Home Of?ce Public Order and Police Con-Operation Unit Floor, Fry Building, 2 Marsham Street, London SWIPH 4DF Telephone: 020 7035 1807 Fax: 020 7035 6436 Textphone: 020 7273 3476 E-mail: Web Site: Mr Solomon Hughes 69 Wilton Road Southampton 8015 5JL Reference: 6 June 2005 Dear Mr Hughes, Thank you for your email of 11 February in which you asked whether the Home Office had files relating to the Poll Tax protests on the early 1990's. In particular, you asked for a brief description of the size and contents of each file. Your request was handled in accordance with the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. After having carefully considered your request and having examined the information that you requested in your letter, I am pleased to be able to disclose the attached bundle of papers to you. We have applied the public interest test in relation to the exemption contained within section 40 (Personal Information) regarding the information enclosed to you and I hope this does not cause you any inconvenience. I hope that you find the information provided to you of interest, and would like to assure you that you have been supplied with all relevant information that the Home Office holds. If you are dissatis?ed with this response you may request an independent internal review of our handling of your request. This can be done by submitting your complaint to: Information Policy Team 4th Floor Seacole Building Home Of?ce 2 Marsham Street BUILDING A SAFE, JUST AND TOLERANT SOCIETY The Metropolitan Police sent a "draft report" on the riot to the Home Of?ce within days. A log of all police radio communications on the clay is included as an appendix. Reading like a play script, this log gives an undoctored view of the police response to the demo and riot. They began the day by focusing on left-wing groups, but ended in confusion and panic as the demo became a riot - armed police stood helplessly by while crowds battered the South African embassy. A lone policeman radioed for help because his police station was "under attack." Another of?cer helplessly watched crowds "smashing everything in sight." Shortly after the riots, WPC Fiona Roberts told a press conference: think we lost it." The Metropolitan Police were embarrassed by and denied her claim, but these documents show that she was right. They also show that the most senior commanders simply stopped giving commands as events span out of their control. As demonstrators gathered in south London for the march to Trafalgar Square, police calls mostly relate to political groups. The ?rst focus is on suspect "anarchists," with reports like (12.08pm) "group of 17 anarchists 200 yards from Kennington Road and 100 in the park under a black banner," (1.24pm) "200 anarchists at L(ower) K(ennington) road" or (2pm) "There are 150 anarchists marching under banner 'Freemasons against poll tax' who are influence drink/drugs and have joined rear of march and picking up supporters on passing public houses." The mood of the demonstrators, whose number was put at 40,000 by the police or 200,000 by the organisers, was still judged "reasonably good" as they approached the river. When marchers crossed the Thames and walked up Whitehall into Trafalgar Square, the police reported a change. At 2.16pm, 3 police "bronze commander," probably a sergeant, reports: "018 Parliament - one arrest - bottles and missiles thrown at officers during course of arrest. Prisoner removed from scene - punks concerned." Ten minutes later, also outside Parliament, there are "barriers torn down and two smoke bombs thrown at police." At 2.30pm, a police "bronze" of?cer reports: (Socialist Workers Party) hardcore stopped outside Downing Street." At 2.47pm, the log notes: "Opposite Downing Street, hardcore SWP still remaining." At 3.06pm, of?cers radio in: "Area opposite Downing street - barriers now pulled down." By 3.22pm, there is a (situation to report) at Downing Street - noisy drunken crowd - hardcore of SWP at Downing Street." This was the day's turning point. The battles between police and protesters reported in the log mostly happen after this sit- down demo outside Downing Street. Demonstrators said that heavy-handed police attempts to move the enormous crowd after this sparked the riots. Certainly, the log shows that the disobedience at Downing Street threw the police into confusion. At 2.35pm, there is a debate between the "silver" and "gold" commanders about how to keep the massive crowds moving. The "gold" commander, normally an assistant chief constable or higher rank, is in overall charge, setting strategy for policing the demonstration. The "silver" commander, typically a superintendent, is on the scene, devising tactics to match the "gold's" orders, which are then passed on to the "bronze" commanders on the streets. Faced with the sit-down, the silver commander says: want to divert crowd - Bridge Street towards Embankment and onto Trafalgar Square if sufficient serials and stewards. Crowds in Whitehall very slow." The gold commander responds: "Give it a little more time." Soon, the diversion is made. However, by 4.30pm, police attempts to split the demo and move the crowds become incoherent - each push on the crowd is met with a violent response and one set of police lines ends up forcing rioters against another. One of?cer reports (4.29pm) the "crowd being pushed towards Trafalgar Square, where of?cers are under attack. This is the wrong strategy." There are no further communications from either the "gold" or "silver" commander. Instead, of?cers on the ground wrestle with crowds slipping out of their grasp. The striking thing about the police communications is not the fact that buildings are set on ?re, bricks and bottles are thrown or the deployment of horses and short shield units. It is the ineffectuality of the police action. As early as 4.24pm, a "bronze" reports: "We are unable to hold at Northumberland Avenue and will withdraw to reinforce the cordon across Whitehall." By 4.52pm, of?cers report: "shield serials are not making any headway into the crowd." At 5.04pm, they note that a "mounted charge has had no effect. We have lost the ground we had gained." Even though the police reported (5.15pm) "looting in Charing Cross Road junction with Trafalgar Square," they are in no position to take command of events. Aware of their lack of control. an of?cer reports: "Holding line outside South Africa House. I do not presume to push further." But the back of South Africa House remained vulnerable. A message from "ranger control" says: "South African embassy. Windows being broken at the Strand entrance. No police about. Can you please deal, as we are not sending armed units." Ranger control are the armed police who guard embassies. They wanted other officers to deal with the window-breakers because they did not want their gun-carrying men drawn into the melee. At 5.37pm, of?cers report a "stand-off at T/Square at the moment. Sporadic throwing of missiles." Even this limited truce soon breaks down. From this point on, the communications log shows that dispersing demonstrators beyond Trafalgar Square simply spreads a mixture of rioting and spontaneous uncontrolled demonstrators throughout London. Entries include: 6.31 pm "Trocadero Centre, W1 . Bin through window. Large crowds getting in." 6.56pm "Very large crowd now making their way back to Oxford Circus from Portland Place, smashing everything in sight. Unable to do anything on my own." 7.19pm "Windows being smashed, Hanover Street." 7.51 pm "1,000 demonstrators towards Oxford Street. This is now another march. No police at head of march. Serials trying to police from the rear." 8.02pm "Tottenham Court Road police station under attack. PC on his own." 8.21 pm "Charlotte Street, W1. Large number of youths rampaging in streets smashing windows." 9.37pm "Looters have entered a sports shop in Leicester Square and taken crossbows and knives." The last reports of conflict are made at 10.57pm, with "windows being broken" by a "vociferous" group of 100-plus people. The police log ends at midnight, although sporadic ?ghting continued until the early hours of the morning. The Home Of?ce prepared for the 3 5? March demonstration by a national programme of political surveillance aimed at local anti poll tax protests. The ?le suggest that the Conservative government wanted to use police reports to embarrass the Labour Party by linking them to militant groups involved in disorder at the Town Hall demos which happened in the run up to the national march. Before the Trafalgar Square rally, the Home Of?ce prepared three notes for a meeting with Local Government Minister David Hunt to look at the tax and public order. The Government compiled police reports of the many local demonstrations, in almost every case looking at the presence or absence of political groups. and considering whether these were ?outside agitators?. From the Police Responses it is clear that senior of?cers were asked if there was a nationally co ordinated attempt at disorder or a roving ?rent-a mob" . This political surveillance strongly suggests the Conservative Government was focussing on left wing groups in an attempt to embarrass the Labour Party. Labour had only recently completed its purge ofthe Militant Tendency, who were central to the anti poll tax campaign. The Police said of the National Anti Poll Tax Federation Demo ?In real terms the actual organisation oft/11's event was handled by the Militant Tendency? . However. when it came to the local Town Hall Protests, the police reported that left wing groups were often present, they were overwhelmingly local. The SWP ?gure as much as the Militant. Police notes of Demos from Weston Super Mare to Oldham include-statements like "500 protesters. Approx 50 SWP Demonstrators? (Southampton) or 600 Demonstrators. . .no indication. however that any of these were Militant supporters" (Newbury)? and ?600 was evidence of left-wing demonstrators but those were believed to have been local? (Newcastle on Tyne). ?300 Demonstrators ..although one local Militant supporter was interviewed by the local TV station there was no evidence that there was a large presence of Militant supporters and certainly no one from outside the area" (Leicester) The ?les shou that David Hunt used the police reports to issue a statement denouncing ?the militants behind the disgraceful town hall thuggery linking Labour to the protests by focussing on the thirty including leading left wingers ofthe time like George Galloway, Jeremy Corbyn and Dawn Primarolo, who backed the All Britain Federation of Anti Poll Tax Unions and its upcoming national Demo. Hunt?s aggressive attack on ?extremist labour? prompted Neil Kinnock to disown his poll tax rebels as "toytown revolutionaries". In fact, however. the report from the Home Of?ce division prepared for Davis show that the Home Of?ce ?assessment of the involvement of the Militant Tendency? found ?no evidence of national co ordination. and varying degrees of involvement at demonstrations ranging from none to considerable? The ?les also contain an article for the Times that, unlike the sober Home Office assessment, offers a lurid picture the ?militant connection? behind "violent Community Charge agitation?. It seems Clark rejected the Police and Home Of?cer version of events in favour of the Times. Reports from the Islington, Hackeny and Brixton demos l2?h March 1990 Islington Demo "As the crowds grew towards 2000? ?a number of political groups were identified (A) Revolutionary Communist Party Workers Revoltionary Party (0) Islington Green Party Labour Party Young Socilaist League NALGO Militant Tendency Anarchists Spartacist league. ?missiles thrown? ?mounted of?cers deployed? ?Skirmishing? After the Community Charge is set a small march forms behind some demonstrators ?pied piper like? On re?ection, the whole event could probably be grouped into three inter-related pahses? involving ?family protestors? ?the politically committed? and ?the opportunistic hooligan? 