Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 19, 2024 Fri
Time: 1:49 pm
Time: 1:49 pm
Results for demonstrations
10 results foundAuthor: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary Title: Policing Public Order: An overview and review of progress against the recommendations of Adapting to Protest and Nurturing the British Model of Policing Summary: After a period of relative quiet in public order terms, we have seen increasing protest activity in size, frequency and spread across the United Kingdom. During 2009, and following the G20 protests that April, causes such as animal rights and climate change have continued to feature regularly in the national public order calendar. In the latter part of 2009, the Defence League protests1 and the United Against Fascism (UAF) counter protests gathered momentum – a momentum that has continued throughout 2010 and into 2011. The most recent dimension to public order policing has included the UK Uncut protests directed through Twitter2 and the protests over tuition fees; in particular, the student protests in London during November and December 2010. The schedule on page 12 is just a sample of the events taking place – evidences the change in reach and tempo. Following the student protests in London on 10 November 2010, where greater numbers gathered than had been anticipated by police, and the incursion of the Conservative Party headquarters in Millbank, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson stated that ‘the game has changed’3. The character of protest is evolving in terms of: the numbers involved; spread across the country; associated sporadic violence; disruption caused; short notice or no-notice events, and swift changes in protest tactics. After a few, relatively quiet years, this is a new period of public order policing – one which is faster moving and more unpredictable. Foreseeing the character of events will prove more difficult and, in some cases, their nature and mood will only become apparent on the day. What seems evident is a willingness to disrupt the public and test police. Police tactics have to be as adaptable as possible to the circumstances to keep the peace for all of us. The fine judgement required to strike the right balance between competing rights and needs is getting harder. HMIC’s approach has been to review the progress made in public order policing since the publication of Adapting to Protest in July 2009, and to raise further questions in relation to the need to adapt (which we will re-visit in the course of 2011). Such questions arise from the present flux in public order demands. The issues need to be aired openly, and reflected upon carefully, as they test some of the fundamentals of policing, not least the British practice of policing protest amongst the people - ‘toe to toe’. Details: London: HMIC, 2011. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 14, 2011 at: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/PPR/PPR_20110209.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/PPR/PPR_20110209.pdf Shelf Number: 122052 Keywords: DemonstrationsDisorderly ConductPolicingProtest Movements (U.K.)Public Order Policing |
Author: CNA Analysis & Solutions Title: Managing Large-Scale Security Events: A Planning Primer for Local Law Enforcement Agencies Summary: When law enforcement executives are tasked with managing a large event, they can maximize their efforts by learning from other agencies and adopting proven practices. Too often, however, past lessons learned are not documented in a clear and concise manner. To address this information gap, the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance worked in partnership with CNA to develop this planning primer. This planning primer synthesizes salient best practices pertaining to security planning for a large-scale event, specifically pre-event planning, core event operations, and post-event activities. The planning primer includes detailed information on 18 core operational areas that law enforcement executives can give to lead law enforcement planners as supplemental guidance. This guidance can be used as a foundation for coordinating area-specific operational plans and can be modified to accommodate event security requirements and existing protocols. Furthermore, supplementing each operational area presented in the planning primer are actionable templates, checklists, and key considerations designed to facilitate the planning process. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2013. 225p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 26, 2015 at: https://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/Planning-Primer.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/Planning-Primer.pdf Shelf Number: 129782 Keywords: Crowd ControlDemonstrationsEmergency PreparednessPublic DisorderRiots |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: Stifling Dissent: The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in India Summary: Freedom of expression is protected under the Indian constitution and international treaties to which India is a party. Politicians, pundits, activists, and the general public engage in vigorous debate through newspapers, television, and the Internet, including social media . Successive governments have made commitments to protect freedom of expression. "Our democracy will not sustain if we can't guarantee freedom of speech and expression," Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in June 2014, after a month in office. Indeed, free speech is so ingrained that Amartya Sen's 2005 book, The Argumentative Indian, remains as relevant today as ever. Yet Indian governments at both the national and state level do not always share these values, passing laws and taking harsh actions to criminalize peaceful expression. The government uses draconian laws such as the sedition provisions of the penal code, the criminal defamation law, and laws dealing with hate speech to silence dissent. These laws are vaguely worded, overly broad, and prone to misuse, and have been repeatedly used for political purposes against critics at the national and state level. While some prosecutions, in the end, have been dismissed or abandoned, many people who have engaged in nothing more than peaceful speech have been arrested, held in pretrial detention, and subjected to expensive criminal trials. Fear of such actions, combined with uncertainty as to how the statutes will be applied, leads others to engage in self-censorship. Details: New York: HRW, 2016. 