![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dennyFOR THE ATTENTION OF:
Meg Hillier MP
Hackney South and Shoreditch
Wednesday 8 April 2009
Dear Ms Hillier,
I'm sure that by now you have seen the media coverage surrounding the death of Ian Tomlinson at the recent G20 protests (despite his non-involvement in said protests). Most particularly I hope you have seen the video evidence submitted by an American witness to the incident.
Firstly, I would like to ask you to consider the largest issue here - that the police are now routinely approaching the policing of protests as a task of containment and supression rather than one of protection. At the G20 protests the police boxed people in (the process referred to as 'kettling') _before_ anything significant had happened. This is not right. It seems to me that the entire police procedure for dealing with large protests needs to be rethought in light of their behaviour over the last few years. I do not believe the police will begin this rethinking process without strong urging from the government.
Secondly, I would ask you to consider another 'big picture' issue (no pun intended), which is the recent legislation to criminalise the act of taking photographs or recording video footage of police officers if _in their opinion_ it could be used for 'terrorist' purposes. This law would make it easy for footage such as that relevant to this case to be supressed. We've already seen numerous incidents of 'terrorism' legislation being (ab)used to enable surveillance of people for crimes as petty as littering or overfilling their bins - it would be easy to misuse such laws to hide evidence of police misconduct, and to pretend otherwise would be foolish in the extreme. I believe this legislation needs to be urgently rethought, as does much of the recent wave of legislation which cites terrorism as its intended target, but which in practise has been shown to be more (and too) broadly applicable.
Thirdly, please consider the specific case of Ian Tomlinson. I list this last because although tragic in the extreme, it is only one example of the kind of things that _will_ go wrong if the points above are not addressed.
I would be very interested to hear your personal opinion on the points listed above, and what action if any you and/or your party intend to take regarding them.
Yours sincerely,
...
Sent today, using http://www.writetothem.com/
Meg Hillier MP
Hackney South and Shoreditch
Wednesday 8 April 2009
Dear Ms Hillier,
I'm sure that by now you have seen the media coverage surrounding the death of Ian Tomlinson at the recent G20 protests (despite his non-involvement in said protests). Most particularly I hope you have seen the video evidence submitted by an American witness to the incident.
Firstly, I would like to ask you to consider the largest issue here - that the police are now routinely approaching the policing of protests as a task of containment and supression rather than one of protection. At the G20 protests the police boxed people in (the process referred to as 'kettling') _before_ anything significant had happened. This is not right. It seems to me that the entire police procedure for dealing with large protests needs to be rethought in light of their behaviour over the last few years. I do not believe the police will begin this rethinking process without strong urging from the government.
Secondly, I would ask you to consider another 'big picture' issue (no pun intended), which is the recent legislation to criminalise the act of taking photographs or recording video footage of police officers if _in their opinion_ it could be used for 'terrorist' purposes. This law would make it easy for footage such as that relevant to this case to be supressed. We've already seen numerous incidents of 'terrorism' legislation being (ab)used to enable surveillance of people for crimes as petty as littering or overfilling their bins - it would be easy to misuse such laws to hide evidence of police misconduct, and to pretend otherwise would be foolish in the extreme. I believe this legislation needs to be urgently rethought, as does much of the recent wave of legislation which cites terrorism as its intended target, but which in practise has been shown to be more (and too) broadly applicable.
Thirdly, please consider the specific case of Ian Tomlinson. I list this last because although tragic in the extreme, it is only one example of the kind of things that _will_ go wrong if the points above are not addressed.
I would be very interested to hear your personal opinion on the points listed above, and what action if any you and/or your party intend to take regarding them.
Yours sincerely,
...
Sent today, using http://www.writetothem.com/
(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-08 03:25 pm (UTC)As the London Mayor also has influence over the Met, have you considered sending a similar letter to your local London Assembly Member, or to the Mayor himself?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-08 03:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-08 03:51 pm (UTC)Not that I have a great deal of confidence in the current Mayor, but then I don't have much in a Labour MP either.
[updated] Looking at the site, it seems to make it easy for me to contact my member of the London Assembly, but not the Mayor. I've done the former, and hopefully they'll take it upstream if they get enough contacts.
Welcome to Dreamwidth, by the way :)