8th March Hackney Demo ?between 4,00 and 5,00 persons? ?although disorder was anticipated the numbers of demonstrators attending far exceeded intelligence forecasts" ?intelligence sources indicated that a orchestrated confrontation directed principally against the Police could be anticipated? ?the range of missiles thrown at Police of?cers including coins, Bottles of milk (full), bottles ?lled with paint, eggs, tomatoes, ?owur, pieces of wood, empty bottles, ?reworks and other lit missiels? . ?fairly widespread disorder had spread throughout the crowd?. number of crowd leaders emerged and these individuals made many efforts to co ordinate the activities of the crowd, appearing, disappearing and re-emerging throughout the evning?. The crowd even had its own ?intelligence network? shockingly ?at one point demonstrators themselves formed a cordon. This involved the linking of armsa and was directed against a police movement? ?nally at ?9pm the Police commander gave authority for police horses to be were effective in dispersing the crowd? ?it was obvious that the crowd had been in?ltrated by Socilaist Workers, Anarchists and Militants who displayed their placards and urged other members of the public to join them in their activities. The Socialist workers had a proper stand and collecting table and were noticeable in distributing both placards and lea?ets throughout the event. Many of these individuals had no interest whatever in the Poll Tax issue. Add Brixton Demo Copyright 1990 Times Newspapers Limited The Times March 9, 1990, Friday SECTION: Home news LENGTH: 713 words HEADLINE: Thatcher hits at Militant over poll tax BYLINE: By Philip Webster, Nicholas Wood and Craig Seton BODY: The worst clashes in the spreading poll tax protests broke out in London last night, after both the Prime Minister and Mr Neil Kinnock had condemned the violence as a negation of democracy. Within hours of the two leaders' Question Time exchanges during which the Prime Minister likened the violence to that seen during the Grunwick, miners' and Wapping disputes pitched battles flared again. In Hackney, east London, police drew batons as they came under a hail of missiles. At least 57 people were arrested, and 34 police were injured after bottles, sticks, cans and flour bombs were thrown at police outside the town hall. A number of demonstrators were also injured. Protesters uprooted road signs to use as battering rams against officers trying to control the 5,000-strong crowd. There were also clashes in Swindon and Camden. Thatcher had said in the Commons that any violence or intimidatory demonstrations "organized, I understand from an excellent article in The Times, by the militant left" were a negation of democracy. The Labour leader said he agreed with everything she had said, "as I have long made clear", and again repudiated calls backed by some far-left Labour MP5 for non-payment of the tax. In spite of Mr Kinnock's efforts to root Militant out of his party, Conservatives privately believe the violence is deflecting attention from the Government's difficulties over the charge. They were given further ammunition last night when Mr David Rowe, a Labour Party member who has been reported to the national executive committee for his alleged Militant links, was arrested during a demonstration at Dudley, West Midlands. The arrest came after an incident at the Labour?controlled borough council when eggs were thrown from the public gallery. Mr Rowe was charged with disorder. The Conservative tactics were plainly on View in the Mid Staffordshire by-election campaign as Mr David Hunt, Minister for Local Government, challenged Mr Kinnock to hold a public inquiry into alleged links with Militant. "Mr Kinnock has this week called for a public inquiry into one of his and the Labour Party?s paymasters, Mr Scargill. I think it's about time he called for a public inguiry into the links between Militant and the Labour Party," he said, adding that ?confusion, deception, irresponsibility, and illegality" were the hallmarks of Labour's opposition to the charge. "The militants behind the disgraceful town hall thuggery we have witnessed this week are not all banished exiles from the Labour Party," he said. "Around 30 of themost ardent supporters of the Anti-Poll Tax Federation, which is organizing these demonstrations, sit behind Mr Kinnock in the House of Commons.? As the war of words continued, Mr Tony Benn said Britain was witnessing the first major civil disobedience campaign since the Suffragettes, and called on the Labour movement to defend those who refused to pay the tax. ?There is no moral obligation to obey an unjust law, but those who decide to defy such laws, on moral grounds, must expect to be punished, believing that their sacrifice may help others, later, when the judgement of history confirms their stand," he said. Dr John Cunningham, Labour?s campaigns co?ordinator, pointed to the community charges set by Conservative councils in the constituencies of 13 ministers. Responding to claims by Mr Kenneth Baker, the Conservative chairman, that a pattern was emerging with Labour as the party of high spending, Dr Cunningham said that Barnet Council in Thatcher's constituency had overshot the government target by Pounds 23; Mole Valley Council in Mr Baker's seat by Pounds 85; Tandridge Council in Sir Geoffrey Howe's constituency Pounds 79; and Suffolk Coastal Council in Mr John Gummer's seat by Pounds 103. Mr Baker said the difference between the average charge in Labour-controlled London boroughs (Pounds 403) and those run by the Conservatives (Pounds 291) was staggering. Last night Thatcher faced a loo-strong demonstration against the charge in Glasgow. The protest was led by Mr Tommy Sheridan, the Militant leader of the Anti?Poll Tax Federation, who said: "Thatcher's poll tax is particularly hated in a city where over 42 per cent are refusing to pay.? 8th March 1990 As you will know as in Mid?Staffordshire today campaigning in support of*, our candidate in the by-election. Most of the many vo ers Spoke to raised the subject of the Community Charge. The mood I encountered, however, was far from hostile. There was certainly widespread condemnation of Militant orchestrated violence, scenes of which have so appalled everybody in recent days. The truth is, that while many ordinary people are still uncertain of how the charge will affect them, their feelings do not run to the poisonous hatred which inflicts the minds of the Militants, both inside and outside the Labour Party and, I regret to say, on Labour's back benches. It also seems clear to me that the Labour Party has been active in mounting a campaign of disinformation against the Community Charge. This, I am sure, accounts for a great deal of the uncertainty and confusion in people's minds about rebates for example. 'Time and time again Labour spokesmen, and. Labour council leaflets, have ignored rebates altogether, although they are a central feature of the Community Charge, translating it from a flat rate tax into a charge related to ability to pay. Labour's half-hearted campaign to encourage the take?up of rebates, a measure, I gather, borne out of the Party?s embarrassment at the multitude of it's own MPs who say they will not pay the charge, hardly atones for these deep and devisive Sins. I would conclude from my visit that there is clear evidence that the Community Charge will become widely accepted as a much fairer way of paying for local government. There is work to be done, of course there is, but the good arguments are all on our side. Labour's response both in Mid-Staffordshire and nationally is shifty and evasive. While maintaining an open?ended commitment to abolish the charge they neither know, nor I suspect care, what they would put in its place. This is a policy and a Party which deserves to be treated with contempt. I am increasingly confident that the electors of Mid?Staffordshire will register such a response with their vote on March 22nd. 1. Mr 2. PS/Lord COMMUNITY CHARGE -TIHES ARTICLE 12/3/90 I attach a background note and line to take on the article in today's Times. We know no more of this than is in the article so that it is not possible to be more precise about what powers Liverpool City Council, and others, may be using. In any case it would be a matter for the District Auditor to pronounce upon. ?v .- 12 March 1990 cc PS midg? Mr - Mr? "Ir- ARTICLE IN THE TIMES 12-3*90 MERSEYSIDE ANTI-POLL TAX FEDERATION Background The article in today's Times suggests that Liverpool City Council have been letting a shop, rent free, as headquarters of the Merseyside Anti-Poll Tax Federation. From the detail given it is difficult to assess the facts, although it is suggested that this is something that is happening nationally. It is a matter of common law that public funds should not be used for supporting party political organisations. It would, therefore, be for the District Auditor to consider whether the local authority had incurred a loss of income or illegal expenditure in letting a shop rent?free to this particular organisation. We are not aware that this issue has been brought to the attention of the Audit Commission. The Secretary of State has no powers to intervene. Line to Take It is a matter of common law that public funds should not be used for party political purposes. This would, therefore, be a matter for the District Auditor to consider. Any local elector can bring such an issue to the attention of the auditor who can determine whether this has resulted in loss of income by the council or whether the Council has incurred illegal expenditure. The Secretary of State has no powers to intervene. ?h Miss COMMUNITY CHARGE TIMES ARTICLE 12/3/90 We spoke about the attached article in today's Times on the use of property owned by Liver 001 Council by the Merseyside Anti?Poll Tax Federation. Lord #is answering a P9 this afternoon on the Community Charge an would be grateful for your urgent advice on this issue, including a line to take incase it is raised in the HOUSE . Could I have this by 1pm today please. I 12 March 1990 cc Mr Mr Mr filli TIMES Liverpool City Council, was previously '1 being pmvided rent-free, electricity, gas Militant recruits jobless through council centred By Ray Clancy . i A national network of resource centres Labour-controlled councils for 7 i the unemployed is being used as the campaign headquarters of the violent anti-poll tax demonstrations. Branches of the Ail-Britain Poll Tax Federation, which is closely associated with Militant and other extreme left- wing groups, are using the centres as their campaign headquarters with the blessing of councillors, The Times has discovered. In Liverpool the headquarters of the Mcrseyside Anti-Poll Tax Federation is Occupying a shop provided rent-free by the Labour-controlled council from where demonstrations are organized and rented to a building contractor for ?5,000 a year, but it now houses the North-west branch of the anti-poll tax federation. Last night, Mr Keva Coombes, leader of the Labour-controlled council, said: was approached by the federation Labour .. 