121p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 8, 2016 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/india0516.pdf Year: 2016 Country: India URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/india0516.pdf Shelf Number: 139330 Keywords: DemonstrationsFreedom of SpeechProtest Movement |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: Punished for Protesting: Rights Violations in Venezuela's Streets, Detention Centers, and Justice System Summary: On February 12, 2014, thousands of people across Venezuela participated in public demonstrations to protest the policies of the administration of President Nicolas Maduro. In several locations, violent clashes broke out between security forces and protesters. Since then, dozens of people have been killed, hundreds injured, and many more arrested in the context of ongoing demonstrations. The Venezuelan government has characterized the protests as violent. There is no doubt that some protesters have used violence, such as throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at security forces. However, our research shows that Venezuelan security forces have repeatedly used unlawful force against unarmed and nonviolent individuals. Punished for Protesting documents 45 cases, involving more than 150 victims, in which security forces committed serious human rights violations against protesters and bystanders, including severely beating unarmed individuals and shooting them at point blank range. Nearly all of the victims were also arrested and, while in detention, subjected to physical and psychological abuse. In at least 10 cases, the abuse clearly constituted torture. Security forces have also allowed armed pro-government gangs to attack unarmed civilians, and in some cases openly collaborated with them. The abuses were compounded by prosecutors and judges, who either turned a blind eye or were party to violations of detainees' due process rights, including the denial of access to legal counsel and holding unfair hearings. Justice officials routinely failed to intervene when detainees presented to them were visibly injured, or to scrutinize evidence that had been fabricated or planted by security forces. Venezuela should ensure that human rights violations committed in the context of protests are brought to an end, and that the abuses that have occurred are subject to prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations that bring the perpetrators to justice. All acts of violence by non-state actors in the context of protests should also be thoroughly and impartially investigated and prosecuted, regardless of the political affiliation of suspects or victims. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2014. 109p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2017 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/venezuela0514_ForUpload_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Venezuela URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/venezuela0514_ForUpload_0.pdf Shelf Number: 145437 Keywords: DemonstrationsHuman Rights AbusesProtest Movements |
Author: Straub, Frank Title: Maintaining First Amendment Rights and Public Safety in North Minneapolis: An After-Action Assessment of the Police Response to Protests, Demonstrations, and Occupation of the Minneapolis Police Department's Fourth Precinct Summary: Summary of events On the morning of November 15, 2015, two Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) officers were dispatched to an assault call in a North Minneapolis neighborhood just blocks from the police department's Fourth Precinct station. Soon after arriving on scene, the officers fatally shot Jamar Clark. Following the shooting, community members marched to and organized outside the Fourth Precinct police station. Over the course of the next 18 days-from November 15 through December 3, 2015- demonstrators occupied the lawn and street in front of the Fourth Precinct. For the first three days, a group of demonstrators also occupied the front vestibule of the Fourth Precinct station. The street and the surrounding neighborhood were the site of demonstrations, open fires, noisy gatherings, and encampments. The demonstrators called for police reform, and specifically for the release of video footage from the officer-involved shooting. In the early morning hours of December 3, the occupation was successfully and peacefully resolved. After 18 days, the community response was mixed: while the large majority applauded the professionalism and restraint of the Fourth Precinct line officers, some perceived the response as overly-aggressive and unnecessarily forceful, and others questioned why the occupation was allowed to continue for 18 days. Ultimately, the total cost to the city was approximately $1.15 million. The majority of the expenses were for MPD overtime; however, there were also expenses for replacing and repairing barriers and fencing, squad repairs, and hardware replacements. Approximately $50,000 of costs to the city were in property damage. There were five injuries caused by a group of alleged White supremacists who shot into the crowd of demonstrators; however, no serious injuries were attributed to interactions between MPD officers and demonstrators. Implications and challenges Like every significant incident, the occupation posed a unique set of circumstances for city and MPD leaders-circumstances that were unpredictable and rapidly evolving. Significant