Dr Peter Moore: Importance of learning lessons from history

In October I was in central London when there was a massive demonstration in support of the Palestinians.
I was not there to demonstrate but to see the English National Opera, but the theatre was close to Trafalgar Square.
There were plenty of police but they were simply keeping a close eye on the proceedings. Why did they allow a small number of demonstrators to shout support for a terrorist group or shout anti-semitic slogans?
To really understand the strange unwritten rules of our democracy it is important to understand our history.
We need to go back over 200 years to the Peterloo Massacre. At Peter’s field in Manchester on August 16, 1819, there was a large demonstration demanding votes for all men at a time when only 11 per cent of men could vote. These demands had been flatly rejected by the House of Commons despite being supported by a petition of 750,000 signatures. The demand for women suffrage did not appear for another 100 years.
When the demonstration was addressed by their leader, Henry Hunt, the magistrate ordered the local yeomanry to move in to arrest Hunt and the other leaders. They charged the crowd, knocking down a woman and killing a child. The 15th Hussars were then ordered to disperse the crowd. They rode in on horseback with sabres drawn. Reports are sketchy but up to 17 people were killed and 700 injured. As this was at Peter’s field and the Battle of Waterloo had only been four years earlier this was soon called the 'Peterloo Massacre'.
But why does this matter today? Ten years later Robert Peel founded the Metropolitan Police, the world’s first police force. The memory of the Peterloo Massacre was still fresh. It was vital that this new police force did not act as an army and was not under the direct control of the politicians. They were given blue uniforms, unlike the Army, and, except for Sergeant, they were not given army ranks. The idea was that the new force should be seen as citizens in uniform, the police are the public and the public are the police. It was to be policing by consent.
They had to use force only when absolutely necessary after attempts at persuasion and advice. They could only function with public approval. The measurement of success was not to be the number of arrests but the reduction of crime. The police are still nicknamed Bobbies after Robert Peel.
Even today the Government cannot interfere with police tactics. Politicians must not suggest who should be arrested. They can, in private, discuss overall aspects of policing with senior officers but we know from totalitarian states what happens when the police become an arm of the state.
So why did not the police move in to arrest the small number of demonstrators who were clearly breaking the law by supporting a terrorist group? Here we have learnt from the Peterloo Massacre. Moving into a large angry crowd to make an arrest can inflame the situation. The police are greatly outnumbered. If they are attacked and try to defend themselves there are plenty of people with camera phones ready to take photos. Out of context these could be damaging. It is far better to observe and make arrests after everyone has gone home.
In a crowd people can be swept up in a mood which may not reflect individual’s view. An officer once told me that he was policing a demonstration when the crowd were shouting abuse at the police but when it was all over they were polite and approached the police saying 'excuse me officer, please and you give me the directions to …' Police were, as a group’ terrible fascists' but individually they were helpful and kind.
Peaceful demonstrations are an important right in this country, a right which must not be undermined. At the same time there is no right to shout racist or anti-semitic abuse. The police have to tread carefully and remember the lessons from 1819.