The policing of the G20 has caused a lot of news coverage.

Firstly, there’s the Ian Tomlinson affair, and the way the Metropolitan Police appear to have tried to deal with this by throwing up a smokescreen to attempt to put themselves in a good light, irrespective of what actually happened.

There was no mention that he’d been struck by the Metropolitan Police, until the video evidence was shown. There was no mention that the ambulance had been delayed by the police, until evidence emerged (and on the contrary, the suggestion treatment had been delayed by protesters was allowed to surface).

Then you have the first post-mortem on Ian Tomlinson, which said he had died of a heart attack. Now you would think that given the circumstances, effort would be made to show that everything was fair and above board. You wouldn’t expect that when the IPCC requested permission to attend the post-mortem, the coroner would refuse.

Asked why he refused, the coroner (who has, in the interests of full disclosure — even though I don’t think it’s necessarily relevant here — previously been reprimanded by the GMC) said that this was because the police had told him that there was nothing suspicious about the death.

Erm… sorry? Isn’t this missing the point somewhat? Isn’t it supposed to be his job to establish whether or not there is anything suspicious about the death? If you are simply going to take the word of the police for it, you might as well have not bothered with the post-mortem. Although since the first post-mortem revealed that Ian Tomlinson had died from a heart attack, and the second, ordered by the IPCC, suggested that he had died from abdominal bleeding, you can’t help but wonder how much the coroner actually did bother…

[Note: when I initially discussed the Tomlinson incident, I was sceptical about the IPCC's reasons for wanting a second post-mortem. I was wrong. Sorry, IPCC.]

But let’s just recall that none of this would be public knowledge if it wasn’t for photo/video. That would be the photo/video that police were trying to prevent people from taking. That would be the photo/video that police were abusing their powers to prevent people from taking photos; to accuse people taking photos/videos of being ‘involved with terrorism’ as opposed to simply documenting police brutality.

Don’t forget to sign the petition to ease restrictions on photography…

Then you had the issue of the police attempting to cover up their identity. Covering up their numbers so that they could not be identified. You have to ask why. If they are seeking to uphold the law, then why should they cover up their identification numbers? What possible reason could there be for seeking to protect their identity from scrutiny (I’m not asking for their names, merely a number that the police force could use to identify them from)? Other than the obvious — if they commit a crime, it’s more difficult to identify them.

The police seem very aware of this backlash, with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner insisting that:

…all uniformed officers must wear shoulder identification numbers so they can be easily identifiable by the public.

BBC News: Police begin G20 tactics review

Now, the IPCC have gone further:

The head of the police complaints watchdog has called for a debate over the way demonstrations are policed after the row over the G20 protests. [...] Mr Hardwick said police should remember they were “the servants not the masters” of the people.

He also said that the number of people who had filmed the protests on their mobile phones was proving a key factor in helping the IPCC determine whether complaints made against the police had any legitimacy.

Mr Hardwick also said that typical complainants of police behaviour were from middle-class backgrounds, who did not previously have a jaundiced view of the police.

BBC News: IPCC urges demo policing debate

All my emphasis. Again, note the importance of the photos/videos.

We also have new video released, showing Alex Cinnane being punched in the head with a riot shield, despite being stationary and facing away from the officer. Another riot squad officer punching a retreating protester in the face. The IPCC has so far received almost 100 complaints relating to excessive force [more detail, and the video, can be found in The Times]

We need a change in the way policing of demonstrations occur. Protester ≠ criminal. Some protesters are, and may well need to be arrested. The majority are not, are law-abiding citizens entitled to the protection of the law, simply exercising their right to peaceful protest.

Like my cousin, I have had off-the-record conversations with serving police officers about this. I too have been surprised by their reaction; what I perceive as ‘closing ranks to protect our own’ (although I can perhaps better understand the pressures they are under). Upholding the law must be what comes first, irrespective of whether or not it’s been your mate — under severe pressure — that has been the one who has broken it.

Again, I’ll re-emphasise that police do a difficult job. That it’s a job worthy of respect — generally a hell of a lot more respect than they get — precisely because it is a difficult job. It’s easy for police officers to become cynical, because they are likely to spend more time than the average citizen with law-breakers, they are likely to spend more time being abused, they are likely to see the impacts of crime somewhat more. They probably therefore have less faith in human nature than average; certainly less so than those of us who don’t get called to stabbings, domestic abuse and so on. It is not an easy job; it has impacted upon everyone I know who did/does it — making them a little harder, a little colder, a little more cynical (to varying extents of course).

They aren’t bad people; but the job is difficult, hard, and it leaves a mark. Possibly the police forces need to look at how serving in the police impacts on people and try to find a way to stop (or at least reduce) this mental toll on their officers…

However the policing of the G20 has gone a long way to diminish that respect I have: to show that to some officers at least, violence and assault are okay when it’s the police dishing it out. They need to clean up their act, and fast.

Otherwise the fact that Metropolitan PC Gary Toms died trying to stop a robbery goes virtually unreported. A man described as a dedicated professional loses his life trying to protect others, and this doesn’t really make the news. Why? Because the fact the Met have been behaving like vicious thugs is rightly bigger news.

We have a right to expect better. PC Gary Toms family have a right to expect better from the Met: their actions in the G20 protest are why he hasn’t been a bigger story. And you can’t help but wonder … was he at the protest? How did he behave? Questions that you’d not be thinking about if it wasn’t for the vicious thuggery of some Met officers…

Not only has Gary Toms been killed trying to stop a robbery, his memory has been tarnished by association with the behaviour of the Met at the G20. Although of course the top brass are adamant that none of it is their fault…

The [senior Met official] said that what really concerned him was that — as with the Menezes case — it had taken so long for the truth to filter up to higher ranks at the Yard.

The Times: Attack video has G20 police in panic

Why the surprise? They didn’t put things right after de Menezes, why should they expect anything should be different? They need to ensure that officers found to have omitted important information, or lying about the true story know that, if they are caught, there will be no further place for them in the Met. Have a ‘whistleblowing’ hotline, where whistleblowers are rewarded — and kept anonymous. The entire Met culture must change, or it must be scrapped. Public trust in the Met is virtually zero, and when I say ‘virtually’, I mean ‘slightly below’.

However, I’ll just go back to the IPCC, who wanted “a debate over the way demonstrations are policed”. We are already having one. In the media, in blogs, in houses and pubs — and probably police stations — around the country. If you actually want a “debate” though, on a national scale, you need a way for people to publicly comment: and you also need those comments responded to, publicly. This isn’t too difficult online. So what about it, IPCC?

Let’s actually have that debate. Let’s discuss the law, and the way it should be policed publicly. This means by the people, not by the media. Nor does it mean ‘trial by blogger’. If you’re serious, let’s have that debate. Let those people with the best arguments — not the ones who own the most media sources, or the ones who already have a seat in parliament, or the ones who simply shout loudest — win the day.

If you’re serious about it, of course. Or is this all just lip service to the public wave of revulsion at the thuggish tactics and behaviour of the Met?