radiofree.asia

Category: Police Liaison Officers

  • Anti-fascists explain the importance of anonymity on demonstrations

    Fascist group Patriotic Alternative (PA) has been mobilising around the UK, and anti-fascists are increasingly organising counter demonstrations.

    Campaigners are organising against PA in their local areas, and it’s clear that anti-fascism is strongest when it’s rooted in local communities. It’s also clear that PA are mobilising racists from around the UK to travel to wherever demos are happening. So anti-racists need to be ready to travel too, to back people up.

    Black-bloc

    Ten days ago, PA held a demonstration in Falmouth, targeted at a local hotel, where refugees were being housed. But local group Cornwall Resists got there first, and occupied the space around the hotel for the duration of the day.

    Cornwall anti-fascists organised themselves on the day as a ‘black bloc’.

    Cornwall Resists were serious about the identities of people on the demonstration. The day before the protest, the group tweeted a list of what to bring, and what not to bring – including a mask, and dark unidentifiable clothing:

    A statement from one person who joined the black bloc explained why they felt they needed to protect their identity. The statement came after fellow anti-racists levelled criticism at them for covering their faces. They said:

    there has… been criticism from some… campaigners, who’ve questioned why we wore masks and complained that it made us look threatening. But while the far-right refuse to accept that communities will come together and resist their vile nonsense, it feels important to set out clearly for others why we dressed the way we did and concealed our identities.

    The anti-fascist continued, explaining that wearing a mask is a way to protect yourself from organised racists, who often harass and attack their opponents. They gave the example of the threats made against Cornwall politician Nicole Broadhurst:

    Firstly anti fascism, particularly militant anti-fascism, is dangerous. There are some very nasty violent racists around who spend a lot of time trying to find out our identities. The threat when they do this is very real. In 2021 we saw this locally when Penzance mayor Nicole Broadhurst received racist threats and had to have a panic alarm installed in her house. We live in our communities, some of us have children or live with vulnerable people. We will not, and should not be expected to, put our safety or the safety of our loved ones at risk.

    Surveillance

    The statement explained how wearing a mask is a good way to protect yourself against police surveillance, too. Both as a protection against overt filming by police, and more covert intelligence gathering tactics:

    we hide our identities to resist police surveillance. Police surveillance takes many forms – from obvious police filming, to drones to body worn cameras to the [insidious] tactics of Police Liaison Officers (PLOs) who were out in force on Saturday. PLOs are intelligence gatherers, masquerading as the friendly face of policing (no such thing!)…Clear messaging from Cornwall Resists before and during the protest aimed to alert those attending to their presence.
    The antifascist’s statement went on to argue that masking up is all the more important in the context of the ever-increasing repressive state legislation that targets us when we organise on the streets:
    New protest legislation is criminalising many forms of protest. Anti-fascists are labeled aggravated activists by the police, and you don’t need to have a criminal record to be added to a police database. Simply associating with a known person and going to several protests is enough to justify an entry. This information has, in the past, been used by the police to harass and intimidate campaigners.
    No-one should face police intimidation for standing up to fascists. Meanwhile, when the Public Order Bill comes into force, protesters who haven’t even committed an offence, can be issued with Serious Disruption Prevention Orders. These are essentially banning orders that will prevent people from attending protests, stop them seeing named people, prevent them from organising online and can even be enforced by electronic tags.

    Not organising with the cops ‘is a red line’

    Cornwall Resists also took a stance of not negotiating with the police prior to their counter demonstration. The antifascist said that if the group had liaised with the cops, then their organisers could have been targeted. The Public Order Act allows the police to charge ‘official’ protest organisers who don’t comply with police restrictions. However, if no-one comes forward as organisers, the police can’t do this.

    The campaigner insisted:

    We will not allow the police to set the terms or the boundaries of our resistance – and we will not allow them to target and threaten named organisers as a result. And let’s face it, had [our] protest been organised by a group that had negotiated with the cops, it wouldn’t have happened in the same way.
    They also argued that:
    Not liaising with police is a red line. It keeps every one safe. And it is this collective solidarity that keeps our movements strong

    Solidarity

    Another anti-fascist – who attended the demo in Falmouth – told the Canary how empowering it was to be part of the black bloc:

    I knew I was protected and in a team with people I can trust because of us all in bloc. It made me feel so much safer knowing who was on my side.

    They spoke about the feeling of solidarity that they felt with the people who joined them to protest:

    Solidarity. That’s the biggest thing. Obviously solidarity with people we’re protecting, our fellow humans who deserve love and protection, but also solidarity in black bloc with comrades.

    Finally, they emphasised the importance of getting out on the streets and confronting the fascists in person.

