campaign of bombings in mainland Britain that lasted for well over thirty years. During this time police and security forces learned some valuable lessons. One, the less voice you give to terrorists the better. Two, the more you play down the threat and underestimate the risk of terrorism, the better the reaction amongst the general populous and the greater the likelihood they will grit their teeth and persevere. Three, rounding up suspects willy-nilly, interring them without trial, and locking them up for prolonged periods of time on the flimsiest grounds and most questionable legal evidence is counter-productive and only helps their recruitment drive.

And yet, in the years since 9/11 more than 1,000 people have been arrested under anti-terrorism laws in the UK, of which less than 50 have been convicted. I can think of no other area of policing that would accept a 5% conviction rate as normal. However, so sweeping are the anti-terrorism powers that people have been detained on the flimsiest of pretexts. Earlier this month, five people in Plymouth were detained under the Terrorism Act after a young man was seen spraying graffiti. “Political literature” was reportedly found in one of the homes raided and it was claimed at the time that the five had been planning to join the G20 protests in London. Furthermore, the press reported ‘unnamed police sources’ as reporting that the police had found explosives and firearms during the raid and believed the ‘terror suspects’ were planning an act of ‘terrorism’ during the G20 protests. All five men were held for several days, before they were all released without charge. Begging the question, just what had the police found in their homes? Well, the political literature turned out to be some Karl Marx (the police would have a field day in my home that’s for sure), the ‘explosives’ turned out to be a safety flare (two of the men were keen sailors, hardly surprising considering they lived in Plymouth), and the ‘firearm’ turned out to be the flare gun necessary to launch the flare they found. But was any of this subsequent information reported by the media who had taken such a keen interest in the story initially? No. The lies were allowed to stand, and the people who had read and been alarmed by the initial report were left to assume it had all been true. And yet if a newspaper makes a mistake in its daily edition, for instance mislabeling a picture alongside an article, there is guaranteed to be a correction and apology in the following day’s paper. All the while, the hysterical atmosphere generated by such high profile police operations and arrests has been used to further strengthen police powers and undermine democratic rights. The brutal shooting of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes in July 2005 by undercover anti-terrorist officers exposed that police had covertly adopted a shoot-to-kill policy. Less than one year later another innocent man, Mohammed Abdul Kahar, was shot by anti-terror police in a raid on his home in Forest Gate. In the latest police operations over Easter, Muhammad Adil, a 27-year-old Pakistani student, told how he had been eating lunch outside Liverpool John Moores University when he and a friend were surrounded by armed officers. Special Forces Officers with telescopic machine guns instructed them to raise their hands, and forced them to the floor. Adil’s hands were tied behind his back as he lay on the ground for over an hour, while police kept their guns trained on him. Taken to a police station, he was released after several hours without charge. What could possibly necessitate being arrested by police armed with machine guns if within hours you have been released without charge? Was this man presumed innocent on his arrest? Simultaneously, police were carrying out similarly spectacular arrests in other locations. Two people were detained while working as security guards at a DIY store. A worker at the store told how 80 officers had swooped on the building, and armed police had rushed into the shop, emerging 10 minutes later with the two men. Does it take 80 police to arrest two men working at a DIY store? If the police wanted to legitimately talk to these men would it not have been easier to send two police to their home and ask them to come down to the station for a chat? If you or I were of interest to the police, they wouldn’t send 80 police to arrest us at our work, they’d pop round, knock on the door, and ask us to accompany them to the station. This seems an entirely more sensible way of going about your business without getting the backs of an entire community up, causing fear and panic in the population, disrupting a DIY stores business, and traumatising two innocent men. In the Wavertree district of Liverpool, residents described how unmarked black cars had sped down the street, stopping outside a flat, and a number of men wearing black combat gear had stormed the building. Three men were brought out handcuffed from the building. In a residential area in Manchester, meanwhile, a woman told how she had heard a lot of noise and opened her door to see “four or five policemen were on top of a man. They were dragging him along the street and he had no shoes on. They shouted at me ‘get inside, get inside’. There was a policeman on each corner of the street, with machine guns.”
Do these actions seem designed to:
a) efficiently and quietly bring some men in to answer questions you may have about any criminal activities they may have been involved in or plan to commit in future, or
b) create a climate of fear and panic, reinforcing stated government and police lies about the level of terror we are facing, simultaneously justifying the actions themselves, and any past or future actions by the government or police, who are working so hard t keep us safe.