2 Employers? poll tax ..2 Letters 15 about the use ofthe shop which had been empty for some time. A motion was put to the council and approved. ?1 see nothing wrong with some of Liverpool?s empty building being used by groups of any political persuasion." Coombts: Approved use of muncil facilities. sMilita'nt exploits ouncil entres Continued from page I have become the focus ofanti- poll tax activity. They are used as a base for organizing dem- onstrations, distributing leaf- lets and other propaganda as well as_?gr recruitment." one London rn?Sider admitted. A group of people in Com- who are disgusted by the Militant has taken over anti-poll tax meetings are trying to set up a rival national organization for ordinary people who do not wish to be associated with violence. People Against the Poll Tax, 3 group run by Mr Ray Comfoth of Calstock, has made a video that it will present to the Prime Minister at Downing Street along with a petition with 50,000 sig- natures on March 23. "We are not Militant or associated with any of these federations. We are trying to set up a similar nationwide network to take up the issue of the poll lax,? Mr Comfonh said. He has already been in touch with groups In Darset and Berkshire. lea?ets distributed. The shop, owned by The video The Silent Majority Says No to the Po]! features interviews local people and life?long Conservative voters who claim they will not vote for Thatcher again. I Norwich City Council yes- terday set its poll tax at ?365 after meeting on a Sunday for the ?rst time after its original poll tax debate was halted last Tuesday when 300 dem- onstrators stormed the town hall. smashing windows and tearing up documents. Tight Security surrounded the one-and-a-half hour meet- mg. Outside the town hall about 650 protesters chanted and threw eggs at police but there were arrests. 0 Next yeah poll tax ?gures have already been discussed by the Department of Envi- ronment and associations representing councils around the country. The main topic at a meeting between the Association of lMct'ropolitan Councils, the Association of London Authorties and the Associ- ation of District Councils was standards spending assess? ments. Almost every council tn the country has complained that poll tax is high because the I990 assessments were based on 4 per cent in?ation. Over the next few months they will be encouraging the Government to be more gen- erous next year. He added that although the shop was Three councils Lambeth and lslington in London, and Liverpool missed last night?s deadline for setting a poll tax and are exploiting a loophole to argue for more money from the GOvemntent. Although they had to set their budget by midnight they do not actually have to declare a poll-tax ?gure until March and telephone bills were being paid by the federation. Elsewhere, the federation has been recruiting young unemployed people found at centres set up by especially in Militant strongholds such as Manchester, Newcastle, Southamp- ton, Coventry, Birmingham, Edinburgh and Glasgow. In some cases national combines 0! workers meet regularly at these centres where they ally themselves to the federation and other groups supporting left?wing activities. The centres are used as postal addresses and meeting places. Telephone lines have been in stalled and anti-poll tax oflices set up and run by unemployed peeple. ?These centres Continued on page 22, col 8 33" I'l . I 1" DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE Home Office Room 701 Queen Anne's Gate SW1H SAT Tel: 01 273 3601 Index Southampton Leeds Liverpool Walton?on-Thames Plymouth Newbury A 1; London Bolton Oldham Leicester Newcastle?upon?Tyne Approximately 500 demonstrations gathered outside the Civic Centre; 100 of these were permitted into the public gallery. Once the meeting of the council commenced there was a lot of disruption from the gallery, shouting, abuse etc, and one man lowered himself into the main chamber and started to knock things off tables. He was overcome by council members and held until the police took him away. The Chairman adjourned the meeting temporarily while the police attempted to clear the Chambers, forcibly removing a number of people. Others tried to storm the Civic Centre from the outside by ramming doors but failed to gain entry. Damage however, was minimal. 27 people in total were arrested for public order offences. It is estimated that there were approx 50 SWP demonstrators and most of the 27 arrests were from this group. Most of those, however, it was later identified were from the Southampton area. Only one of those arrested has been charged. There were also a number of Student Union and a NALGO demonstrators. LEEDS 120 protesters were present. 2 arrests were made for Public order offences. There was no damage and there were no injuries sustained. There were a small number of Militant supporters but it is not known whether these were local or from outside the area. LIVERPOOL 100 protesters were present which included a large number of Militant supporters. There were no arrests or injuries and no damage was caused. However, yesterday's Council meeting was to discuss the budget for the area. The actual community charge will be decided at a meeting to be held on Wednesday 28 March when further demonstrations are expected. THAMES Up to 750 protesters were present. 2 arrests were made for minor public order offences. There was some slight damage with a couple of windows being broken. No injuries were sustained. There was no obvious outside influence from left-wing groups. PLYMOUTH Councillors met at 11.00 am yesterday (7 March) at the Civic Centre to set the community charge. people gathered outside to demonstrate. The majority of these were concerned citizens from the area although there was apparently quite a large presence of members and other extreme political groups. SWP members totalled about 40?50 and some were wearing balaclavas and chanting slogans and carrying banners with the words 'Kill the Police'. The police believe that a number of SWP members had been shipped in from outside the area. There were also a number of local polytechnic students demonstrating and five were arrested for minor public order offences, a few for assault on police and one elderly man for criminal damage he broke 4?5 windows of the Civic Centre with his banner. NEWBURY 600 demonstrators gathered outside the Town Hall at approximately 6.30 pm on 7 March. Most of these were identified as local inhabitants apart from 50-60 non?locals who appeared to come 'en masse' from outside the area. There was no indication however, that any of those were Militant supports. 50 people were admitted to the Council Chambers and as the meeting progressed became increasingly vociferous with the result that one person was ejected. Approximately 125~150 youths attempted to gain entrance to the Town Hall but were held back by police. They proceeded to organise a 'sit-in' in the road. A number of other youths attempted to disrupt the traffic diversion scheme that had been organised and when this failed proceeded to block the main A34 trunk road both north and south-bound. 2 injuries resulted, one a who was knocked off his bike and one demonstrator. 2 people were arrested - one for breach of the peace and the other for drunkenness. Both have been released. LONDON There were no arrests made at any of the demonstrations last night (7 March). No injuries were sustained and there was little, if'any damage. The police believe that the absence of any disorder was largely due to their contingency planning. Left wing supporters were present at most, if not all, of the demonstrations. However, there was no evidence to suggest that these supporters were travelling from meeting to meeting. In fact, the police believe that the SWP had advised its members/supporters to attend their local council meeting and demonstrate. BOLTON 100 demonstrators protested in front of the Town Hall of which 50?60 were admitted to the public gallery. These became increasingly vociferous and the council meeting was temporarily adjourned whilst the public gallery was cleared. There were no arrests, no damage and no injuries. It was clear that there were a few SWP supporters but these were all locals. DLDHAM 150 people gathered outside the Town Hall. There was no evidence at any Militant supporters. No damage resulted and there were no arrests or injuries,82 people were admitted to the public gallery and although there was some noise and shouting the meeting continued without any major disturbances. LEICESTER 300 demonstrators gathered outside the City Hall and the meeting was temporarily adjourned when a member of the public became increasingly noisy and diSruptive in the public gallery. An effort was made by protesters outside to gain access to the building but was unsuccessful. Most of the demonstrators left shortly after this. No arrests were made and although one local Militant supporter was interviewed by the local TV station there was no evidence that there was a large presence of Militant supporters and certainly no one from outside the area. 600 protesters were present on 7 March. There was 1 arrest for drunk and disorderly behaviour. There was no damage and no injuries were sustained. There was evidence of left?wing demonstrators but those were believed to have been local. \v From cc F8 Division Ext 2367 7 March 1990 DEMONSTRATIONS AGAINST THE COMMUNITY CHARGE 1. You asked for a note following reports about demonstrations over the last few days at council meetings where the level of community charge was being set. Some of the demonstrations yesterday evening resulted in scenes of public disorder which have been widely reported. Other demonstrations have been orderly. Details of the demonstrations of which we are aware are annexed to this note. 2. Typically the demonstrations where there has been some disorder have involved groups of people entering the council chamber or council premises to disrupt the council meeting, with larger groups of demonstrators outside. The police have been called upon to restore order both inside and out. 3. Generally the number of arrests has been small at each demonstration with few and only minor injuries to the police and the public. Bristol was an exception last night with 21 arrests, mainly for minor public order offences. Four police officers required hospital treatment. 4. Much of the media coverage has focussed on the alleged involvement of far left groups particularly Militant Tendency and the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in organising demonstrations and fomenting disorder. We understand from the police that there was evidence of Militant and Socialist Workers Party involvement at Bristol and at a meeting at Haringey the night before but there was no evidence of them being involved in the demonstrations at Maidenhead, Reading, Norwich or Bradford. 5. Thus the involvement of Militant Tendency and other left wing organisations is not uniform. From the reports we have received there is no indication of national co?ordination of the demonstrations. The left wing demonstrators seem likely to be the most vociferous and active where they are present but it is evident from the reports we have received that they have been joined by other demonstrators wishing to show their disapproval at the setting of the community charge. PROSPECTS 6. Liverpool Council is meeting this afternoon to set their budget. The police are expecting and prepared for a demonstration. There is a possibility that disorder may occur. A number of London boroughs are also meeting this evening to set the community charge but no disorder is expected. Uxbridge Council will be re?convening on Thursday evening and Haringey Council will be re?convening on Friday to set the community charge. Earlier meetings of these councils had to be abandoned due to demonstrations and further attempts at disruption are expected. 7. I understand that councils are required to set their budgets by 11 March and thus by then will know what their level of community charge will be, although in law apparently the charge does not have to be set until 1 April. The spate of demonstrations at council meetings setting the charge should not therefore be long?lived. 