    I needed to tell the fash what’s what, and that we won’t stand for them on our streets . Fuck, there’s more of us than them (fash and state) and we need to prove that in person

    We need to be prepared to defend each other

    This new wave of demonstrations by PA, which is hot on the heels of the group’s bigoted response to the Drag Queen Story Hour tour last year, is a challenge for our anti-racist movements.

    We know from the past that if we don’t protect our identities, then we are vulnerable to being targeted by fascists. In fact, PA even targeted the Canary‘s Steve Topple online for reporting on the counter demonstration in Falmouth.

    Wearing a mask on demonstrations, and refusing police attempts to control us, are just some of the steps we can take, so that we are more prepared to defend ourselves and each other.

    Its important to recognise that not everyone can hide their identities so easily on demonstrations. Its much harder for people of colour to stay anonymous (assuming the crowd is majority white), and it can be very difficult for people who have an easily distinguishable body shape, or physical disabilities too.

    Crucially, people of colour are vulnerable to racism all the time. Not just during fascist demonstrations. And the answer to tackling fascism isn’t just to confront Patriotic Alternative when they mobilise. Its to build a strong permanent left wing and anti-racist presence in all of our communities. One that is rooted at the local level, but with connections across regions. We need to develop networks of solidarity – based on real personal connections –  that can defend themselves should they need to.

    Featured image via Cornwall Resists (with permission)

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • FOI response further proves why we can’t trust police liaison officers

    The Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) has shown The Canary a training guide retrieved via a freedom of information (FOI) request. The document shows how the College of Policing goes about training police liaison officers (PLOs). Many people will have seen PLOs at protests, wearing their blue vests and often trying to chat to protesters.

    Copwatching groups often warn that protesters shouldn’t speak to PLOs. Now, with the benefit of this FOI response, we can take a closer look at just why that is.

    What are police liaison officers supposed to do?

    Green & Black Cross, an organisation that trains legal observers, defines the role of PLOs as follows:

    Police Liaison Officers (PLOs) are police officers sent to gather intelligence and spread unhelpful messages on protests. They are sometimes tasked with telling protesters information that can later be used to prosecute them.

    PLOs try to portray themselves as friendly people associated with the police who want to chat with protesters. However, it’s important to remember that PLOs gather information that can be used to prosecute people.

    Netpol’s access to the PLO training manual can give us an important insight into how PLOs are trained and what their objectives are. The training guide explains to PLOs that police officers have a duty to balance the right to assemble against the right to go about daily life:

    A balance has to be struck, a compromise found that will accommodate the exercise of the right to protest within a framework of public order which enables ordinary citizens, who are not protesting to go about their business and pleasure without obstruction or inconvenience.

    The right to assemble has become more contentious now that the Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts Act has been passed. Human rights organisation Liberty has said that the act “limits the freedom to protest“. And the Criminal Justice Alliance has warned that it will “deepen racial inequality.“. Whilst a balance has to be struck, it is very clear that the police are incapable of doing so.

    Core values

    The document goes on to state that:

    The key value is that policing in the UK is by consent, and its core values should be:

    • tolerant and winning the consent of the public
    • approachable
    • impartial
    • accountable
    • use minimal force

    Now, this refers to the general approach of policing in the UK. But when police officers took pictures with the bodies of Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry, was that “winning the consent of the public?” When serving police officer Wayne Couzens murdered Sarah Everard, was that the police being “approachable”? When the Metropolitan Police continue to have a remarkable number of failings, is that being “accountable”? When police strip searched a child, was that them using “minimal force”?

    There are so many incidents to choose from to show that the police cannot be trusted. The claims of their core values have no bearing on the reality of how they treat people.

    As Green & Black Cross’ above comments show, this same suspicion can be turned on PLOs, who are also police officers. The specific roles of PLOs are said to be mediation, initiation, negotiation, communication, and sensing. Each of these tasks is geared towards reducing an escalation from either protesters or the police. Indeed, the document says:

    By explaining to the demonstrators in detail why certain conditions for a demonstration have been made, and what might happen if they are broken, it might be possible for the demonstrators to accept the imposed restrictions and thereby decrease the risk of a confrontation.

    While the police need to strategise as they attempt to control protests, that is not the concern of protesters. In fact, Green & Black Cross – along with copwatching groups – warn against speaking to PLOs:

    There is no legal requirement to listen to them. We recommend people ignore them, walk away if approached and never take pieces of paper from PLOs.

    PLOs are still normal police officers, who have powers of arrest and who will testify against you in court.

    The FOI response shows that PLOs are trained to be seen as mediators and communicators, but that’s far from the truth.

