Nick Clegg made clear his opposition to the use of water cannon in London the other day on Call Clegg. He said:
Personally I think it rubs up against the long tradition of policing by consent on London’s streets. It creates an embattled sense of how police work and I don’t think it is in keeping with our long tradition.
Now Richmond Park’s Liberal Democrat candidate Robin Meltzer has added his voice to the debate, arguing that water cannon must not be allowed on London’s streets.
There is a grotesque irony that in the same week that politicians are falling over themselves to explain what “British values” means to them, this most un-British of authoritarian public control is being considered. One of the most important tenets of a liberal and democratic society is that policing happens by consent. Water cannon is not suitable for a civilised police force; it is militaristic and brutal. Individual officers in the Metropolitan Police carry out exceptional and brave work on behalf of communities every day, even as the service as a whole is viewed with suspicion in many parts of our city. How on earth the establishment within that police service expects to rebuild its reputation among London’s communities, which has been tarnished after repeated outrages, defies belief.
Water cannon carries dark associations which are very difficult to shrug off. First used in Germany in the 1930s, and never before used in England, Scotland or Wales, the introduction of water cannon in London would sound the death knell for the treasured right within a free and democratic society to peaceful protest without fear of harm from the authorities. The actual use of water cannon is indiscriminate, meaning innocent protesters would be caught up in any attack on a suspect who is causing criminal damage. It is also not easy to see how water cannon would even prevent such criminal damage from occurring; if anything, the anger felt by a community towards a police force who had used it would spur on and encourage dissent, not dampen it down.
You can read Robin’s article here.
Photo: Released under the GNU Free Documentation License.
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
14 Comments
Then only reason for even thinking about using this is as a means of crushing peaceful protest.
If Nick Clegg is really determined to stay on as Leader the Liberal Democrats, he should make it clear privately and publicly that the party will NOT sanction commissioning of these anti-personnel weapons. I don’t care if Boris Johnson is happy to be soaked by one as a gimmick, these things are neither needed nor wanted on the streets of England.
So is Nick Clegg going to lay it down that it is not to be used? Or is he just expressing a personal opinion to not effect?
How about saying something like “As long as Liberal Democrats are in the Government this will not happen”?
Tony Greaves
Sorry to go against the party line but if its the only way for us to get a new leader, I say bring in the water cannons! Obviously using them in Sheffield would not cause as much of a problem as using them in London 😉
Steve Comer is absolutely correct.
Look around the world – water cannons are used on protestors, not criminals.
@ Tony Greaves. Well that’s precisely what he SHOULD say. But is he going to say it, or just express a personal opinion for the benefit of LBC listeners, and let the Tories spend taxpayers money buying the bloody things?
These water cannon are suitable for the wrong type of riots. They are for use on static, set piece crowds where there are a hundred or so rioters in a face-off against police lines. – In short, the sort of riots that were seen in the 1960s and 1970s. These would have been suitable for the 1968 riots outside the US embassy in London.
They are no use for the type of riots we had in 2011, and the type of riots most likely to be repeated in the short to medium term, where you have small, varied and metamorphosizing groups scrurrying around down side alleys.
This all seems more abou Boris Johnson getting one over on Theresa May than practical policing.
The terms “peaceful protest” are often abused. When people are having a day off chanting with a megaphone and waving placards outside your office window when you are trying to work is that peaceful protest? I’m concerned about water cannons because I think in general people underestimate the risk of head injuries in such things, but sometimes the police have to use force.
I’ve been in a situation not too far from the one above when I worked in the City – a peaceful protest would have been holding placards, not shouting with a megaphone and rousing hatred.
Eddie: “. When people are having a day off chanting with a megaphone and waving placards outside your office window when you are trying to work is that peaceful protest?”……….well yes it is actually!
In the hypothetical case you mentioned there is no violence, no weapons are being used, and no property is being smashed, so what’s the problem – a bit of noise? In a busy city? Give me a break.
I remember going on a European Trade Union Demonstration in Liege a few years ago (same time as a summit).
As we walked by making a bit of a noise, many office workers opened their windows to wave and shout support.
That’s how it should be – a peaceful protest that people can either support or ignore.
(Although perhaps the Liegeois population are a bit less self centred than some of the stuffed shirts in the City of London!)
Eddie, “annoying” and “violent” are not synonymous terms. The UK has a long history of popular protest that has been instrumental in advancing the rights of the individual. Liberals should above all be concerned with protecting the right to peacefully assemble and protest, even if some people behind office windows are inconvenienced. I suggest that you might find a set of noise-cancelling headphones a useful purchase.
OK guys, well where do we stop? Is shouting in someone’s face outside their house peaceful? It gets to the point where it is intimidation.
I can’t stand the right and increasingly even neoliberal economics, but it’s hard to work when someone is shouting with a megaphone outside your office. It was actually the building opposite, but it wasn’t what I associated with being “peaceful”. They clearly wanted those inside to hear and be unable to work properly. What if they do it everyday? Should we allow them to occupy the building too?
Also, these people weren’t walking by, they were camped outside all day. There was no trouble, but if it went on for a few days then I could have seen some things getting out of hand. I know nothing about the rules and regulations on this, I’m just pointing out they would have called it peaceful protest, but that claim is sometimes questionable. I think doing it for one day at a time is probably fine, just not everyday. It’s a hard one to call, I don’t want to ban megaphone protesting.
Regards
Eddie
It depends which definition of the word ” peaceful” you are using:
See here:
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=peaceful&safe=off
And below.
Under meaning 1, that protest you mention is obviously not “tranquil”. However, under meaning 2 it does appear to not involve “war or violence.”
“peaceful
ˈpiːsfʊl,-f(ə)l/
adjective
1.
free from disturbance; tranquil.
“his peaceful mood vanished”
synonyms: tranquil, calm, restful, pleasant, quiet, still, relaxing, soothing, sleepy, silent, soundless, hushed, noiseless, undisturbed, untroubled, private, secluded, solitary, isolated, free from disturbance/interruption/interference More
serene, calm, tranquil, composed, placid, at peace, at rest, at ease, in repose, reposeful, undisturbed, untroubled, unworried, unruffled, anxiety-free, content, blissful, secure
antonyms: bustling, noisy, agitated
2.
not involving war or violence.
“a soldier was shot at an otherwise peaceful demonstration”
synonyms: harmonious, at peace, strife-free, peaceable, on good terms, amicable, friendly, cordial, non-violent, unwarlike; More
antonyms: hostile, warring
(of a person) inclined to avoid conflict.
“Dad was a peaceful, law-abiding citizen””
Tony and Steve are right, of course.. .. but for the purists in the Party ‘it hasn’t been discussed and voted on by Federal Conference’, so is Clegg allowed to be our Leader, and lead on this issue or not.??!!
Eddie Sammon
The terms “peaceful protest” are often abused. When people are having a day off chanting with a megaphone and waving placards outside your office window when you are trying to work is that peaceful protest?
Yes. One of the objectives of a protest is to be disruptive to draw attention to their position/stop the activity they are protesting against.
The world won’t change unless people have the power to disrupt.