Andrew Loh

Two articles from The New Statesman and The Economist show that abuse of powers by the police can happen if left unchecked. How does our new Public Order Act square up to this?

After the demonstrations during the recent G20 summit in London, the biggest story is not about the alleged rowdiness of the demonstrators but the possible misconduct of the police in handling the protestors as well as their involvement in the death of a British by-stander.

This goes to show that the law minister’s rhetoric during the recent debate over the Public Order Bill about believing that policemen are “fundamentally honest” is missing the point: given that the latter are the ones carrying guns and batons, it is important to ensure that there is proper oversight over police powers, which is critically missing from the Bill.  Instead, what the Bill does is to grant the police even more abitrary powers.

No one would advocate crippling the effectiveness of the police force – but it is crucial to ensure that there is proper accountability when something does go wrong.  Worryingly, the government’s track record gives little reassurance that the public can expect such accountability.

The truth of the G20 case of Ian Tomlinson and the other one of Brazillian Jean Charles de Menezes, wrongly suspected of being a potential suicide bomber who was shot by British police, came to light only when video footages (from a by-stander and from CCTVs) revealed that what had taken place were contrary to what the police had first claimed.

In Singapore’s Public Order Act and in the amended Films Act, the police can stop anyone from filming such events and order the person to destroy the recording. What would have happened if Britain’s police too had powers to do the same? (Watch the four videos below)

Excerpts from The New Statesman, “Public enemy number one“:

In the case of de Menezes, the police briefed for a full 24 hours that the victim was an Islamist terrorist – “Suicide bomber shot on Tube” was the Sky News strapline – and only eventually conceded that he was innocent. Andy Hayman, then the Met’s head of counterterrorism and intelligence, was later shown to have concealed his doubts about de Menezes’s guilt from the Met commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, during the hours and days after the shooting. Since then, details have emerged of how the police deleted and selectively presented CCTV footage and photographs of de Menezes. Furthermore, it was said that he had been running; that he had jumped the Tube barriers; that he had been wearing a bulky coat; and that he had been challenged verbally by police. In fact, CCTV footage finally released in July 2007 shows a lightly dressed de Menezes calmly picking up a morning newspaper and strolling through the station barriers on to the escalator.

Similarly, on the day that Tomlinson died of a heart attack the Met issued a wholly misleading statement. A member of the public, it said, told police that “there was a man who had collapsed round the corner”. Officers, it was claimed, had tried to help medics save his life as “missiles, believed to be bottles”, were hurled at them.

The reality, again revealed in video, shows Tomlinson walking with his hands in his pockets, offering neither resistance nor threat to the police line behind him. Next, he is struck around the legs by a baton-wielding Territorial Support Group officer who then shoves Tomlinson to the ground. After “bouncing” – a witness’s word – on the ground, a terrified Tomlinson can be seen looking up in disbelief at the officers, who stand back, leaving the public to tend to him.

What connects de Menezes, Tomlinson and countless other victims of brutality is the fact that the police get away with it. Each outrage is treated as an isolated incident; the link running through them is left unmade.

“I cannot see how the City of London Police could have been expected to be the right vehicle for investigating Tomlinson’s death, when they were part of the same policing operation,” says the former London mayor Ken Livingstone.

For decades, politicians from both main parties have praised the police and bolstered them with new powers. Yet the force remains the one public body in the United Kingdom not subject to the spotlight of scrutiny

Excerpts from The Economist, “The camera is mightier than the sword“:

Despite the threats to destroy capitalism and hang the bankers, the real hero of London’s G20 demonstrations on April 1st may turn out to be an American fund manager. The anonymous capitalist accidentally filmed a policeman assaulting Ian Tomlinson, a newspaper vendor who was making his way home through the protest. Mr Tomlinson was clubbed from behind with a baton and shoved to the ground as he walked away from a line of officers, hands in his pockets. He subsequently died of a heart attack.

Just as the shock of that footage was receding, another video nasty emerged. In it a woman at a vigil for Mr Tomlinson on the following day is slapped and baton-thwacked by a different officer. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is now investigating both cases. Given that most of the 5,000-odd protesters had cameras, more may well emerge.


Videos of the two most recent incidences in London:

New video of G20 clashes

G20 protest video sparks outrage online

Ian Tomlinson death: New video footage from G20 protests gives fresh angle on attack

New footage emerges of alleged G20 police misconduct

G20 police manhandle protesters to the ground


Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

“All I’m asking the court is to give me a sort of leave of absence…let me rest” – Jeanne-Marie Ten struggles with depression over case against NUS

Coming to the tail-end of her 13 year legal battle with the…

国会通过《妇女宪章》修正案 赋予更多权力打击“住宅妓院”

“住宅妓院”如雨后春笋般不断出现,并且经常转移阵地,难以打击。但今后当局将会有更多权力对“住宅妓院”采取相应行动,并且会加强打击非法网络经营。 昨日(4日)国会通过《妇女宪章》(Women’s  Charter)的修改提案,其中也包括针对试图转移业务到海外,以逃避法律人士。国家发展部高级政务次长孙雪玲表示,初犯与惯犯均处以更重的刑期与更高的罚款。 自2015年到2018年间,10名被捕的外国女性中,有7名涉嫌在网络上宣传自己提供性服务,而当中均于住宅区中非法提供性服务。2015年期间,16巴仙的女性因网络卖淫被捕,去年更攀升至55巴仙。 随着犯罪数字的高涨,为能打击卖淫活动,若出租用作妓院用,除非他们能够证明自己的不知情,并“合理积极地”(reasonable diligence)确定该场所不被用于此目的,承租人均将承担刑事责任。 “合理积极”,指屋主与租户应透过面对面约谈合租事宜,并对租户或次租户进行身份检查。 若他们人在海外,屋主可以聘请中介确认他们的身份或面谈。 孙雪玲表示,再三确认租户身份是必要的,因为犯罪集团往往利用房屋租凭过程中的漏洞达成目的,包括提供假身份(很有可能是死者身份)给屋主。 此外,法案的修正包括将调查对象延伸至本地人或永久居民,而对于未对有关租户进行身份调查的物业代理,将可能会被罚款,或吊销营业执照。 当局也表示将会与房地产代理理事会(CEA)合作,引入专业准则。 其他的修正包括,若在境外透过网络或应用程式为本地提供性服务,亦被视为犯罪。警方将赋予更大的权力逮捕皮条客或“中介”,即使是辩称为自由业性工作者。目前,只有为性工作者牵线的中介均需被逮捕。…

Malaysia’s Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng envisions a “normal, boring democracy” after a scandal-ridden “global kleptocracy”

The Malaysian government is channelling all of its efforts into seeking reparations…

Domestic workers need their days off too

Transient Workers Count Too invites you to a forum discussion on Saturday 15 October…