challenges were associated with managing the demonstrators; the media; and the impacts of the occupation on the surrounding neighborhood, MPD employees, and their families. These issues were compounded by a police department that struggled with the command and control structure and fully implementing the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and Incident Command System (ICS), inconsistent communication, and training and equipment deficiencies. City leaders and MPD officials worked to maintain the First Amendment rights of the demonstrators while ensuring their safety, the safety of police officers, and the safety of the community as a whole. They were determined to bring a peaceful end to the occupation in a difficult national environment marred by civil disturbances spurred by officer-involved incidents in Ferguson, Baltimore, New York, and other cities nationwide. For city and law enforcement leaders, this environment reinforced their determination to exercise extreme caution throughout the response. In the end, the city and its police department brought the occupation to a peaceful conclusion and avoided the civil disturbances that occurred in other cities. Public safety response Officers throughout the MPD demonstrated extraordinary resilience and professionalism in their response to the occupation. Many officers worked long shifts and were subjected to verbal, and in some cases physical, assault. At various times, bottles, bricks, Molotov cocktails, bottles of gasoline, and other things were thrown over perimeter fences, threatening officers and damaging police vehicles and the precinct building. During the occupation, Fourth Precinct officers were instructed not to leave the building during their shifts except to provide perimeter security. Meals were brought into the station by chaplains and other volunteers. The commitment of the city, the police department, and individual officers to a peaceful, measured response played a large role in keeping the occupation from escalating into violent riots. Key themes of the review This COPS Office Critical Incident Review (CIR) of the 18-day occupation of the front lawn and the street in front of the MPD Fourth Precinct, completed by the Police Foundation, provides a comprehensive overview of the occupation from the perspectives of the MPD, elected leaders, demonstrators, and community members. The CIR identifies findings and recommendations as they relate to the response in Minneapolis, but apply more generally to civil disturbances across the nation. While the authors understand the unique set of circumstances that surround the protests and occupation of the Fourth Precinct, they also understand that the decision-making framework for the police response to this incident can and should be reviewed within the context of other significant incidents to identify important lessons that can be applied if a similar event occurs in another city, as well as to critical incidents more generally. The findings and recommendations in this report center on leadership; command and control; response to civil disorder; accountability and transparency; internal communications; public information and media; use of force; intelligence gathering; training; equipment and tools for managing demonstrations; officer safety, wellness, and resilience; and community engagement and relationships. Some of the key lessons learned include the following: -- Clearly define leadership roles and responsibilities among elected officials, law enforcement, and other agencies to ensure a coordinated and collaborative response to civil disturbance and other critical incidents. Strained relationships, lack of clearly defined roles and responsibilities, public disagreements, and lack of consistent internal communication contributed to the dynamic and varied response to this protracted incident. Unified leadership from elected officials, police executive and command staffs, and precinct personnel provides the foundation upon which a cohesive tactical and operational response is built and executed. -- Plan and exercise the unified command system for complex incidents during routine public safety response and operations. A citywide understanding and familiarization with NIMS and ICS is necessary during civil disturbances and other critical incidents to ensure coordination and collaboration among all responding agencies and individuals. Consistent implementation of unified command system principles in response to routine events and pre-planned large-scale events builds confidence in the systems and facilitates their implementation in response to mass demonstrations and critical incidents. -- Clear, concise, and consistent communication, particularly during critical incidents, is key to establishing trust and credibility. Clear, concise, and consistent communication between the Mayor's Office and the MPD, between elected officials, and within the MPD regarding the overall strategy would have led to a more coordinated and collaborative response to the occupation, provided context to the operational and tactical decisions that were made, addressed officer safety concerns, and positively impacted morale. -- Prioritize officer safety, wellness, morale, and resilience before, during, and after a critical incident such as a protracted response to civil disturbance. City and MPD leaders should have addressed and more fully accounted for the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of officers assigned to respond to the 18 days of protests, demonstrations and occupation. -- Build on positive police-community relationships to help mitigate potential future critical incident responses. The MPD 2.0 model, the training and engagement being done as part of the National Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice, and the emphasis on positive interactions and fostering trusting partnerships should continue. Understanding and acknowledging the deep-seated racial and other issues, particularly in North