8. We will keep you informed of developments. ANNEX INDEX A1 Bristol A2 Maidenhead A3 Reading A4 Weston?super?Mare A5 Norwich A6 Bradford A7 Exeter A8 Birmingham, Dover, Gillingham and Worcester A1 BRISTOL Initially, 200?250 protesters were present at the demonstration. These were later joined by a further 200?250 protestors who were believed to represent various left?wing organisations including "Militant" and the ?Anti?Poll Tax Federation?. Trouble started when a large number of protestors stormed the council premises, attempting to stop the council meeting taking place. A total of 21 arrests were made. The offences included: Breach of the Peace (later released without charge) Assault on police Public Order offences Actual Bodily Harm (to a police officer) Obstruction (of the above arrest) gagging Criminal Damage 4 police officers were injured and required hospital treatment. A2 MAIDENHEAD The meeting in the Town Council Chambers to set the community charge was attended by 70 members of the public. After about half an hour approximately 60 protesters entered the Chambers and proceeded to protest vociferously in front of council members. The meeting was temporarily adjourned until the police secured control and ejected the protesters. By this time there were a further 300 demonstrators outside the Town Hall. Two arrests were made for breach of the peace (later released without charge). Three external windows of the Town Hall were broken and one police officer was injured by flying glass. There was no indication of any Militant supporters among the demonstrators. READ ING A3 500?600 people attended a demonstration outside the Town Hall. Most of these demonstrators were orderly apart from a group of about 40?60 who attempted to gain access to the Town Hall. Two people sustained minor injuries in the crush but police officers managed to contain the demonstrators and entry was not gained. Two people were arrested for breach of the peace. There was no indication of any Militant supporters among the demonstrators. A4 Approximately 600 protesters were present. Six arrests were made for public order offences. There was criminal damage to doors, windows and paintings. The cost of repairing this damage is estimated at between ?3,000 ?10,000. 2 police officers received minor injuries but did not require hospital treatment. The police have no evidence at present to suggest that the demonstration was influenced by left wing organisations. NORWICH A5 1000 people gathered outside the Council Chambers to protest at the setting of the community charge. 100 members of the public were allowed into the spectators' gallery. They became increasingly vociferous. The police were unable to contain them sufficiently for the council meeting to continue and it i was adjourned to a later date. A number of windows were broken by demonstrators outside and a number of them tried to gain access to the chamber. Four arrests were made for criminal damage. A few police officers sustained minor injuries. Further trouble is expected at the next meeting, although a date has yet to be set. BRADFORD A6 At Bradford Town Hall last night 120 peOple were allowed into the Council Chambers. Although vociferous at times the meeting proceeded without any major interruptions. The demonstrators outside the Town Hall were relatively orderly. The numbers were swelled by members of the National Union of Teachers who were holding a one?day strike in protest about budget spending and the community charge. No arrests were made and no injuries were sustained by either the police or the public. EXETER A7 150 200 protesters were present. No arrests were made. 3 police officer were injured but did not require hospital treatment. Members of various left wing organisations were present in small numbers. Those members of the public inside the meeting were well~ behaved. However, those outside stormed the building and attempted to stop the council meeting. This movement seems to have been prompted by the start of television filming. When the cameras left so did a number of demonstrators even before the level of charge had been announced. Apparently a number of the protestors had been present at a meeting in Torbay earlier in the day. A8 BIRMINGHAM 200 present. No arrests, no injuries or damage. Minor influence from regular (left?wing) organisations. DOVER 30 present. All entered the Town Hall. One ejected. No arrests, injuries or damage. GILLINGHAM 400 present. No arrests, injuries or damage. WORCESTER 150 present. No arrests, injuries or damage cc PNQ Briefing for Table Office The setting of the level of community charge has led to demonstrations in many parts of the country in recent days. 2. Typically these demonstrations seem to have involved some tens of demonstrators entering council premises and causing some disruption of the meetings with more demonstrators (perhaps hundreds outside). The police have been called to restore order at meetings and to keep order outside. 3. Generally the number of arrests has been small, maybe 2 or 3, at each meeting with few and only minor injuries either to the public or the police. Bristol seems to have been exceptional in the number of arrests made (21). These were for minor offences. 4. In the Thames Valley police force area where there were demonstrations last night at Maidenhead and Reading there was no evidence of militant tendency involvement. At Norwich, too, there was no evidence of militant tendency involvement. At Haringey the night before members of militant tendency and other left wing groups such as the Socialist Workers' party were present; so too were there at Bristol last night. F8 Division 7 March 1990 ?m From F8 Division Ext 3390 9 March 1990 DEMONSTRATIONS AGAINST THE COMMUNITY CHARGE 1. You asked for a report on the disturbance yesterday evening in Hackney and Swindon. I am sorry that you have not had this sooner but it has taken the Met some time to provide information about those arrested in the Hackney disturbances. 2. You may also wish to know that Haringey, Southwark and Lambeth Councils are meeting this evening to attempt to set the level of community charge. The Met tell us that demonstrators are likely in all three boroughs and there is a risk that further disorder may occur. HACKNEY 3. The Met tell us that a crowd of 3-5000 demonstrators gathered outside Hackney Town Hall yesterday evening. Militant and Socialist Workers Party banners were in evidence. The SWP had a stand and collecting table and distrbuted placards and leaflets through out the event. Members of the crowd were frustrated at not being able to enter the Town Hall and there also were a number of demonstrators clearly determined to cause trouble. At around 6.30pm police began to be pelted with missiles including coins, bottles, eggs, fruit, pieces of wood and fireworks. Officers were also attacked with sticks. A number of the more difficult demonstrators brought dogs with them including Rottweilers, Alsatians and a pit?bull terrier. In view of the deteriorating situation reserves were deployed at 7.30pm and the area in front of the Town Hall was cleared. A number of demonstrators moved into Mare Street began to smash shop windows. There was some looting. A crowd also laid siege to Hackney police station police car parked outside was overturned and the police station wir ?ws were smashed. At 9.00pm mounted officers were deployed to Help disperse the demonstraters. Order was been restored by 10.00pm. 4. A total of 312 officers were deployed during the disturbances 29 officers sustained minor injuries. 5. There were 60 arrests mainly for public order offences (39 cases). Other offences included criminal damage (3) burglary (looting) (6) and drunk and disorderly (3). These people were charged in a number of different charging centres and information about addresses is only available for 47 of those charged. Of these 32 were resident in the Borough Hackney. Swindon 6. Wiltshire police tell us that demonstrators began to gather outside the City Hall in the early evening and by 7.00pm the crowd had grown to around 500. A number of demonstrators carried banners or wore badges produced by Militant and the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). Violence erupted at 7.05pm when about 40 demonstrators, some believed to be associated with Militant or the SWP, made a determined attempt to force their way into the building. Three people were arrested. Two live in the Swindon area. The third man, who has a record of convictions for violent offences, comes from in South Wales. None of the those arrested are known to have connections with Militant or the SWP. 7. Outbreaks of disorder continued until around 8.30pm when the crowd began to disperse. During the demonstration an effigy of the Prime Minister was burnt. 8. Ten police officers received minor injuries, mainly as a result of being hit by missiles thrown from the crowd or being punched or kicked by demonstrators. 9. The disturbances were video Eaped by the police and there may be further arrests following detailed study of the tapes. 16-3.AH BRIEFING FOR THE LEADER OF THE HOUSE DEMONSTRATION AGAINST THE COMMUNITY CHARGE Line to take The Government condemns the violeqhe that has taken place. For the most part the demonstrations have not been seriously disorderly although some council meetings have been disrupted. In most places there has only been a handful of arrests for minor public order offences. There were more arrests at Bristol on Tuesday night when there were g1, and last night at Southampton when there were 21. In both those places virtually all those arrested were local people. The police report that there is evidence that Militant Tendency and other left wing groups have been present at some demonstrations but not at all. [Of course the Government supports the right to demonstrate within the law. What is unacceptable is when people attempt to disrupt the business of council etings by using threatening and violent behaviour]. BACKGROUND NOTE There is no indication of national co?ordination of the demonstrations by Militant Tendency or other far left?wing groups. Reports from the police indicate that Militant Tendency and other left?wing groups have been present at some of the demonstrations (for example, Bristol, Southampton, Liverpool and Haringey) but by no means all (for example, Maidenhead, Norwich, Bradford and Walton?on?Thames). Generally speaking, where there have been disorderly scenes at demonstrations against the community charge there has not been more than a handful of arrests for minor public order offences; there have been few injuries to either the police or the public and these have been minor. Bristol on Tuesday night was an exception with 21 arrests mainly for public order offences and with four police officers requiring hospital treatment. At Southampton last night there were 27 arrests also for minor public order offences. At both places virtually all those arrested were local people. PRESS RELEASE I attach the final version of the Home Secretary's press release about the Stafford by-election. Private Office 8 March 1990 n. Release time: 7 00 pm, 8 March 1990 PRESS RELEASE HOME SECRETARY CONDEMNS CHARGE VIOLENCE AND ATTACKS STANCE ON The Home Secretary, the Rt How-P: Speaking last night at a public meeting in the Mid? Staffordshire By?election said: utterly condemn the scenes of violence and intimidation organised by extremists protesting against the Community Charge. There is often an excuse for this kind of violence, but never a good one. It is time that- not only condemned these hooligans, but drummed out of the Labour Party the numerous members who support them. But support for law and order has never been Labour's strong point. When Scargill's miners launched their assaults in what was close to an attempt to overthrow democratic government, the Labour leadership sat mute or contented itself with sniping at the Police. And this week they have shown again they are soft on terrorism by voting against the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism legislation which provides powers which are essential in the fight against this terrible evil. The Prevention of Terrorism legislation has been in existence for over fifteen years. Without it, the work of the security