    ‘Community policing’

    Interestingly, the training guide explains how they have had to come up with new methods for what they call “intelligence gathering” for PLOs:

    The use of Facebook especially to organise events months in advance and Twitter to run the event on a live time basis is commonplace. Gone are the days where we as police could focus on the activities of the protester using our traditional methods of intelligence gathering, as closed messaging is now utilised by groups.

    They conclude that:

    Social media is really an untapped source of intelligence capability.

    Dialogue is an essential part of the function of PLOs. The reason why copwatching groups so strongly advocate for not talking to the police becomes even clearer when we consider this part of the training manual:

    As PLTs will often have had long term contact with protest groups, they will be better able to interpret the mood and conduct of the group than someone who is unfamiliar with the group. Similarly, they can interpret and explain the actions of the police to organisers in an attempt to prevent negative responses from the protest crowd.

    Protesters are there to rally around a cause. Whilst they must obey the law, the right to assembly is a fundamental part of a functioning democracy. PLOs are able to go about their jobs, just as protesters are able to ignore them in order to avoid aiding their work.

    Undercover policing?

    Communication with protesters is fundamental to the very existence of PLOs. Their whole role, as shown above, focuses on getting protesters to give them information which they can relay to commanders who oversee policing at protests.

    The guidance says that:

    Others [protesters] may make it extremely difficult to contact them. First approaches to groups can take a variety of forms. This can include phone calls, items on websites, use of social media, leafleting etc. It is recognised that communication with some groups will be harder than others, however PLTs should adapt their communication methods to best suit the group they are engaging.

    It’s worth noting that, as is their right, some of this FOI response is redacted, particularly around discussion of plain clothes PLOs. This means that whilst they have shared some parts of the manual with us, not all parts are available.

    PLOs are there to aid fellow police officers, not protesters. The manual also states:

    The danger of officers being perceived to be working covertly should be borne in mind whenever PLTs wear plain clothes.

    The friendliness of PLOs can’t be taken at face value. Given that PLOs are able to wear plain clothes, and given that intelligence gathering is part of their job, this should cause even more wariness in protesters.

    Legal observers

    It’s undeniable that PLOs make an effort to appear friendly to protesters in order to gather information. Another group that are often present as supporters are legal observers. The Canary has previously explained the importance of legal observers. Back in May, we said:

    Legal observers are trained to independently monitor police behaviour at protests, and to give support to protestors. In the current climate, policing is becoming more aggressive. This includes restrictions on protestors, increased police powers that are proven to target minorities, and the use of excessive force.

    However, this document from the College of Policing takes quite a different view of legal observers. They say:

    During demonstrations a number of persons will wear tabards denoting ‘Legal Observer’. These are individuals who will gather evidence against Police officers, often to be seen with cameras or taking copious notes. They may also continually challenge officers on what powers/legislation are being utilised.

    If it’s acceptable for PLOs to gather information at protests, why would this wording in the FOI about legal observers be so hostile?

    They go on to say:

    They are not generally legally qualified and they are not impartial.

    This is a twisting of the truth. Legal observers do receive training. They don’t attend protests as protesters, but as independent observers who inform protesters of their rights and monitor police activity. If police forces are so supportive of PLOs, why would they object to legal observers?

    PLOs aren’t friends

    It’s nothing new for protesters to be distrustful of PLOs. What this FOI response from the College of Policing does show, however, is that protesters’ suspicions about PLOs have been true. PLOs are there to infiltrate protests and gain intelligence. Their goal is not to assist protesters in knowing their rights but to present a more palatable face of policing. They exist to help their superiors manage protests.

    With the draconian PCSC Act coming into force, it’s more important than ever that protesters know their rights, volunteer to be legal observers, and stand firm against efforts from the police to restrict the freedom to protest.

    The College of Policing had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.

    Featured image by Flickr/The Network for Police Monitoring – via CC by SA 2.0, resized to 770×403 

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The police must come clean on spycops’ upcoming role at G7 summit

    In around six weeks, the G7 summit of world leaders will arrive on my doorstep. Since this was first announced, and as a veteran of previous summits, I’ve been worried about policing. Nothing Devon and Cornwall police have said to date has alleviated my fears.

    On 28 April, the force held a Facebook Live event alongside the Cabinet Office, Cornwall Council, and Public Health Cornwall. It was supposed to be a protest special and they’d answer questions left in the chat. However, many of the actual questions on protest were ignored. But the cops did confirm that one random person’s wedding could go ahead. The event finished early because they’d apparently ‘run out of questions’.

    In particular, the police refused to answer a question on whether any spycops would be present at the protest.

    The question

    The police were asked:

    At the G8 Summit in 2005, 18 undercover police officers were present, several of whom had sexual relationships with activists. Can you reassure protesters that no undercover officers will be present at the G7 protests?

