Adam Boulton: Why Met Police chief has a firmer grasp on liberal democracy than Suella Braverman
“The right to freedom of expression and assembly are fundamental aspects of a liberal democratic society.” The House of Commons Library briefing for MPs, issued this August, could not be clearer.
The home secretary began her controversial Times article last week by declaring “peaceful marches are never banned and even controversial and disruptive ones are policed rather than blocked”.
Yet both the prime minister and home secretary expressed the opinion that this weekend’s pro-Palestinian march should not take place, contrary to the decision by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley not to seek a ban from the home secretary.
Politics latest: Senior minister issues warning as Sunak considers whether to sack Braverman
Rishi Sunak warned ominously “it is my job to hold him accountable”.
Suella Braverman went further, accusing the Met of “double standards” and the perception that they “play favourites when it comes to protesters”. She repeated her view that the pro-Palestinians are “hate marchers”.
The prime minister’s office equivocated that Downing Street had seen her article in advance without approving it and that Mr Sunak still had full confidence in his home secretary.
If one aim of the Hamas terror attack on 7 October was to spread confusion and panic among Israel and its allies they have certainly succeeded in the UK, setting the prime minister, the home secretary and the nation’s chief of police at odds.
An accident of the calendar added to the tension. This year Remembrance Day, 11 November, the traditional date to commemorate those who died defending their country in war, happened to fall on a Saturday, the traditional non-working day for major protest marches in the capital.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Thousands gather for pro-Palestinian march
Ms Braverman seemed anxious to foment this apparent clash of cultural attitudes, however unwilling the organisations involved with the two events were to be drawn in.
Both the Royal British Legion and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign argued that both their plans should go ahead and that they should not disrupt each other. Jewish representatives were clear that they did not want the Palestinian march banned on their account.
The pro-Palestinians chose to set aside Sir Mark’s earlier request to “urgently reconsider” a protest on 11 November as “not appropriate”.
Read more:
Analysis: It’s a question of when – not if – Braverman leaves her job
Braverman ‘at sea and ignorant’, Sinn Fein’s president warns
Home secretary’s long list of controversies
10 out of 12 marches not permitted were planned by right-wing groups
Meanwhile other events went ahead on Saturday, including the Lord Mayor’s Show, which shuts down roads in the City of London for a 24-hour period.
The usual Remembrance Sunday Service at the Cenotaph, attended by the Monarch and political leaders, is due to go ahead with no scheduled conflict with other protests. The Met usually permits, and monitors, a Remembrance march by the English Defence League.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Brits divided over Gaza march
Statistics are not published on marches which are denied permission. The last known ban was on the EDL in 2011. Ten out of 12 of those not permitted under the Public Order Act were planned by right-wing organisations.
This seems to be of concern to Ms Braverman, who complains that “pro-Palestinian mobs” and Black Lives Matter have not met with the same “stern response” as “right-wing and nationalist protesters”.
Conversely she is unhappy with the “tough” treatment of “lockdown objectors” and “football fans”.
Job of controlling crowds used to fall to military
The point of public protests is to register dissent from positions taken by those in authority, often governments, and to support sides in issues over which there is controversy.
Not surprisingly, this has often brought protesters into confrontation with governments and sometimes into conflict with the forces they task with maintaining order.
Before the establishment of civilian police forces, the job of controlling crowds usually fell to the military, sometimes with violent consequences.
In 1819, 18 people were killed and over 400 injured when cavalry charged protesters for civil rights at Peterloo in Manchester. In 1834 in Newport, around 20 people were killed and 50 wounded in a firefight between soldiers in the 45th Regiment of Foot and armed Chartists, demanding political reform.
Subsequently the principle was established that the primary role of the police force is to protect the right of free speech, including protest, provided that those taking part were not breaking the law in some other aspect.
This could prove highly controversial.
In 1936 the Metropolitan Police were mobilised to protect a march by the British Union of Fascists, Sir Oswald Mosley’s “Black Shirts”, through the East End of London, including areas with a significant Jewish population.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Why are people marching in London?