forces in countering terrorism would have been more difficult and less effective, and the appalling toll of casualties would have been greater still. Any hint that the determination of the citizens of the United Kingdom, who believe in the rule of law, is weakening and any sign that they were no longer prepared to take the necessary measures to control terrorism, would serve only to encourage those who respect neither law nor democratic government. For many years the Opposition recognised this and voted each year to renew the legislation which they introduced. Then suddenly in 1982 they changed their mind. Why? Not because terrorist killings had ceased; not because the threat to our armed forces and civilians was over. It was not the terrorists who had changed; it was the Labour Party. And in doing so they lost any claim to be considered a responsible Opposition. Two nights ago in the House of Commons they had the chance to show they were made of something and fit to govern, that if returned to power they would face up to their responsibilities. But united they trooped in to the lobby in an attempt to weaken our defences against the IRA. I shall certainly do my level best to keep the public aware that when it comes to the most fundamental issues, the country's defence against attack from without and within, the Opposition cannot be trusted. Concerning local law and order issues, the crime clear?up rate in Staffordshire is higher than the national average (45 per cent compared with 35 per cent). As in most police forces the clear?up rate has risen from its 1987 level (42 per cent in Staffordshire and 33 per cent in England and Wales). Neighbourhood Watch is the largest community watch initiative in Staffordshire. Efforts are concentrated on preventing burglary, theft, criminal damage and public disorder. Neighbourhood Watch appears to be one of the most effective crime prevention initiatives ever undertaken. Crime tends to be reduced in areas where the scheme is adopted with a corresponding reduction in the fear of crime. The Scheme is excellent for community spirit and police/public relations.? (Ends) (554 words) 19-3.AH From: 11? cc F8 Division Ext 2367 8 March 1990 HMCIC LORI. MEETING WITH MR HUNT AT 10.45 AM ON MONDAY 12 MARCH 1. Mr- is the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities and therefore responsible for the introduction of the community charge. He has asked to see Lord- on the public order implications of the introduction of the charge. CURRENT DISORDER 2. As you will have seen from the submission which I put forward yesterday there has been disorder at some (but by no means all) council meetings where the community charge level is being set. For the most part it cannot be said to have been serious. The worst instances have been in Bristol on Tuesday night (see Annex of submission of 7 March) and on Wednesday night in Southampton. Brief details of what happened at Southampton last night are attached as an annex; so too are brief reports on other places where we know there were demonstrations last night. 3. The assessment of the involvement of Militant Tendency remains as I described in my submission of 7 March. That is, no evidence of national co?ordination, and varying degrees of involvement at demonstrations ranging from none to considerable. 4. There has not been any suggestion (yet) that the police have done less than they should have done in policing the community charge level setting meetings. I understand from- the Department of Environment that the situation is made more difficult because some councils do not mind their meetings being disrupted if it means they can put off awkward decisions. The Department of the Environment is currently considering imposing on councils model standing orders so that meetings are conducted in a more orderly fashion if there are attempts at disruption. 5. None of the officials with whom I have spoken at the Department of Environment is aware of what wants to raise. The police's duty in the case of demonstrations is to maintain the peace and prevent or deal with the commission of criminal offences. We cannot direct them how they perform these duties. I have not heard it suggested, and nor do I believe from what I know, that the law or their powers are inadequate for dealing with the demonstrations and disorder which has occurred in connection with setting the community charge. 6. As I explained in my note of 7 March budget setting meetings have to be completed by 11 March by which time councils will know what their community charges are, although by law they do not have to set them until 1 April. POSSIBLE FUTURE DISORDER 7. may be worried about the longer term and what will happen if people refuse to pay their community charge when their bills start arriving later this month and in April. I understand that if people do not pay, a council may use Civil procedures to obtain a liability order from the courts. The council may then obtain the due amount by a number of methods and if necessary, by sending in bailiffs. In the final analysis debtors can be imprisoned but this again is a civil procedure. It is hard to imagine defaulters and/or dissatisfied payers coming together spontaneously in sufficient numbers with intent to cause serious public disorder. More probable, I would suggest, is organised demonstrations where behaviour deteriorates and the police become subject to attack as they seek to control the demonstrators. It is not an unusual situation with the police finding themselves as the immediate face of Authority and thus regarded as a legitimate target. 8. As I have said in the previous paragraph the charge seems unlikely by itself to lead to spontaneous serious disorder. But it is not inconceivable that it could be a factor which raised community tension and therefore made this more likely. We are next week going to set in train the annual exercise of asking inner city forces for an assessment of the likelihood of disorder this summer. If chief officers see the imposition of the community charge as having significant effect on the prospects for disorder they will report this to us. SCOTLAND 9. The experience in Scotland where the charge has been in place for a year has been different. At the time of setting the level of charge there was organised opposition by political parties. There were marches and demonstrations. There were not however the same determined efforts to disrupt council meetings that there have been in England. Since the charge bills went out (a year ago), the Scottish Nationalist Party has encouraged people to resist payment and make life difficult for collecting authorities but there has been no street violence. 10. I will attend the meeting. - Index Southampton Leeds Liverpool Walton?on?Thames Plymouth Newbury London Bolton Oldham Leicester Newcastle?upon?Tyne ANNEX SOUTHAMPTON Approximately 500 demonstrations gathered outside the Civic Centre; 100 of these were permitted into the public gallery. Once the meeting of the council commenced there was a lot of disruption from the gallery, shouting, abuse etc, and one man lowered himself into the main chamber and started to knock things off tables. He was overcome by council members and held until the police took him away. The Chairman adjourned the meeting temporarily while the police attempted to clear the Chambers, forcibly removing a number of people. Others tried to storm the Civic Centre from the outside by ramming doors but failed to gain entry. Damage however, was minimal. 27 people in total were arrested for public order offences. It is estimated that there were approx 50 SWP demonstrators and most of the 27 arrests were from this group. Most of those, however, it was later identified were from the Southampton area. Only one of those arrested has been charged. There were also a number of Student Union and a NALGO demonstrators. LEEDS 120 protesters were present. 2 arrests were made for Public order offences. There was no damage and there were no injuries sustained. There were a small number of Militant supporters but it is not known whether these were local or from outside the area. LIVERPOOL 100 protesters were present which included a large number of Militant supporters. There were no arrests or injuries and no damage was caused. However, yesterday?s Council meeting was to discuss the budget for the area. The actual community charge will be decided at a meeting to be held on Wednesday 28 March when further demonstrations are expected. THAMES Up to 750 protesters were present. 2 arrests were made for minor public order offences. There was some slight damage with a couple of windows being broken. No injuries were sustained. There was no obvious outside influence from left?wing groups. PLYMOUTH Councillors met at 11.00 am yesterday (7 March) at the Civic Centre to set the community charge. 300?400 people gathered outside to demonstrate. The majority of these were concerned citizens from the area although there was apparently quite a large presence of SWP members and other extreme political groups. SWP members totalled about 40?50 and some were wearing balaclavas and chanting slogans and carrying banners with the words 'Kill the Police'. The police believe that a number of members had been shipped in from outside the area. There were also a number of local polytechnic students demonstrating and five were arrested for minor public order offences, a few for assault on police and one elderly man for criminal damage - he broke 4?5 windows of the Civic Centre with his banner. NEWBURY 600 demonstrators gathered outside the Town Hall at approximately 6.30 pm on 7 March. Most of these were identified as local inhabitants apart from 50?60 non?locals who appeared to come 'en masse' from outside the area. There was no indication however, that any of these were Militant supporbs. 50 people were admitted to the Council Chambers and as the meeting progressed became increasingly vociferous with the result that one person was ejected. Approximately 125~150 youths attempted to gain entrance to the Town Hall but were held back by police. They proceeded to organise a 'sit-in' in the road. A number of other youths attempted to disrupt the traffic diversion scheme that had been organised and when this failed proceeded to block the main A34 trunk road both north and south-bound. 2 injuries resulted, one a who was knocked off his bike and one demonstrator. 