    But it seems the police are unable to give that reassurance since the question was ignored. I contacted the G7 police media team to ask them for a comment about why they didn’t want to answer this question and why they finished the session early when there were questions still unanswered. I have still not received a reply at the time of publication.

    PR and spin

    It’s clear the police don’t really want to do anything other than promote their own PR and spin. They say they’re happy to allow protests to happen. But their designated sites for protest are all miles away from where the summit is taking place. One such place is in Exeter, 105 miles from the G7. I can’t even imagine why anyone would want to protest there or why the police even think this is a viable option. Falmouth, one of the other designated sites, is at least the media centre for the event. But the designated protest site is in a car park, off the main road, where no-one will see the protest.

    Kevin Blowe, campaigns coordinator of the Network for Police Monitoring, told The Canary:

    The latest Council of Europe Venice Commission guidance, which Britain has signed up to, says the police have a duty to “facilitate assemblies at the organizer’s preferred location and within ‘sight and sound’ of the intended audience”. Similarly the UN Human Rights Committee last year said “peaceful assemblies should not be relegated to remote areas where they cannot effectively capture the attention of those who are being addressed”. However, the proposed “protest sites” at Truro, Exeter, Plymouth and Falmouth are miles away from where the G7 summit is taking place. This is a deliberate attempt to crush their effectiveness.

    Police Liaison Officers

    Meanwhile, the police are using every opportunity to try to get protesters to talk to them. Throughout the briefing they made reference to their police liaison officers (PLOs) and how these friendly boys and girls in their baby blue bibs can help facilitate our protests. But as The Canary has previously reported, the main purpose of PLOs is to gather intelligence.

    In fact, this was a point that was made for us during the Facebook Live event. In answering a question about whether violence was expected at the protests, chief superintendent Matt Longman stated:

    I’ve already heard from some protest groups who are attending that they are a bit nervous about this, because they don’t want to be associated with that.

    So not only are the police using people who are liaising with them for intelligence, they’re then quoting what people have said to them in a public forum.

    And this type of response is exactly why the Resist G7 Coalition has made it clear that, as a coalition, it will not be talking to the cops:

    The police will try and divide us. The coalition recognises and respects that groups may, in their individual capacity, feel the need to liaise with the police. But inevitably, those who do engage with the cops will be told, ‘oh but you’re the nice protesters, we’re happy with you. But look at those other nasty people – they’re the ones we’ve got a problem with’.

    Divide and rule is, obviously, not new. But it is used time and again to break protest movements. The Resist G7 Coalition has taken great strides in a short time to bring together diverse groups. We recognise our collective power and our collective struggles. This unity brings a lot of strength that the cops will try and break. But hopefully through working together in a respectful way, with a clear code of conduct, we can overcome these efforts.

    Protesters are the local community

    Another tactic the police seem to be using is othering protesters. Repeated messages are painting those wishing to protest as outsiders – people coming into Cornwall to cause disruption. Protests will be allowed but only if they don’t have an impact or disrupt anyone. But as Blowe stated:

    To begin with, “legal and safe protest” does not mean holding public assemblies “without impacting upon residents and businesses”. All protests by their nature cause some temporary disruption and all have some impact on others – that is what they are for. However,  because freedom of assembly and expression are considered vital in a democratic society, the police should know they have a legal duty to avoid interfering with a protest unless certain clear conditions are met. They are also obliged to positively facilitate and protect protest rights where it is possible to do so.

    But the police are also missing a crucial point. We are the local community. It’s the G7 that’s disrupting us. We didn’t ask for the summit to be held in Cornwall. We didn’t ask for 5,000 extra cops on our streets.

    For six weeks, Cornwall has taken to the streets with hundreds of people coming out to oppose the Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill. We have shown there is strong resistance here. And while many of us hope people will travel and join protests here in June, it’s vital that we recognise that protest is coming from and being organised by the local community.

    A nasty surprise

    As I’ve previously written, people are in for a nasty shock when the G7 arrives in Cornwall. Nothing that I’ve heard from the police so far has changed this opinion. By refusing to answer protesters’ questions and comment on spycops, the police have shown they’re not prepared to be accountable for their actions.

    Their PR spin isn’t fooling anyone. Speaking to non-political people in my local town, there’s a lot of anger. Anger at the disruption the G7 will cause. And anger that the police think they can corral protests into irrelevant locations.

    Meanwhile, people are getting organised. Most protest groups are sensible enough not to talk to the police. There will be resistance, and local people are already showing that Cornwall is a vibrant place for protest. We refuse to be divided, whether between different groups of protesters or between perceived notions of who forms the local community. And it’s through acting together that we will build solidarity and put Cornwall on the map as a place of resistance and rebellion.

    Featured image via Kill the Bill Cornwall (with permission) and Emily Apple

    By Emily Apple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.