It looks increasingly likely that the lack of evidence of terror-related activities in the latest arrests will be attributed to the fact that the police operation had to be moved forward at the last moment after Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick of the Metropolitan Police was photographed the previous day entering Downing Street carrying a briefing paper—marked top secret—with details of the intended raids visible to the watching media. Fearing the cat was out the bag, hundreds of police officers were quickly scrambled for the northwest raids. Quick’s “gaffe” is now being blamed for compromising an otherwise promising operation. The Times speculated April 14th that indications that no terror charges would ultimately be laid against those arrested posed “questions about how real this threat was and whether the police were trying to cover their embarrassment over Mr. Quick.” More pertinently, it should be noted that warnings of imminent suicide bombings on a major city came just as the government and Metropolitan Police faced mounting condemnation of police actions during the G20 summit of world leaders in London, which ended April 3. During the protests, more than 200 people were arrested, houses were raided, and thousands of people detained for hours by police in London side streets in a practice known as “kettling.” The vast majority of those arrested were released with out charge. The police policed this protest just as they have every other protest I have attended in the last ten years. They were violent, unaccountable, deliberately provoked the crowd, seemed intent on engaging in a physical confrontation, and most were illegally not displaying their ID numbers. During the protest there were a large number of assaults on protestors by police, and subsequently one man was found to have died during the protests. As usual the police and media kicked into action side by side. The media reported ‘unnamed police spokesmen’, the police denied facts, made claims and counter claims, and so it seemed the event would play out like any other. The media, after all, had their story – violent protestors had once again instigated trouble in the City, run amok, fought police, and generally engaged in anarchy. Those raids in Plymouth must have been on to something, because there was a lot of violence.

However, the presence of alternative media – namely individual protests armed with cameras, camcorders, mobile phones – meant that gradually another version leaked out. Footage emerged of police assaulting the man who later died. Footage emerged of police striking men, women and children in unprovoked attacks. Footage surfaced that showed police routinely hiding their ID numbers to prevent identification after the fact. Suddenly the media had a new story. Had ‘one bad egg’ spoiled things? Were there one or two policemen prone to violence? Had police tactics been wrong? Had police provoked protestors? Were the police going to change tactics in future? Suddenly, the media weren’t interested in the usual story of unwashed hoody-wearing anarchists attacking the police and Starbucks. The media had an exclusive! Stop press…. Stop press….. police engage in mindless violence to protect the interests of big business and reify the political will of their masters. Well, my heartfelt thanks to the mainstream media for reporting what those of us who protest have known for years. The police are not there to protect us, or even protect public order. The police are there to implement the will of the government. In collusion with the media they need to maintain the story that protesting is dangerous, violent, and likely to lead to trouble. They need to maintain the perception that the police need more power. They need to maintain the notion that police and government encourage and assist peaceful protest, while ensuring that all protest is met with enough violence to put protestors off continuing with their actions. And so, of course, we are offered up the sacrificial lamb of ‘a couple of bad eggs’. The police and media will work together to ensure that a few heads roll, then back to business as usual. But, we can’t maintain this constant barrage of criticism against the police in case it undermines public confidence. And so, less than 24 hours later, Britain was faced with another ‘alleged’ terrorist plot, and the media had their next story. And yet the story wasn’t ‘civil liberties under further attack as police stage terror raids that lead to all men being release without charge’ the story was ‘huge easter plot to blow up football stadiums in the northwest’. You may think I’m labouring a point, but these sorts of actions are insidious and have knock on effects. At the weekend it was announced that plainclothes armed police units are to be deployed on the streets of Scotland for the first time in its history. No official statement or justification, let alone discussion, accompanied this unprecedented move. But the Scotsman newspaper editorialised in support of the deployment, citing the alleged northwest terror plot, which it said could have led to “blood and suffering” on the streets of Manchester. So now a wholly fictitious plot in the northwest is used to justify having armed plainclothes police on Scotland’s streets. One more civil liberty gone without so much as a whimper of protest. Because people these days are scared to protest. And in case the media were getting board of the northwest terror plot story, or heavens forbid starting to think about publishing the fact that no weapons, explosives or plot have been uncovered, police staged an Army Bomb Squad raid on a flat in Liverpool yesterday to give the media a chance to revive the story. The peculiar thing is that the address raided had been under search and cordoned off five days before the bomb squad was called in. Indeed, last Wednesday 50 (yes, 50) policemen swooped on the flat and searched it for six hours. It is therefore remarkable that the "Bomb" wasn't found for a further five days. The official description of the Bomb Squad raid was "precautionary". That is "Precautionary" in the sense of "Publicity stunt". What the mainstream media fail to report is that the bomb squad experts were able to tell the police that the suspicious substance was - table sugar. Whether cane or beet, doubtless intense forensic examination will tell us.
And so the cycle of propaganda continues. There is a terror threat. There must be. Look at all those terror raids. All those terrorists arrested. The police need more powers in order to stay one step ahead of these crazy terrorists. And yet for the communities directly affected, or those that value our civil liberties over the police’s right to act with impunity, these actions simply stem to stir the flame of protest, calling us to defend our liberties before it is too late. In engaging in this legal right to voice our opinions and protest the actions of the police state we now live in, we are met with unprecedented levels of surveillance, control and police brutality. This justifies for the media the needs of the police to have more powers. And so the police stage more raids, to capture more phony terrorists, further enhancing the need for protest in defence of our liberties, which only further provoke the police to violence in defence of the powers they so desperately want. If they can get away with it they will pin the blame firmly on the protestors or on the terrorists. When they get caught out and even the media turn on them, they will hang a couple of sacrificial lambs out for slaughter, the media will be appeased, normality will be restored, and no one will think to report on the innocence of the men arrested or the protestors assaulted.