2 people were arrested one for breach of the peace and the other for drunkenness. Both have been released. LONDON There were no arrests made at any of the demonstrations last night (7 March). No injuries were sustained and there was little, if any damage. The police believe that the absence of any disorder was largely due to their contingency planning. Left wing supporters were present at most, if not all, of the demonstrations. However, there was no evidence to suggest that these supporters were travelling from meeting to meeting. In fact, the police believe that the SWP had advised its members/supporters to attend their local council meeting and demonstrate. BOLTON 100 demonstrators protested in front of the Town Hall of which 50?60 were admitted to the public gallery. These became increasingly vociferous and the council meeting was temporarily adjourned whilst the public gallery was cleared. There were no arrests, no damage and no injuries. It was clear that there were a few SWP supporters but these were all locals. OLDHAM 150 people gathered outside the Town Hall. There was no evidence at any Militant supporters. No damage resulted and there were no arrests or injuries_82 people were admitted to the public gallery and although there was some noise and shouting the meeting continued without any major disturbances.. LEI CESTER 300 demonstrators gathered outside the City Hall and the meeting was temporarily adjourned when a member of the public became increasingly noisy and disruptive in the public gallery. An effort was made by protesters outside to gain access to the building but was unsuccessful. Most of the demonstrators left shortly after this. No arrests were made and although one local Militant supporter was interviewed by the local TV station there was no evidence that there was a large presence of Militant supporters and certainly no one from outside the area. NEWCASTLE- TYNE 600 protesters were present on 7 March. There was 1 arrest for drunk and disorderly behaviour. There was no damage and no injuries were sustained. There was evidence of left?wing demonstrators but those were believed to have been local. LITAN PO CE Territorial Operations Dept. New Scotland Yard Broadway London SW1H OBG ESQ Home ice Queen Anne's Gate London SW1H 9AT 9th March 1990 an eruty/Assistant Commissioner RE: PUBLIC MEETING - HACKNEY TOWN HALL 8TH MARCH 1910 The divisional report into the disorder Hackney Town Hall, Mare Street. E9 on the 8th information. arising in the vicinity of March 1990 is attached for your saved an escalation of the violence. the matter to have been contained from the outset and disorder and criminal No. 728 (Unruled) METROPOLITAN POLICE Reference c.o ?5 papers Dist. . STATION Registry Folio ..9.th..Ma.rcG.O.fPo[ice Order ..refers MEETINGS - HACKNEY TOWN HALL Thursday the 8th March 1990 two meetings were held at Hackney Town Hall, more or less simultaneously. At one meeting Mr The Leader of the S.D.P., addressed a Public Meeting in the_first' oor assembly room. The second, a full Council Meeting was held in the Council Chamber on the first floor, to determine the Poll Tax for the London Borough of Hackney. It had been anticipated that there could possibly be crowd protest, as infor ation to this effect had been received from a variety of sources. The ?Meeting was a strictly political meeting at which, amongst other ings, the P011 Tax was to be discussed. The Council Meeting was, essentially, purely to determine the P011 Tax. The police strategy included arrangements for both inside and outside Hackney Town Hall. The policing arrangements for inside the Town Hall were successful because the Council Meeting was not interrupted, a Poll Tax was set and the Meeting concluded without any Councillors having been injured or molested in any way. Two Inspectors, three Sergeants and thirty Constables were engaged within the Town Hall. A high level of liaison and co-operation had been achieved at both the political and official level within the Town Hall, in advance, and a significant security force had been deployed to deter anyone from attempting to enter. The policing arrangements for outside the wan Hall originally proved to be appropriate. Under the cOmmand of a Chief Inspector there were four Inspectors, nine Sergeants and eighty six Constables deployed at a variety of locations which included the front entrance to the Town Hall, Hillman Street/Wilton Way, the north door and gate of the Town Hall and the entrance to the Assembly Rooms in Reading Lane. In addition a contingent of TSG comprising one Inspector, two Sergeants and twenty Constables were engaged on a reserve and subsequently re-assigned to the immediate vicinity of the Town Hall. Furthermore, Mounted Branch, in the form of an Inspector, one Sergeant and seven Constable, were retained on reserve at Hackney Police Station BACKGROUND Throughout the course of the week commencing 5th March 1990 a number of Boroughs throughout the Country, have attempted to determine a Poll Tax. Media attention has been focused on the varying levels of public protest which such meetings had attracted. As a result it was anticipated that the Council Poll Tax Meeting to be held at Hackney Town Hall on the 8th March 1990 was likely to be a difficult one in terms of policing. During the course of the week, police undertook to closely liaise with Hackney Town Hall in order to ensure that all appropriate arrangements for policing, both internally and externally, were made. The Chief Superintendent was involved and it should be said that Hackney Borough Council afforded every possible facility requested by Police. Intelligence sources indicated that a orchestrated confrontation. directed principally against Police, could be anticipated. All minutes to be numbered in consecutive order. Continue on other side if necessarv. EVENTS ON THURSDAY 8TH MARCH 1990 A low level of security, on the part of Police, had been maintained in the vicinity of the Town Hall from 10.00pm on Wednesday 7th March 1990. Similarly moderate levels of foot and mobile patrols, in the vicinity of the Town Hall, had proved satisfactory throughout the day on Thursday 8th March 1990 up until 5.00pm. Between 5.00pm and approximately 6.00pm a steady build up of persons/demonstrators took place at the front of the Town Hall. Police determined that barriers, other than those which could be actually secured into the ground and which were owned by Hackney Council, would not be used at the front of the building. This was because of previous experience of such barriers being used against Police Officers as missiles and also because it had been determined that the object of Police was to allow a peaceful demonstration by persons who had a lawful and democratic right to register protests against either local or central government decisions. The steady build up of demonstrators intensified as the evening progressed and by 6.00pm the numbers had swelled to several hundred, including an obvious section who sited themselves directly in front of the Town Hall steps and confronted Police. A number of persons within the crowd had clearly set themselves the goal of attempting to provoke the Police Officers into making arrests. A build up of violence took place at around 6.30pm and a number of missiles were thrown towards the police lines. Therefore, the T80 contingent were re-engaged to the front of the Town Hall to supplement existing police. At this time only one arrest had been made, of an obvious ringleader. Some officers were deployed to sweep the area to the front of the Town Hall and a number of articles, including crates of bottles, were seized by Police. As time went by the range of missiles thrown at Police officers including: coins, bottles of milk (full), bottles filled with paint, eggs, tomatoes, flour, pieces of wood, empty bottles, fireworks and other lit missiles. The crowd continued to grow and it was noticeable that, especially amongst those difficult demonstrators, there were a variety of dogs, including Rottweilers, Alsations and a pit-bull terrier. 0n the occasion of every single arrest the officers concerned were hampered by the fact that others in the vicinity interferred and that the media immediately focused their bright lights, cameras and recording equipment. The effect was to escalate minor incidents. and, obviously very proper arrests, into volatile situations. It was obvious that the crowd had been infiltrated by Socialist Workers, Anarchists and Militants who displayed their placards and urged other members of the public to join them in their activities. The Socialist Workers had a proper stand and collecting table and were noticeable in distributing both placards and leaflets throughout the event. Many of these individuals had no interest whatever in the Poll Tax issue. A number of persons attempted to make speeches to the crowd. None enjoyed any real success. Most of these efforts were drowned by the chanting and vilification of the crowd either directed against the speech makers, the Police or the Government. A number of crowd leaders emerged and these individuals made many efforts to co-ordinate the activities of the crowd appearing, disappearing and re-emerging throughout the evening. Every effort was made on the part of Police to appease the crowd in a positive way. As an illustration, when security officers appeared on the balcony of the 'Town Hall, apparently incensing the crowd, arrangements were made to ensure they were withdrawn. Equally when, later, a sole demonstrator managed to scale the cladding on the side of the Town Hall and reach the balcony was obvious that his overt denigration of what was taking place was a symbolic gesture which in fact calmed the crowd. That same individual later climbed down and no efforts were made to arrest him because of the obvious irritation this would have caused to those demonstrating. SUBSEQUENT DEPLOYMENT OF ADDITIONAL RESERVES The crowds attention transferred to events in Reading Lane which was the entry point to the meeting addressed by Mr . Despite arrangements made in advance with the Town Hall Mr edided to give a press conference in the street. Consequently, many of the demonstrators, when informed of this by their own intelligence network, ran the side of the building where further disorder took place. Subsequently Mr apologised for any difficulties which his meeting may have caused. The crowd which had rushed to the Reading Lane area bombarded the limited number of Police Officers engaged in that area with missiles. These officers were supplemented by additional reserves who were subsequently engaged in forcing that crowd back (east) along Reading Lane towards the area outside the Town Hall. By 7.30pm, or thereabouts, fairly widespread disorder had spread throughout the crowd and its numbers had swelled, to between and 5,000 persons. As additional police reserves arrived, particularly those in Mare Street, they came under a barrage of verbal and missile attack. At one point demonstrators themselves formed a cordon. This involved the linking of arms and was directed against a police movement. Traffic in Mare Street was brought to a complete halt. Up to forty officers were engaged in moving the crowd from Wilton Way back into Mare Street and then North along Mare Street to a point near the junction with Morning Lane. All available personnel were engaged to spilt the large crowd down the middle of the area in front of the Town Hall and sweep them left and right (North and South) along Mare Street in an endeavour to disperse them. This tactic was successful. Static cordOns were then implemented in Mare Street at the junctions with both Morning Lane and Paragon Road. The cordon at Paragon Road remained there for some considerable period of time but the demonstrators contained at the junction with Morning Lane moved off North towards the railway bridge sited at the junction of Amhurst Road and the Narroway. Those protestors set fire to dustbins in the Narroway and caused extensive criminal damage, and some looting, to premises situated in Mare Street, Amhurst Road, the Narroway and Lower Clapton Road. The crowd moved on and temporarily laid seige to Hackney Police Station damaging windows to the front of the building. They also overturned a police patrol car and throughout bombarded Police Officers with an assortment of missiles. At approximately 9.00pm the Police Commander gave authority for police horses to be used at the front of Hackney Police Station. They were effective in dispersing the crowd and later moved along Lower Clapton Road into the Narroway and down to the junction with Amhurst Road. At about 10.00pm Mare Street, which had been closed to traffic some two hours or more was re-opened and the majority of Police Officers were placed on reserve. A significant number of the persons arrested were not residents of the London Borough of Hackney and this particular point was well known to many of the local people. (Details of those arrested will follow). At 10.45pm, at Hackney Police Station Conference Room, a full de-brief of all the supervising officers who were ultimately engaged in this Operation took place. Details of injuries to Police Officers, members of the public and prisoners are briefly outlined in Appendix Details of arrests, which included offences of dishonesty, disorder and drunkenness are briefly contained in Appendix Details of damage to both