Over at Comment is Free Dave Hill has some important questions for Boris Johnson who has so far been silent on the Met's handling of the G20 protests:
Can such a champion of liberty tolerate a police service – one he aspires to bringing under his direct political authority – preventing innocent citizens from walking their own streets and returning to their homes for several hours after they've exercised their democratic right to protest?
Johnson last week took it upon himself to announce the resignation of Met counter-terrorism boss Bob Quick, even though that national part of the service's remit is plainly the Home Office's business (or as plainly as anything is in the dog's dinner of accountability that applies here). Will he take a similarly bold lead in reassuring Londoners and those who visit the capital that on his mayoral watch the Met should be as respectful of civil liberties as in other contexts he claims to be? Is he ready to take issue with the authoritarianism of New Labour as manifested in the Met's recent deployment of its powers on an issue of fundamental principle, or are the limits to his professed love of liberty about to become rather tellingly exposed?
Meanwhile, Daniel Finkelsetin has apologised to Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems for criticising the party's monitoring of the policing of the protests. Having caught up with the stories about brutal police conduct, Finkelstein now concedes that it was a good use of their "prestige and position" to monitor the protests. "Nick Clegg", he says, "should be proud of their decision and not, as I implied, embarassed." Finkelstein's mea culpa is welcomed by Stephen Tall, who took apart his earlier criticisms in a series of postings on Lib Dem voice. As Tall says, it's refreshing in politics to read such a straight-forward public apology with no mealy-mouthed caveating.
Who else in the media who offered knee-jerk support to the police will admit they got it wrong?