Minneapolis, and building and fostering relationships with traditional and emerging community leaders will be instrumental in learning from the occupation and building opportunities to address areas of community tension and discord. Conclusion Many of the findings and recommendations that resulted from the 18-day occupation and the MPD.'s response build on an existing body of knowledge that can assist law enforcement agencies in their mission to protect, serve, and strengthen relationships with their communities. Given the unprecedented nature of the occupation, we hope that the lessons in this report will provide guidance to other agencies that may encounter similar events in the future and add to the growing body of literature that public safety agencies can use to enhance their preparation for, and response to, civil disturbances in their communities. Details: Washington, DC: U..S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Policing Services, 2014. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 22, 2017 at; https://www.policefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Maintaining-First-Amendment-Rights-and-Public-Safety-in-North-Minneapolis.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.policefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Maintaining-First-Amendment-Rights-and-Public-Safety-in-North-Minneapolis.pdf Shelf Number: 146342 Keywords: Critical Incident ManagementCrowd ControlDemonstrationsOfficer-Involved ShootingPolice ProceduresPublic DemonstrationsPublic DisorderPublic SecurityRiots |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: Crackdown on Dissent: Brutality, Torture, and Political Persecution in Venezuela Summary: In April 2017, tens of thousands of people took to the streets in Venezuela in response to the government-controlled Supreme Court's attempt to usurp the powers of the country's legislative branch. The protests quickly spread throughout the country and continued for months, fueled by widespread discontent with the government's authoritarian practices and the humanitarian crisis that has devastated the country under President Nicolas Maduro's watch. The government responded with widespread and systematic violence against anti-government protesters and detainees, as well as systematic denial of detainees' due process rights. While it was not the first crackdown on dissent under Maduro, the scope and severity of the repression in 2017 reached levels unseen in Venezuela in recent memory. Crackdown on Dissent documents 88 cases of abuse involving at least 314 victims committed by different security forces in multiple locations, including in closed environments like military installations, between April and September 2017. The cases include instances of excessive force on the streets; arbitrary detention, including of individuals pulled from their homes or arrested in incidents unrelated to the demonstrations; and physical abuse of detainees ranging from severe beatings to torture involving electric shocks, asphyxiation, and other techniques. There is no indication that Venezuelan high-level officials-including those who knew or should have known about the abuses- have taken any steps to prevent and punish violations. Governments around the world have spoken out about the crackdown on peaceful expression and protest in Venezuela. It is urgent that they redouble multilateral pressure on the Venezuelan government to release people arbitrarily detained, drop politicallymotivated prosecutions, and hold accountable those responsible for abuses. Details: New York; HRW, 2017. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 13, 2018 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/venezuela1117web_0.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Venezuela URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/venezuela1117web_0.pdf Shelf Number: 149117 Keywords: Arbitrary DetentionDemonstrationsHuman Rights AbusesPersecutionProtest MovementsTorture |
Author: Straub, Frank Title: Advancing Charlotte: A Police Foundation Assessment of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Response to the September 2016 Demonstrations Summary: The September 20, 2016, officer-involved shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, and the subsequent demonstrations in Charlotte, took place within a milieu of similar events in cities across America. Protests in New York, Ferguson, North Charleston, Baltimore, Minneapolis, Baton Rouge, and Dallas demonstrated the increasing anger and frustration within communities of color and growing tension in community-police relations. In the most extreme instances, protestors destroyed property and engaged in acts of violence. While the demonstrations that took place nationally were in response to an officer(s) use of lethal force, each demonstration and the subsequent law enforcement response provides lessons learned for the involved jurisdictions, and the nation. Many of the underlying issues that precipitated the demonstrations are similar: a police officer(s) used lethal force in incidents involving individuals of color; previous officer-involved shooting incidents which remained unresolved in the eyes of the community; historical racial challenges; socioeconomic immobility; perceived accountability and transparency issues; and, fragile relationships between the police and communities of color. The protests ignited by the officer-involved shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, and similar events across the nation, "focused the collective attention [in Charlotte] on the stark racial, ethnic and economic divides that exist in ... [the] community but are rarely openly discussed." The issues and tension also created an opportunity that activists from outside the city leveraged to further their national agenda and to cause chaos in Charlotte. The influence and reach of social media fueled the embers of distrust and ignited the emotions of the community and the nation. The particular