police and other property are contained in Appendix By the end of the evening the following personnel had been employed: 1 Commander 1 Chief Superintendent 2 Chief Inspectors l6 Inspectors 31 PS's 261 PC's TOTAL POLICE 312 Eventually a total of 60 persons were arrested and charged at various Police Stations (See Appendix Many of those arrested do not reside within the London Borough of Hackney. Lay Visitors attended Hackney Police Station. where ten persons were charged: one prisoner complained of a minor injury. A total of three (3) separate complaints (2 by prisoners, 1 by a member of the public) have been recorded. CONCLUSIONS AND PROGNOSIS FOR THE FUTURE The numbers of Police who were engaged, originally, on this event proved to be too few. Certain information was received in advance to indicate a reasonable level of violent protest but nothing indicated that the numbers which eventually appeared could have been foreseen. The fact is that. Hackney Borough Council did set a Poll Tax and that particular matter is now closed. This means there ought to be no further need for demonstrations in or near the Town Hall and as such the overall strategy for the evening must be considered a success. The foreword of the Metropolitan Police Public Order Manual indicates that "the nature of police work is such that there will be occasions when tactics have to be decided on the spot and no advance planning can ever take account of every likely set of circumstances". It seems that the Opportunities for activists and militants to orchestrate a violent protest against Police are likely to end once the Poll Tax issue had passed from the high interest of the public. Clearly the Socialist Workers and others used this event to take out their growing' frustrations against the increasing professional approach of policing of the various events in London throughout this week. In all the circumstances, other than having had the full complement of Police which was ultimately deployed available from the outset, there was little extra which could have been done to improve the policing arrangements on the day. Tribute is paid to all the Officers who attended Hackney Division and overall displayed the levels of professionalism and restraint which they are urged to display. Chief Superintendent APPENDIX PERSONS INJURED A) POLICE OFFICERS 29 Police Officers were injured. Of these Officers were taken to hospital for treatment (none detained) and 5 Officers were ultimately placed sick. B) MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC At this stage there are reports of members of the public having received minor injuries. No person has been detained in hospital. C) PRISONERS INJURED A total of 9 prisoners received minor injuries during the course of their arrest. None of them have required hospital treatment. 3 formal complaints against Police have been lodged. (Comprehensive details will be submitted in a following report when obtained). APPENDIX NUMBERS OF PERSONS ARRESTED A total of sixty (60) persons were arrested during and subsequent to the events at the Town Hall. Arrests were made for the following: Criminal Damage 3 Assault on Polioe 3 Public Order Act 39 Sec. H7 Assault (on Police) 1 Obstructing Highway 3 Theft 1 Burglary (looting) 6 Offensive Weapon - 1 Drunk and Disorderly I 3 TOTAL 60 Full details will follow in the subsequent report. APPENDIX DAHEGE TO PROPERTY A) B) POLICE PROPERTY 21 items of Police uniform (including four caps, three pairs of gloves, four wrist watches, two raincoats, five helmets, one pair of trousers. one jacket and one radio were either damaged or lost.) In addition two police cars had their tyres slashed and one Panda car was extensively damaged when it was turned over by a crowd. OTHER At least. H5 premises including shops, building societies, restaurants, jewellers, and other commercial premises had their windows broken and in some cases property stolen.? In all probability damage amounted to something in the region of ?200,000 and theft to the extent of ?10,000. (Full details will be supplied as soon as possible in a subsequent report)> i3 - . ortr' =7_1 :3 - 3 - - -- 45oepar:ner: :5 :re 7: 331? I Marsna: Stree: 333 pm '16 March 19?9Cx J/cw' COMMUNITY CHARGE PROTESTS Thank you for your letter of 13 March with which you enclosed a collecrion of cuttings and orieirngs. I am afraid I do not have so much to offer in return. You will by now have seen a copy of Lor Private Secretary?s letter of 12 to Mr That confirms the View was expressed by Lord at the meeting that there was no of national co?ordination of the communit} charge demonstrations by Militant Tendency. I enclose some brie Leader of the House, provides a very short background note;on some of the have;occurred:recently. I understand that Lambeth willrbe;setting;its community charge on the 21 March and Merseysi?e willrbezsetting theirs on the 28 March. In addition there'ista demonstration planned for London for the 31 March.- Forreach of-these events we will be in touch with the police nearer the time; Incidentally the aid I do not therefore know the situation If there is any information which you would like about any of the demonstrations either before'cr after event please let me know. 20th December 199 meom HANNAH Lmn?eo MEDIASCAN -. . a. at); Wurship Sim-i. London can m: Ta; 37': m: I 241 55:! FaxPOLL tax rioter who attacked a policeman with a scaffolding pole escaped jail yesterday because the Jobless Raymond Hogg, 41, had earlier been convicted by a jury of violent disorder during ricl>ts in I?ondon's 'II?ra~ fa gar quare ast March. . . l?iSOl?i ES i Before setting him free Judge Denis Paiba I 22:? lastly tence it? his victim had not had a shield to fend off the blow. After his conviction at Southwark Court three week? ago. the judge its;de him he would go to Ja: . But, after reading reports. he told Hogg yesterday: suppose passions have cooled and one has really to think what is best for society. delighted and thanked the judge. But afterwards Tor}r MP and barrister Ivor Stan- brook said: think the judge has made a grave enon yone who us<5 vio- lence against the police should be sent to prison.? Labour MP John Green- way said: ?You have to pro- tect the lice and have no oubt there are a FeeEengs ?rm you to lotI of Police Federation . members ?ho Will ques- pnson for two years what ?on this decision - would enriciet};r achieve? ?i suppose we would be relieved of our feelin s. suppose we might I ink your behaviour was dis- graceful and we might be rid of it for some time. ?But I don't really think that this is what it IS really all about. ?It would cost the coun- try too much and I don't think it is worth it." He ordered Her to do 240 lmun: 0f eomgwnity service. Hogg, nl? Eastlake. Lnuehborough, looked Baily Prison reprievelii} for poll tax rioter? A protester convicted of attacking a policeman with a scaffold pole during the Trafal- gar Square poll tax riot in March escaped a jail sentence yesterday because a judge said it was too expensive. Judge Denis Paiba ordered Raymond llogg. ofLougl1~ borough, Leics, to do 240 hours'communitysen'icc. 4? ER WEE, ti 2 Division (Tel: X2241) 4/22". . 19 November 1990' 9' COMMUNITY CHARGE ENFORCEMENT .You'asked for advice on the attached letter from the former Chief Executive of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham about the low volume of community charge cases being handled by West London Magistrates' Court. 2. The Chief Executive's complaint is similar to that made by the Chief Executive of Camden and dealt with in my submission of 1 October. The West London Chief Clerk has limited the first community charge enforcement day to 120 cases, rising to 160 on the second hearing day, with a commitment then to consider if lists for future courts can be increased significantly. This method of dealing with community charge enforcement has been successfully adopted by many courts who have no means of knowing, when summonses are listed for a hearing, how many defaulters will attend in person on the day. Courts have found that where more than about 30 people attend in person hearings become prolonged and difficult and, in many cases, create public order problems. 3. Hammersmith and Fulham have contributed to their own difficulties. Their late start to enforcement following capping has meant that their enforcement programme has been compressed into the latter part of the year rather than phased throughout it. The earliest date requested for hearings was mid-November, so the first hearing date set of 27 November is not unreasonable. The court's difficulties are compounded by the fact that it services Kensington as well as Hammersmith and Fulham. Kensington has also been slow to take enforcement action and was unable to accept the October hearing dates offered to it. The general effect will be that both local authorities will doubtless be pressing for more court time at exactly the same period. ER. 4. The Principal Chief Clerk for the Inner London Magistrates' Courts Service has already taken forward plans to provide extra vcourt time for all the boroughs covered. Work is to be spread between all courts rather than limited to those which used to deal with rates enforcement. The secure courthouse in East London will be brought into play for Greenwich and Lewisham cases, but the Metropolitan Police have advised that it would be unwise to use it as the focus for a wider range of enforcement cases. 5. I attach a draft reply. P20 19 NovemEer 1990 C2 Division a? .. . I I From Chief Executive I .M Fulham 3 1 OCT 90 ermg arr Jammwj'g Date: 26th October 1990 Chief Executive ice Headquarters Office 50 Queen Anne? Gate London SW1 London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Town Hall, King Street. Hammersmith London W6 9JU Telephone 081 -748 3020 Fax Number 081-741 0307 Our Ref: DR/ll Your Ref: RECOVERY 93 COMMUNITY CHARGE I am aware of concerns which have been expressed to various central government departments about the difficulties of limited court time for Community Charge recovery. I am aware too of the importance of the independence of the judiciary. Nevertheless I am bound to draw to your most serious attention the difficulty we face in Hammersmith and Fulham and which is only briefly and gently referred to in the enclosed public report which will be considered by a committee on Monday 29th October. The background is that after capping we rebilled to 125,000 chargepayers and have recently sent out 50,000 formal reminders to those chargepayers who had so far paid nothing or who were behind with their instalments. As is to be expected, this has prompted a further improvement in payments and by this week we have collected just over half of the year?s collectable debit. The next step is to summons in the Magistrates Court for Liability Orders, which will empower the Authority to take recovery action. In total, we are likely to need some 20,000 in Liability Orders. If there is a delay in obtaining the Liability Orders, then this will constrain cash flow and, eventually, weaken the impact of the formal reminder. turn, this will damage the ultimate credibility of community charge. In We have been discussing the problem with West London Magistrates Court, whose Chief Clerk has indicated that they are prepared to take 120 cases on 27th November, 160 cases on 4th December, 200 cases on 11th December 300 cases on 18th December, 400 cases on 8th January 450 cases on 10th January. The court will review progress after the first two hearings to decide the pace at which the lists can be built up thereafter. You will appreciate that the proposed volume of cases falls drastically short of what we need and, even if the court were prepared to accept cases by the thousand from January, that this will leave the Authority with very little time to take subsequent recovery action. Therefore, in spite of our best endeavours, the scene is set for a disappointing