Local people, of all backgrounds, gathered in far greater numbers for a counter-demonstration. Clashes between police and rival demonstrators followed, with over 150 arrests, most famously when the police attempted to remove a barricade which had been placed across Cable Street.
The Public Order Act 1936, which followed “the Battle of Cable Street”, established some key restrictions on future protests in the UK. It outlawed the wearing of political uniforms and it forced organisers of large meetings and demonstrations to obtain police permission.
Crucially the police gained powers independently to impose conditions relating to the duration and route of marches. Mosley wanted to march in the East End as a deliberate provocation to the communities there.
Right to protest is protected in UK
This weekend the possibility of a clash was significantly reduced when the official Palestinian march adopted a route different from previous Saturdays and away from the Cenotaph, the official national remembrance monument, and Parliament Square.
A special “controlled area” around parliament was introduced in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. By then a previous convention banning demonstrations in the area had been abandoned and permanent encampments had been set up by a number of protest movements including Anti-Pinochet, the Countryside Alliance and Stop the War. The new act banned the use of loudspeakers and pitching of tents.
In the UK the right to protest is protected by Article 10 and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and given effect in the UK through the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998, another bete noir of the home secretary. There are no legal powers to ban people gathering for so-called “static” demonstrations.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
PM ‘politicking’ over pro-Palestine march
Intelligence did not support ‘reasonable belief’ serious disorder was likely
Protest marches can only be banned by the home secretary on application from the local police chief or police and crime commissioner. The central government has reserved this power for itself rather than devolve it to the mayor of London, even though the mayor is in charge of police in the capital.
Under Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986, the commissioner can place restrictions on marches if he or she “reasonably believes” there could be serious disorder, damage or disruption.
But Sir Mark refused to go further and apply for a ban under Section 13 because his intelligence did not support the “reasonable belief” that serious disorder was likely on Saturday.
Police resources stretched thin
In the wake of the Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil protests the government tightened the law on protests with the Public Order Act 2023.
But measures against “serious public disorder”, “serious damage to property” and “serious disruption to the life of the community” should not automatically apply to a transitory and peaceful march.
The Met intends to be “sharper” picking up individuals who break the law by violence, hate speech, advocating support for an illegal terrorist organisation such as Hamas, chanting “from the river to the sea” or the “intimidation of others”.
But in reality when hundreds of thousands take to the streets, police resources are stretched controlling the mass flow of people, without sending in snatch squads which are likely to provoke disorder.
Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts
Keep calm and carry on
Ms Braverman called the Palestinian marches “an assertion of primacy by certain groups – particularly Islamists – of the kind we are used to seeing in Northern Ireland” with “reminiscent” reports of “links to terrorist groups, including Hamas”.
All traditions, and the PSNI, are offended. The deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police had already stated: “What we cannot do is interpret support for the Palestinian cause more broadly as being support for Hamas or any other proscribed group.”
“Primacy” is one thing. A passing parade, however large and however profound the passions it stirs, is another.
London’s Metropolitan Police are far from perfect, but on how to handle 11 November 2023 Sir Mark seems to have a firmer grasp on the fundamentals of our liberal democratic society than the home secretary.
Keep calm and carry on.
The UK is to rejoin the European Union’s Erasmus student exchange scheme, according to reports.
The popular programme, which allowed Britons to spend a year studying at European universities as part of their degree without paying extra fees and vice versa for their European counterparts, ended for British students after Brexit on 1 January 2021.
But ministers could announce the UK will rejoin Erasmus from January 2027 as soon as Wednesday, The Times and The Guardian have reported.
Politics latest: Labour’s flagship workers’ rights bill passes Lords after months of debate
Sir Keir Starmer promised a post-Brexit reset deal with Brussels and announced the government was working on rejoining the programme in May.
Negotiations have included work on “mutually agreed financial terms” for the UK and the EU.
The UK had pushed for a discount on membership fees, which are calculated on the basis of a country’s gross domestic product (GDP), The Times reported.
It said the EU is understood to have offered the government a 30% reduction of fees in the first year of membership.
Labour MP Darren Frith told Sky News’ Politics Hub he would “welcome” such a move.
The Guardian reported that as well as university-based study exchanges, British students will be able to participate in vocational training placements under the scheme.
Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds held talks with Maros Sefcovic, the European Commission’s trade lead, in Brussels last week.
A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “We are not commenting on ongoing talks.”
But the UK’s universities welcomed the apparent breakthrough.
Tim Bradshaw, chief executive of the Russell Group of leading universities, said: “We’re delighted at the UK’s association to Erasmus+.
“With an even greater scope than previous programmes, Erasmus+ opens up fantastic opportunities for students, adult learners and young people to all benefit from new experiences and learning.
“It will also renew the huge contributions that EU students and staff make to life on our university campuses.”
The Lib Dems, who have been campaigning to rejoin Erasmus, welcomed the news.
Leader Sir Ed Davey said: “This is a moment of real opportunity and a clear step towards repairing the disastrous Conservative Brexit deal.”
Sir Keir Starmer has authorised an “urgent” review into the extent of foreign interference in British politics, as he prepares to change the law to tighten donation rules.
Ministers have initiated a rapid inquiry into current financial rules on donations and election safeguards, which will report at the end of March.
It will be led by Philip Rycroft, the former permanent secretary of the Brexit department.
Politics latest: Who could lead Labour instead of Starmer?
The inquiry is a direct response to the jailing of Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, who admitted accepting tens of thousands of pounds in cash to make pro-Russian statements to the media and European Parliament.
In this case, officers said that they believed some individuals had a direct link to Vladimir Putin.
Communities Secretary Steve Reed, who announced the inquiry to the Commons on Tuesday, wants Mr Rycroft to assess how well the rules work at the moment and promised the report will be published in full.
Mr Reed told MPs that the “conduct [of Gill] is a stain on our democracy”.
“The independent review will work to remove that stain,” he said.
The review could then lead to changes in the Elections Bill, due this spring, which could significantly change the way elections are financed.
Tuesday’s announcement is likely to ignite a firestorm of criticism.
Among the changes that could result from the Rycroft report could be a clampdown on cryptocurrency donations, which Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has said in the past would be a direct attack on his party.
It could introduce new rules for donations to thinktanks, which fall outside any regulatory regime at the moment, and could see new rules around foreign donations.
Philip Rycroft will carry out the review
Foreign donors can effectively give money if they have a trading UK subsidiary at the moment.
The government has already promised to clamp down on “shell” companies, but this could give more clarity over how this will work.
It could also look at funding of “troll farms” – vast banks of social media accounts based overseas designed to try and sway public opinion as part of state disinformation campaigns.
However, the financial affairs of and donations to Labour MPs could be in the scope of the review, and those named in the report could face fresh disciplinary consequences.
The government also singled out Christine Lee, the UK-based lawyer accused of working covertly on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party, as another case of concern.
Christine Lee is accused of working on behalf of the CCP
Nevertheless, other parties are likely to suggest this is an attempt to change the donation rules in Labour’s favour, after promising to lower the voting age to 16 and cancelling some mayoral elections because of a local government re-organisation.
The review will invite all party leaders to take part in “in-depth assessment of the current financial rules and safeguards and offer recommendations to further mitigate risks from foreign political interference”.
Mr Rycroft cannot compel politicians to give evidence, but he will have access to the security services, though the extent of their cooperation is unclear.
The conduct around the Brexit referendum has been specifically excluded in the terms of reference, and Mr Rycroft will be instructed to focus on more “recent” cases, although there is no specific start date.
The 12-week timeline for the inquiry, alongside the lack of statutory powers, is likely to make it hard for Mr Rycroft to uncover substantial new incidents of bribery or corruption and prove them to a standard necessary to put details in the public domain.
The publication date, at the end of March, comes just five weeks before local elections in which Reform UK is expected to do well, and opposition politicians are likely to question the timing.
Mr Rycroft has previously locked horns with Boris Johnson.
He argued that, at times, Mr Johnson was a PM who “only speaks for England”, his government was “not sensitive to the niceties of constitutional convention” and had “imperious disregard” for devolved policies, fuelling the breakup of the UK.
In June last year, just before the election, when Rishi Sunak was PM, he signed a letter to The Times which said: “Trust in politics, and in the people and institutions of public life, is at an all-time low.
