Advances in Liaison Based Public Order Policing in England: Human Rights and Negotiating the Management of Protest?

Abstract

This is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in <insert journal title> following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version; Stott, C., Scothern, M., & Gorringe, H. (2013). Advances in liaison based public order policing in England: Human rights and negotiating the management of protest?.

Intra-police communication in public order police management

“…In our rationale we were non-specific about the public order events attended. Although the nature of the event can determine police tactics and potential risks anticipated (Waddington 1994), the new policy approach is or can be applied in a multitude of settings (Stott and Adang 2003, ACPO 2010a, Stott et al 2013. We acknowledge that the motivations and intentions of crowds will be different depending on the event but national policy tactics makes accommodations for this (Reicher et al 2004).…”

“…Although excerpt 1 is from a low risk football game, it has been documented that ground officers still hold pre-conceived ideas that crowd disorder happens spontaneously and can be committed by any group at any time (Cronin and Reicher 2006). Although new POP policy encourages new ways to think about crowds (Stott and Adang 2004, Reicher et al 2004, HMIC 2009, ACPO 2010a, Stott et al 2013, officers, as evidenced in Cronin and Reicher (2006) and also in a later analysis in this research, sometimes express traditional views of crowd violence. In excerpt 1, Silver describes the powerful resources available in the POP event and how all officers have access to this.…”

“…The changes include strategically facilitating rights enacted under the Human Rights Act (1998); a shifting understanding of crowd psychology under the auspices of the Elaborated Social Identity Model (Stott and Reicher 1998, Stott and Adang 2004, Stott and Pearson 2006; and the inclusion of Police Liaison Teams as a method of increasing dialogue with key crowd members (Holgersson and Knutsson 2011, Osterling 2011, Stott et al 2013, Waddington 2013. These changes were precipitated by concerns about the policing of two high profile public order disturbances.…”

Watershed events and changes in public order management systems: organizational adaptation as a social movement outcome

“…Recent studies indicate that the recommendations in the HMIC report have affected British protest policing-at least in some areas-in terms of a stronger emphasis on the strategic role of specially trained teams of liaison officers who can act as intermediaries and convey a more nuanced picture of activist perspectives to police commanders (Baker, 2011;Gorringe et al, 2011;Stott et al 2013;Waddington, 2013). However, this possible trend towards facilitation and dialogue is counterpoised by evidence of increased activist surveillance by police (Gilmore, 2010) and increased training in the use of less-lethal weaponry such as "accelerated energy projectiles" (Stott et al, 2013).…”

“…However, this possible trend towards facilitation and dialogue is counterpoised by evidence of increased activist surveillance by police (Gilmore, 2010) and increased training in the use of less-lethal weaponry such as "accelerated energy projectiles" (Stott et al, 2013). In other words, it appears that significant adaptations have taken place in response to the 2009 G20 events, albeit reflecting long-standing tension between negotiated management and militarization of British protest policing (Jefferson, 1990;Waddington, 1994).…”