elements leading to racial violence have changed over the years. While race riots occur in the context of a convoluted mix of social, economic, and cultural factors, policing consistently remains a crucial piece of the equation. It would be overreaching to designate police action as the sole factor in race riots; nevertheless, the importance of the police in preventing and effectively responding when disorder occurs can hardly be overstated. The City of Charlotte requested that the Police Foundation conduct an independent review of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department's (CMPD) response to the demonstrations that occurred following the September 20, 2016 officer-involved shooting. While the Police Foundation assessment team heard from the community that the issues in Charlotte go far beyond those that are within the scope of this review, the city's request demonstrates their desire to learn from these events and to use this assessment, in part, to help the city heal and move forward in a constructive manner. To ensure a comprehensive review of the incident response, the Police Foundation assessment team conducted interviews with city government officials, CMPD command staff and officers, and community leaders and members. The team also conducted a review of incident documentation and other relevant materials, as well as policy analysis. Finally, the Police Foundation assessment team conducted research on national policing best practices, model policies and promising programs to include in the report. The City of Charlotte publicly released the draft report on September 19, 2017. Since the public release of the first draft, the Police Foundation assessment team met with Mayor Roberts and members of Charlotte City Council individually, met with the City Manager, attended and presented the report at a public City Council meeting, and made note of council members' comments and requests. The assessment team also held an in-person community listening session and three meetings--one in-person and two via conference calls--with the Community Stakeholder Group. This final document reflects the comments, requests, and feedback gathered during those meetings. The Police Foundation assessment team found that the CMPD acted appropriately overall and in accordance with their policies and procedures. However, the review identified areas where the CMPD could improve its policies, practices, and operations to strengthen the department's relationship with the community it serves, with the goal of preventing and improving its response to future instances of civil unrest, should they occur. The review also highlights the importance of collaboration and communication between the City of Charlotte administration, the City Manager, and the CMPD prior to critical incidents. The report is organized by "pillars" under which critical issues are discussed and recommendations provided: - Pillar 1: Policies, Protocols & Strategies; - Pillar 2: Training & De-Escalation; - Pillar 3: Equipment & Technology; - Pillar 4: Social Media & Communication; - Pillar 5: Transparency & Accountability; and - Pillar 6: Police-Community Relationships. Communities across the country, including Charlotte, are working to address the complex issues of race, intergenerational poverty, barriers to economic opportunity, disparities in the criminal justice system, and other long-standing challenges. The City of Charlotte's political and community leaders, City Manager and the CMPD are to be commended for their genuine interest in identifying collaborative and constructive steps to acknowledge the impact of the mix of social, economic, and cultural factors that contributed to the demonstrations as well as the CMPD's efforts to prevent and respond to civil unrest. The CMPD should also be commended for the work that they have done to bridge the gap with the Charlotte Community. Their Constructive Conversations Team program can serve as a national model for tangible programs that have the potential to improve police-community relationships, both in Charlotte and elsewhere. Details: Washington, DC: Police Foundation, 2018. 103p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 8, 2018 at: https://www.policefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Advancing-Charlotte-Final-Report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.policefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Advancing-Charlotte-Final-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 149406 Keywords: Civil DisorderDemonstrationsOfficer-Involved ShootingPolice Use of ForcePolice-Community InteractionsPolice-Community RelationsPublic DisorderPublic Order ManagementRiots and Demonstrations |
Author: Amnesty International Netherlands Title: Policing Assemblies Summary: A public assembly is a dynamic social process which often starts long before the actual assembly takes place. However, in particular when public assemblies turn into violence, what is usually seen is a photograph or a video of law enforcement officials (LEOs) and demonstrators clashing in some way. Such a picture gives only a one-dimensional idea of what happened. This paper aims to provide those who wish to monitor or analyse public assemblies - e.g. human rights and other civil society organisations, or journalists - with a broader view about them. It aims to provide them with an understanding about the planning and preparatory process undertaken by law enforcement agencies and enable them to identify causes and failures throughout the process where things may have gone wrong. It should in the end enable them to formulate constructive recommendations for the future which go beyond simply the necessary response of calling for investigation of incidents and bringing to justice those who commit human rights violations or abuses. Details: Amsterdam: Amnesty International Netherlands, 2013. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Police and Human Rights Programme - Short paper series no. 1: Accessed April 4, 2018 at: https://www.amnesty.nl/actueel/short-paper-series-no-1-policing-assemblies Year: 2013 Country: Netherlands URL: https://www.amnesty.nl/actueel/short-paper-series-no-1-policing-assemblies Shelf Number: 149681 Keywords: Crowd ControlDemonstrationsHuman Rights |
