Standing on the steps of St. Paul's Cathedral, a young man addressed the 'Occupy London Stock Exchange' protest on Saturday. "There is a police line to my left", he said as the crowd repeated his words in unison to create an 'echo microphone' that allowed everyone to hear, "and we must be careful not to let it move forward." His warning proved prescient.
When the demonstration first assembled outside St. Paul's, it was largely unhampered by policing. I had arrived two hours earlier, and had witnessed the closing of Paternoster Square, the intended site of the occupation. But while the square, a private development and home to Goldman Sachs, was blockaded by police officers and horses, the assembly at St. Paul's was left alone. After it became obvious that Paternoster Square was unreachable, this became the new site of the occupation.
By 1pm, police had begun to line the edge of the crowd. Most were engrossed in the 'general assembly', a mostly democratic system of organisation by vote and hand-signals (wave one hand for 'yes', cross both hands for 'no'). It was already clear that the police intended to form a kettle, and form a kettle they did.
The protest was predictably peaceful. When the crowd first attempted to enter Paternoster Square, a small chant of "get those animals off those horses" briefly emerged (referring to mounted officers), but this was shouted down. "The police are not the problem", one man said, and the chant changed to a more sympathetic "your job's next". Throughout the day, music, dancing and football defined the mood. Why then was the protest kettled at all?
The standard answer is that kettling ensures that demonstrations remain static, and thus reduces the risk of injuries. Indeed, the police erected a screen which rolled the message "this area is contained to avoid breach of the peace" in deep red letters. Such is the irony of the idea that it's necessary to surround peaceful demonstrators discussing, dancing and singing, with officers equipped with riot helmets in order to maintain peace, it's surprising the screen didn't short-circuit.
But in any case the standard answer clearly doesn't apply to Occupy London; for the majority of the day, demonstrators were free to leave the kettle (at one small cavity). Instead it served to keep the hundreds of people who wished to join the occupation from doing so. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was prevented from entering the demonstration for over an hour.
Furthermore, the Met issued statements throughout the day 'urging peaceful protesters to leave' St. Paul's. They even resorted to claiming that the area had to be cleared, as the Cathedral needed to prepare for its Sunday service - a ploy that somewhat unravelled when the vicar himself gave the occupation his blessing.
In this light, the reason for the kettle becomes obvious. Excuses of maintaining public order aside, the kettle was there to disperse the occupation - a legitimate protest - entirely. But Occupy London are a tenacious group. Interviewing several tent-owners, I asked how long they were planning to stay; I always received the same answers - "as long as it takes... as long as possible".
The day wore on, and police tactics became more aggressive. By 4pm they had restricted the territory of the occupation considerably, and by 6pm the entire 'general assembly' was confined to the steps of the Cathedral. From there they forced a contingent of riot police behind the assembly, ostensibly to 'defend the Cathedral from damage'. Needless to say, there was never any sign that this was likely.
Compacting the kettle was also achieved in an important manner. I witnessed several times a sergeant circle behind the police line and roar "charge". Though the movement itself would be better described as a determined walk forwards, the distinctly military feel to this command has the desired effect. And that desired effect defines the goal of policing Occupy London: intimidation.
In his speech, Julian Assange described the Occupy movement as "a culmination of dreams". On October 15th, it was surrounded by a culmination of intimidation.
Follow Tom Stevenson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TomStevenson_
Ben Metcalf: Look Back In Anger and Why it's Relevant Today
Occupy the London Stock Exchange - Saturday 15 October | UK ...
Occupy London protest continues into second day | UK news ...
On the Greek Riots - Occupied London
World Blog - Occupy Wall Street-style protests spread to Britain
BBC News - Occupy London protests in financial district
One thing to get clear in our minds though is the basic naive error in this fairly modern liberal attitude that the good peoples of the UK have as their birthright a fundamental right to protest.They haven't and never have had. What those in authority have always sought over the centuries is civil obedience to their will - either through encouraging general co-operation, mainly through economic bribery or exercising physical coercion when bribary won't work, Or as is usually the case an (depending on how you look at it) a pleasant or unpleasant mixture of both.
The person in that croud calling on his fellows not to verbally and/or physically confront the police was wise indeed, especially in the current political climate. The police as always are the last people you confront if you wish to change Society. They ultimately will take their orders from whomever is in Power after all. All the laws and policies enacted in history are basically intructions to the police; the army or whatever security forces are deemed necessary to keep order in a country.
I suspect that copper calling on his men to charge was deliberately trying to provoke a reaction. Unfortunately the State, whether they be a duly and legally elected Government or a despotic King cannot always ensure that those that act by their authority and in their name behave wisely themselves.
Recently in the student protests they already showed that tough tactics intended to intimidate and hurt protesters are part and parcel of their arsenal. Apparently they have not learnt from the backlash, including legal proceedings and enquiries, that followed those protests.
This time they again protect the guilty and ruthlessly enforce against the people - who to all intents and purposes not only have public opinion on their side, but also are demanding and defending their rights.
Be careful governments of the world - from little acorns, mighty oaks do grow.
Our ancestors were not 'espousing youthful exuberance' when they demonstrated for our rights to freedom of speech and the right to peaceful demonstration in our own state. You seem to be suggesting we ignore their struggles and simply accept misappropriation of our state funds - not to mention our private pensions.
Seize the day, Daviejohn... but first you must wake up.
I agree with you in spirit, but there is huge irony in that statement not just because the police leave alone folks like Murdoch who is still on the loose, but also since the protesters are there largely because laws are not being enforced and freeloading financial execs that have committed historic fraud have taken down jobs, opportunities and economies.
I think the main problem I have with the protesters is that there are some that are not in the camp you mention, but in one that has massively unrealistic views of the world and society.
Nice of St Paul's to let them stay there (maybe have a word about their own tax loopholes). Hardly 'Occupy the London Stock Exchange' though is it. Fine for them to keep going though. Not like they've got jobs to go to.
Don't take the size of this protest as lack in support. MANY of us simply can't go because we are keeping our heads above water. We need them (OWS) to be there for us and to be strong. We are depending on them to do what we can't do.
I agree with you tigerianwinter. As long as you agree with me that there are also many MANY people who think that however bad it is (as it is) the people 'protesting' are pathetic and need to get a life. We are both right.
'Occupy St Paul's', stick it to the man!
thank goodness for alternative news sources, they show up the lies of omission of our own lot.