BBC journalist Julian Joyce has replied to my email to him about his feature on kettling for the BBC website which I thought was misleading and slanted in such a way that supports the police's view of this horrible technique. Rather than replying to all his individual comments on my email (which could go on interminably), I'll reply more generally in a post at a later date.
The first point he picks up on in my email (about whether or not the police were letting people out of the kettle), could have perhaps been made clearer by me. The important point I want to make, and the reason I say his article is misleading, is that it wasn't the case, as he implies, that the police were letting people out of the kettles if they agreed to leave non-violently. There appear to have been rare occasions on which people were let out before the kettling operations were complete (though I was by the Bank of England and Climate Camp and never once saw this myself), but mostly police cordons trapped thousands of protesters and private citizens going about their daily business regardless of whether they were being peaceful or not. I stand by the point about the important democratic principles not being brought out in the article (including a single quote from a representative of Liberty seems a rather mechanical approach) and I think my point about his failure to mention the events at Climate Camp deserved a response. I may write a complaint to the BBC on their neglect of this important story and their coverage of the police handling of the G20 protests more generally at a later date. Meanwhile, here's Mr Joyce's reply in full with his permission:
Dear Guy
See below for my replies to some of your specific points.
In general however, my piece set out to explain and contextualise a particular police tactic. From the tone of your letter you infer that I am supportive of kettling, or that my article gives the impression of that I am supportive and/or uncritical of the police stance.
This is not the case: I have no personal opinion on the rights and wrongs of this tactic, but I am aware that it throws up big issues about the right to protest which is why I included a quote from Liberty and detailed Lois Austin's complaints. I emphatically rebut your charge that "the whole article fails to bring out the fact important democratic principles are at stake".
I am hoping to write a piece over the next few days that will look at how protest in the UK is being changed by new laws and new police tactics.
Hopefully this will allow me to address more fully some of the points you appear keen for me to cover.
Best
J
Dear Julian,
I'm writing regarding your recent article for the BBC website on the police practice of kettling, 'Police "kettle" tactic feels the heat'.
I found the article partial and misleading and slanted in such a way that suggests the police's view of the kettling tactic (and the allegations of assault) is the correct one; this, despite the many instances we already have since the protests of the police misleading the media.
At several points you reproduce the police account of kettling and the G20 protests as though it were entirely uncontentious and the only academic source you quote supports the technique. The whole article fails to bring out the fact important democratic principles are at stake.
For example, you suggest that anyone who agrees not to behave violently can leave a kettle and that the only ones who stay are those that insist on leaving non-peacefully: "Anyone determined to stay - like Ms Trench - may be held for hours, without access to food and water."
"Eventually, say the police, most [protesters] get fed-up and agree to depart peacefully." In fact the police weren't letting anyone out (including passers by not involved in the protests) and those they did let out
Which is it? Are you saying police let people out or didn't let them out?
The witnesses I spoke to (and I spoke to several) all confirmed that the police appear to have refined their "nobody leaves" technique. The kettle was opened to let people out at various points. For example, Ms Trench told me she was given the option of leaving, but chose to remain.
were often (unlawfully) forced to give their details and have images taken by forward intelligence teams, something which you, again, neglect to mention in your article.
I agree this could have done with a mention. No-one I spoke to was forced to hand over this information however, from which I infer the police approach was sporadic.
Furthermore, like the rest of the BBC's coverage, the article makes no mention of the kettling of Climate Camp, the most egregious example of police kettling at the G20 protests according to witnesses (see for example http://is.gd/rzDK, http://is.gd/sMej andhttp://is.gd/qtXS ).
The camp was entirely good-natured and co-operative but the police kettled it aggressively anyway, brutally attacking peaceful protesters in the process. There's plenty of footage on YouTube that proves this.
There are several more examples of your complacent attitude towards kettling and the police’s version of events. You say: "Additionally, investigators will want to know the context of the alleged assaults, and also whether the widely-circulated online video clips tell the whole story. Police sources have told the BBC they expect the current inquiry to support the continued use of kettling." That would be the inquiry by a former police chief (Denis O'Conor) responsible to the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who has already declared the G20 policing a great success, then would it? Luckily we have this police investigation to tell us the "whole story" then (a story which changes by the day it seems, but let’s not mention that).
The various allegations of brutality began to surface after the police/government initially declared the police operation a success.
This is followed by two sentences put together in such a way that suggests your view of the "raw numbers" (and hence the success of the kettling operation) is identical to that of the police. "As for raw numbers, policing tactics at the G20 protests appears to have paid off. Despite the two instances of alleged police assault, chiefs are said to be happy there were relatively few arrests and injuries compared to previous summits." Oh really? I'd have thought that one death at police hands would suggest the police tactics didn't pay off.
You neglect to put the first sentence in context - it appears immediately after an account of the Genoa G8 protests, which left many more injured and arrested, millions of pounds of damage caused and a protestor shot dead. As for the second sentence, it is clearly attributed to police sources.
There's likely to be far more investigations into allegations of assault as more evidence emerges. Hard too to put a number on the damage done to our democracy as more and more people are deterred from attending protests for fear of being kettled and beaten, but , hey, as long as the police chiefs are "happy".
You conclude by suggesting that the final word on the legality of kettling has been had following the ruling of the Law Lords in January that the practice does not amount to a violation of the right to demonstrate and freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act. You neglect to mention the fact that the case is being taken to the European Court of Human Rights, who, it is hoped, will take a more robust approach and uphold our fundamental democratic right to protest.
My sentence: "With legal backing from Britain's highest court" remains accurate.
I suggest that, in the future, if you wish to be taken seriously on this important issue, yourself, and the rest of the BBC's journalists, should take a slightly more sceptical attitude to what is fed to you by official sources, especially the police.
Best regards,
Guy