Author: Gilmore, Joanna Title: Keep Moving! Report on the Policing of the Barton Moss Community Protection Camp, November 2013-April 2014. Summary: This report contains interim indings from research into the policing of the Barton Moss Community Protection Camp at Barton Moss, Salford, Greater Manchester, conducted by researchers from Liverpool John Moores University and the University of York. he camp was in place from November 2013 until April 2014 for the duration of the exploratory drilling operation conducted by energy company IGas Energy at Barton Moss. Camp residents and supporters engaged in a campaign of protest and direct action to raise awareness about the apparent dangers of hydraulic fracturing - better known as fracking - at Barton Moss. Greater Manchester Police (GMP) conducted a policing operation - codenamed Operation Geraldton - at Barton Moss over the course of the drilling operation conducted by IGas. he report draws upon interviews conducted by the authors with camp residents and those taking part in direct action. It also collates, and draws upon, social media and other media reporting on the Barton Moss camp, as well as other publicly available information such as public statements, press releases, and responses to requests for information made by the authors under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to relevant public bodies, including Greater Manchester Police. he report documents concerns about the nature, function and proportionality of the policing operation at the camp and the way that policing methods were deployed in accordance with the obligations to facilitate peaceful protest underpinned by the European Convention on Human Rights. his report raises serious questions about the proportionality of arrest patterns and bail conditions, as well as the dominant media and public portrayal of the protest and the protesters, including the role played by GMP in inluencing this portrayal. he report documents protesters' experiences of violence and harassment by the police including gendered violence experienced by women involved at the camp. Particular attention is drawn to the role of Tactical Aid Unit oicers in the policing of protest marches, and the role of senior oicers in the communication and public information strategies conducted as part of Operation Geraldton. Ultimately, the report highlights the various procedures adopted by GMP in the management of the protest that had the efect of curtailing the right to protest, and seeks to substantiate unacknowledged claims that the policing operation was violent, disproportionate to the size and peaceful nature of the protest, and carried out with impunity. his research raises important questions about the nature of democratic accountability and public order policing in England and Wales. Details: Liverpool, UK: Centre for the Study of Crime, Criminalisation and Social Exclusion, Liverpool John Moores University' York: Centre for Urban Research (CURB), University of York, 2016. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2018 at: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/115146/1/Barton_Moss_Report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/115146/1/Barton_Moss_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 149839 Keywords: Crowd ControlDemonstrationsPolice MisconductProtests and DemonstrationsPublic Order Management |
Author: Barham, Derek Emilio Title: Same Destination, Different Journey: A Comparative Study of Public Order Policing in Britain and Spain Summary: Public order policing is about power and control. The preservation and maintenance of order is a defining characteristic of the sovereign power. It is a highly political activity which is also emotive, controversial and reflects national culture and identity. Public order policing asks serious questions of the police and represents the most contentious policing activity in modern democratic states. The purpose of this study is to increase and improve current knowledge of public order policing by comparing the policing of disorder in Britain and Spain. It reviews two high profile incidents, the 2011 London Riots and the 2014 "22M" Protests in Madrid, using a fusion of Waddington's "Flashpoints Model" and Herbert's "Normative Orders" to comparatively analyse the incidents. The study is supported by a comprehensive literature review and interviews with experienced police public order commanders. This thesis concludes that British public order policing is in need of considerable reform to improve operational effectiveness, efficiency and professionalism. It identifies several key themes which contributed to the inability of the Metropolitan Police to respond effectively to the serious disorder and criminality which proliferated across 22 of London's 32 boroughs in August 2011. These include the need to review British public order tactics, invest in the training of specialist public order units and improve the understanding of crowd psychology. Practical recommendations are suggested which would refine, enhance and improve the ability of the British public order policing model to respond to the challenges of serious disorder in the twenty first century. Details: London: London Metropolitan University, 2016. 316p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed April 20, 2018 at: http://repository.londonmet.ac.uk/1016/1/BarhamDerek_ComparativeStudyOfPublicOrderPolicingInBritainAndSpain.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: http://repository.londonmet.ac.uk/1016/1/BarhamDerek_ComparativeStudyOfPublicOrderPolicingInBritainAndSpain.pdf Shelf Number: 149871 Keywords: DemonstrationsDisorderly ConductPolicingProtest MovementsPublic Order Policing |