More on last week's protest in London ...

Hat tip: Englands Freedome, Souldiers Rights

Last week, I blogged on the banning of antiwar protestors for the day of George Bush's visit to London, on June 15h.

Of course, the various organisations taking part, among them CND, the British Muslim Initiative and the Stop the War Coalition, in their natural fashion went and protested anyway.

But it seems the police are devising ever more extravagant measures to deal with these subversives exercising peacefully their right to freedom of assembly - if this, rather alarming, story is anything to go by.

As a Daily Mail piece it should be approached with great caution, and a flamethrower to boot, but if at all true, it certainly merits serious attention:

"Many protesters came with hooters, drums, screeching whistles and saucepan
lids - every one of them passionately opposed to the invasion of Iraq.

But looming over us ominously was a heavy security presence: riot police,
armed officers, even snipers on rooftops.

These days it appears permissible to wave a gun at Britons exercising their
democratic rights.

The plan was to walk up Whitehall and deliver a letter to Downing Street,
where Bush was meeting Prime Minister Gordon Brown. No chance. We found the road cordoned off with two rows of railings and columns of policemen.

As a throng of protesters built up by the barriers, an extremely animated
demonstrator in a white T-shirt caught my eye.

He was near the front screaming abuse at the police and trying to get a friend further back to join him. The second man sheepishly refused his encouragements to edge forward.

The man in the T-shirt was tall, well-built and handsome, smiling but with
a hint of menace. He pushed aside children and elderly people.

He continued to shout slogans such as: 'Pigs Out.'

On his back was a black rucksack and he carried a professional-looking
camera with a large telephoto lens. Hardly the sort of kit for a few snaps of
his day out.

My friends and I, standing a few rows back, asked him a couple of times to
calm down, but he ignored us.

I wondered why I was drawn to him. Was it his dark good looks or was I
worried for the safety of my 70-year-old friend and children nearby?

Then it dawned on me. I had met this man at a party. I tapped him gently on
the shoulder and said: 'Have we met before?'

Instantly he recognised me. 'Hi, how are you? It's really nice to see you here.'

My puzzlement grew. This chap wasn't really the sort you'd expect to see
shouting abuse at police officers at an anti-war demo. He was, after all, a
policeman himself - and a high-ranking one at that."

Well, that's certainly a turn-up for the books! Doesn't seem to me like a
high-ranking officer in the police force would refer to himself as a "pig".
Obviously, one may analyse this situation however they deem fit, and it would
merely be speculation - however, as the author of the article puts it:

"I wondered whether he was at the demo undercover, deliberately whipping up
trouble that he could capture on camera. That would then be used to malign
anti-war protesters as dangerous and violent subversives.

Of course, it is possible he was there off-duty to support the anti-war cause, but
it is hardly likely he would enjoy chanting slogans against the police.

Equally, he could have been legitimately monitoring the crowds, but again he
surely would have been quieter.

I realise there are times when the police need to work undercover if they
suspect a crime is being committed. But that is quite different to going into a
crowd as an agitator to create disruption."

Well, quite. But it turns out the author decided to do a bit of research:

"I also found out that he is no mere rank-and-file officer.

Last week, it was reported that police at the demonstration had made 25
arrests - including a 60-year-old woman for indecent exposure.

Ten officers suffered minor injuries and two protesters were taken to
hospital.

Stop The War has organised about 20 marches in the past, all of which
have been peaceful. This is the first where there has been violence.

I cannot say this man was responsible for the trouble, but I saw him try
his best to urge the crowd forward.

It is hard not to despair at the remarks of the Metropolitan Police's
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison, who told reporters: 'We are seriously disappointed by the irresponsible and criminal action of those who have challenged police ... We have done nothing but negotiate to make their demonstration a success.' "

A new low - and perhaps a new norm - in the dealing of free assembly by the police? It certainly is, if true. It epitomises the rise of a heavy-handed police state and the erosion of our civil liberties. The (probably unintentional) clue was in the Commissioner's words - "the criminal action of those who have challenged police." In this country, the increasing delegitimization of peaceful protest as a right and tool of the citizenry, in the name of "fighting terrorism", means that free assembly is in itself "challenging" the police. That is how far down we've come.

But did those passing by the demonstration in London even think about that? About the snipers pointing down at signs and placards promoting messages of peace? About pictures such as this?:



Do they even know how curbed our civil liberties have become, for each and every one of us? Do they even notice? Do they even care?