“This is a serious problem for the health of our democracy and is indicative of the need for substantial improvement in the governance of the UK.”
Mr Rycroft has previously expressed his caution about the relationship between big tech and politics, telling Sky News two years ago: “Politicians do have to be a little bit careful in this space.
“Nobody’s elected Elon Musk, his opinions are those of a businessman, he is not a statesman.
“Clearly, they can court business people for their investment, but they shouldn’t look as though they’re kowtowing to them in terms of their regulatory concepts.
“They should listen to their views, but it should be democratically elected politicians that take those really, really important decisions, and let’s hope that’s the case in the UK.”
It comes as Reform and the Conservatives both received significantly higher donations than Labour in the first three quarters of this year.
They included the largest ever political donation from a living person: £9m to Reform UK from British-Thai businessman Christopher Harborne.
Scotland’s justice secretary has survived a vote of no confidence amid claims she misrepresented a leading expert on grooming gangs and therefore misled parliament.
MSP Angela Constance has ignored calls to stand down and has First Minister John Swinney’s full backing in the wake of comments she made about Professor Alexis Jay.
Mr Swinney led her defence, describing her as a “sincere minister” who was “getting on with the job of making Scotland safer”.
Both Scottish Labour and the Scottish Conservatives lodged motions of no confidence, with a debate held at Holyrood on Tuesday afternoon.
Scottish Labour, the Scottish Tories and the Scottish Liberal Democrats joined forces to vote against Ms Constance, but the motion failed due to the backing of the SNP and Scottish Greens.
Justice Secretary Angela Constance at Holyrood on Tuesday. Pic: PA
MSP Russell Findlay, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, said: “Shameless SNP and Green MSPs put partisan politics before truth and integrity, to the understandable fury of grooming gang victims.
“To any reasonable person, Angela Constance’s position is untenable. She misled parliament by misrepresenting Professor Jay, tried to cover it up and then publicly lied after being caught.
“She twisted Professor Jay’s words to reject our calls for a Scottish grooming gangs inquiry and then failed to correct the record.
“It’s an open-and-shut case of a ministerial code breach for which she should lose her job.”
The row revolves around a comment made by Ms Constance as MSPs debated the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill in September.
Amid a failed Scottish Conservative amendment for a public inquiry to be established into grooming gangs in Scotland, Ms Constance insisted Professor Jay agreed with her that such a probe was not needed.
However, emails made public by the Scottish government last week revealed the professor – who led the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham in 2014 – later contacted Ms Constance to say she would “appreciate” her position “being clarified”.
Professor Jay added that her comments quoted by Ms Constance had “nothing to do” with the situation in Scotland.
Read more: Scottish government orders review of grooming gangs evidence
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar said he supported the motion as “victims and survivors of grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation have lost confidence in this justice secretary”.
He added: “The justice secretary misrepresented Professor Jay’s views in order to find an excuse not to have an inquiry into grooming gangs.
“Victims and survivors should be able to rely on their justice system, and their government, to tell the truth, to act with integrity and to put them first.
“On this, the justice secretary has failed.”
👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈
During First Minister’s Questions last week, Mr Swinney claimed Ms Constance “was making a general comment” on the situation as he gave his justice secretary his full backing.
He reiterated his support for Ms Constance during the debate, saying: “The cabinet secretary in the debate in September did not state that Professor Jay was speaking directly about the amendment.
“She made a general point drawing on the publicly stated views of Professor Jay.
“But I acknowledge that members of parliament and members of the public will draw different conclusions from the words we all use.”
Mr Swinney described Ms Constance as a “sincere minister who would never address parliament in a way that would in any way mislead parliament or the public”.
The first minister added: “She’s never shied away from asking tough questions about our approach to justice.
“Nor has she ever avoided tackling some of the biggest issues that we face.
“For these reasons, Angela Constance has my full confidence as justice secretary.
“She’s getting on with the job of making Scotland safer, and I urge members to enable her to continue doing that by rejecting this motion today.”
The motion was defeated by 57 votes to 67, with one abstention
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024