uni?ection rate this year for reasons which lie outside our control. Meanwhile, our in-house preparations include staff training; we shall be running a?mock court with the involvement of local court officials in the hope that we are very well prepared for the court hearings. I do hope that you will regard this as an appropriate matter to raise with Minister. I will, of course, be happy to arrange a more detailed briefing on the matter if this would be helpful. I am sending a copy of this letter to? at the DOE. Yours Sincerely, EF VE DRAFT LETTER FOR SIGNATURE BY The Acting Chief Executive London Borough of Hammersmith Fulham Town Hall King Street Hammersmith LONDON W6 9JU Mr- wrote to me on 26 October about the availability of court time for community charge enforcement proceedings undertaken .u by your authority. While I understand your concern that community charge enforcement should now proceed as quickly as possible, the arrangement of the court list is a matter for the Chief Clerk of the court to determine and it is not a matter in which I, or Ministers, can intervene. I am sure you are aware that many courts have faced difficulties in dealing with community charge enforcement which has given rise to caution about the number of cases listed for hearing on any occasion. However, the balance between the time made available for community charge cases and other work must be decided by the courts having regard to their responsibilities for the administration of summary justice as a whole and the resources at their disposal. In your case this task has of course been made more difficult by the delay in instituting enforcement action. I understand, however, that the Chief Clerk at West London has confirmed that she is willing to review progress after the first two hearings to decide whether the lists can be increased significantly thereafter; this follows the pattern at other courts and is intended to avoid large-scale disruption by demonstrators if a large number of those summonsed choose to attend court on the day and the court is unable to deal with all the cases listed. Clearly, police advice on the implications for public order will also have to be taken into account. The Principal Chief Clerk for the Inner London Magistrates' Courts Service is giving active consideration, in consultation with the Chief Magistrate, to ways of assisting Inner London authorities; and I understand that he has recently discussed them with representatives of the authorities concerned. I am copying this letter tomand to the Principal Chief Clerk. infer: .e rim 1? SEP 1993 Mi TAX RIOTS, CENTRAL LONDON 1990 1. Further analysis of those charged after the March 'poll' tax riots indicates that 35% had a previousd criminal record, (as in the male population aged 30 or less), but much less than in previous riots in 1985 and 1981, at over a half. 2. My earlier minute of 26 June covered 372 rioters. The Metropolitan Police provided details on another 76; for another 13, data was incomplete. .As before, the Offenders Index was used to check whether any previous convictions existed and material for the 2 exercises merged, witilminor revisions to the main set. Again, the overall age distribution matched that found in your minute of 2.April. One in ten are women, (as might be expected), but nearly half were aged 21 to 25 and one in three aged 25 or more, older than might be expected. 3. 159 had been convicted at least once before, 36% among young men aged 30 or less. The 1953 birth cohort shows that 33% of males had been convicted of a standard list offence by the age of 30. Over half of those arrested in earlier riots in 1981 and 1985 had a criminal record; this proportion reached two thirds in Metropolitan areas in 1981. 4. The pre-offending rate varied with age; those aged 31 or more were 2.5 times as likely (at 50%) to have offended before, than those aged under 21. Men were three times as likely (at 38%) to have offended before than women. 5. I regret the delay in providing this update, due to lack of resources. 10 September 1990 Poll Tax Rioters 3 age, sex and Past Criminal History. March 1990. 42 Undyi 12. 17-20 21-25 26?30 1 No Pr econs . Males 3 61 106 61 20 Females 1 12 13 8 4 38 Persons 4 73 119 69 24 289 One 91.: more Convictions Males 17 78 35 23 154 38% emal Persons 1 18 79 . 37 24 159 35% with ConV1ctions (20) 20 40 35 50 All Males emal es . Persons . 448 (1) 100% r-i banned. It has prompted. the ?Home Secretary to ask whether he should make his own view that the Commissioner would have his full support in any measures he takes to avoid a repetition of the disorders on 1 April Si 3. Th' oes not directly effect the drafting of the reply to But it is a difficult issue of handling on which 5 grateful for advice. Perhaps it can wait until the next meeting between the Home Secretary and the Commissioner where the point can be made in a way which does not suggest that pressure is being put on the Commissioner. Private Office 20 June 1990 Priva Secre ary . re-Mmt ?Wu ,7 die. m. {@1113 $611111 @mgmp rm 1 i. a 131 MARSH WALL LONDON E14 953 11% - 2 TELEPHONE: 01-533 5000 TELEX: 22874 TELLDN FROM THE EDITOR The Rt Hon :Home Secretary Home Office 50 Queen Anne's Gate London SW1 June 14, De?- 5 I write privately to express concern about an issue whic threatens to become a major point of confrontation betweenNV newspapers and the police. My line, and that of most newspaper editors, has always been tha if the police request our assistance to help in their inquiries into a crime, we will do our utmost. But, in recent months, there has been a sudden dramatic increase in requests from police .forces, not only for the originals of published photographs of public disturbances, but also for unpublished photographs and . negatives and details of photographers' identities. I have three . such requests from different forces on my desk at present. I would be extraordinarily loath to let it be thought that The oqw? Daily Telegraph would be ever less than willing to assist the 1? Police in making their inquiries. But I don't think it can Celay?vb?' possibly be acceptable for the police to expect, as a matter of course, to have access to newspaper photographs. The tone of some of the recent requests suggests that they believe that this is now their right. More worrying however, is the sequential . 1 request which we have had post Trafalgar Square that we supply the names of the photographers involved with a view to calling ?qf them as witnesses. This has been made a far more serious matter since the police admitted publicly that they have officers masquerading as photographers at scenes of public disorder. As a number of our photographers have pointed out, everyone carrying a camera at a riot or post football match disturbance must be deemed to be either a policeman at worst, or a newspaper photographer doing the job for them at best. The consequence for the cameraman is likely to be the same. Lvetzpc? It has been our policy up until now to hand over pictures when the necessary Court Order has been granted by a judge, and in C34 - future I am happy to leave this decision to the judiciary. But I . am concerned about the secondary demand that members of our staff should then be prepared to stand in the witness box in relatively - trivial cases of public disturbances. Clearly, an event such as the murder of two soldiers in Northern Ireland, is a matter. At a time when public confidence in the police is We THE DAILY TELEGRAPH PLC REGISTERED IN ENGLAND No. 451593 REGISTERED OFFICE AS ABOVE RECYCLED PAPER already under threat, I should be as sad as I am sure you would be, if we are forced into a confrontation on this issue. In short, I believe we can readily justify providing the police with photographic evidence in exceptional and serious criminalmcases. I do not believe that we can accept a situation in which Such requests become routine. I am copying this letter to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. My:object in writing is to do everything possibleyto encourage those responsible for making police policy to help us avoid a direct confrontation between the police and the media on this issue. Best wishes. -ours sincerely, HI I 8.1.13.9 r14. . QUESTION FOR.WRITTEE 1990 TUESDAX 5 JUNE of re ort from the ANSWER ON if he will call for he 31 March incident in Tr 1?s. I. To ask the Secretary a olice for the Metropolis on afalgar these detained, following Sq?are, as to those: released without charge, and ch?rged, by offence, and by age, sex and place of residence. DRAFT REPLY I am informed by the that by 8 June 471 people which occurred during the disorder agains March. The information the age, and sex in table 1 below: the community charge wh Of these 58 were subsequen 11'. ommissioner of Police 0 have been arre ich took place in Lond tly released wi eadily available about the charges pref of those charged with these offences is and following the demon on on 31 the Metropolis sted in connection with stration thout charge. erred and, set out TABLE 1 MALES GIARGES AGE 14-20 21-25 26?30 31-35 Over 35 Total Riot - 4 - - 4 Vi: lent Disorder 19 37 20 7 6 89 Affray 7 10 8 - - 25 3.4 Public Order Act 21 45 17 6 2 91 3.5 Public Order Act 10 18 11 2 - 41 Grievous Bodily Harm 1 2 - 1 - 4 Other Assaults 6 22 8 3 2 41 Burglary 12 8 3 3 1 27 Theft 12 8 3 - 23 Dishonest Handling 10 2 4 - 16 Criminal Damage 4 15 6 1 2 28 Arson 1 1 - 2 *E?nclosed Premises 1 - - 1 Obstructing Police 6 11 5 - 1 23 Highway Obstruction 8 8 4 1 1 22 Drunk and Disorderly 1- 1 - 3 5 Drugs 1 3 2 - - 6 Total 119 195 92 24 18 448* WALES . CHARGES 14-20 21?25 26-30 31?35 0:12:12 35 TOTAL Riot .. 1 .. 1 Violent Disorder 4 4 3 - - 11 Affray - - 1 - - 1 5.4 Public Order Act 4 3 1 - 8 5.5 Public Order Act 3 - - - 3 Grievous Bodily Harm - - - other Assaults 2 4 2 - - 8 Burglary 7 - 1 8 Theft 3 2 5 I Dishonest Handling 1 - 1 Criminal Damage 1 - 1 2 Arson - - - - - Enclosed Premises - - - - Obstructing Police 2 3 3 - 8 Highway Obstruction 1 3 1 - 1 6 Drunk and Disorderly - - - - - - Drugs - 1 - 1 Total 28 20 12 1 2 63* *Some individuals may be charged with more than one offence. rhe stated place of resid?nce of those arrested (including those released without charge) is set out in table 2.below: London Nb Fixed Abode Hampshire Avon and Somerset Surrey Kent HertfordShire Sussex Yerkshire Nottinghamshire Berkshire Greater Manchester Lancashire WEst Midlands cambridyeshire MErseyside Buckinghamshire Dyfed HUmberside Leicestershire Suffolk Oxfordshire EABLE 2 Wiltshire Eire Channel Islands Cleveland Dorset Spain Halta Devon Gloucestershire Norfolk. Staffordshire Whrwickshire worcestershire Glamorgan Dumfries Shropshire Irance Rosshire Gwent Total 471 I 1 FHUH HD 1 I HM .1 i 3.1? 1 321 3932 PEOPLE CHARGED 1 BY POLICE 4? TOTAL @0913 ARRESTED AND mm RETURN POLICE STATIONS JUVENIIES CAUTIONED BY YJLC.S. 2 TOTAL OF PEOPLE ARRESTED ON DAY or MAJOR mum-m AND NO mama}? ?3 ACTION TAKEN TOTAL OF PEOPLE CAUTIONEI) ON DAY a? MAJOR INCIDENT 18? . TOTAL OF SUMMONED a?smm mj?iJ i r? kwum HU rm U1 3:1 P?ece of Reei?ence of Persons dealt with as a result of v.11 ?ax Satur?ay Elst March 1990 London N0 Fixed Abode Essex Avon Surrey Kent grtfor?- Sussex Yorkshire Berkshire Greater Manchester Lancashire West Midlands Canbridgeshilc Merseysi?e Buckinghamshire Dyfed Humberside Leicestershire Suffolk Oxfordshire 2% 3i I . .L Lh Eire Channel lslan?s Cleveland Dorset Spain Malta Devon Gloucestershire Norfolk Northamptonshire ?bxwickshire Worcestershire Glamorgan Dumfries Shropshire Rosehire Gee ?t 73m mu! '7/1 ?bmff?s My] :l I 72 221 Lag:53.4.-. - ..-- - a- 1.1-: I .535lawgr?. 4--. - J..- . unlitim-?Mamlgs-c' 5* I a ?11552,2" I I - II ziiL'raL?r?ijn -. II I..I .. i 1 - ?-Zkgg . anmua sum-?5212" ammo IQ r. v?nh? wint- - w; (34mm;wa "1mm i r. I 1 I Ewan?: (mast I I I I, . 'In'imu'o ar'mna's?s I 1-3303? @5er . if-Lf oi?z'eezz 92 save ?313 \UlFEMALI . PRIMER AT . 55.56 3? A 39 A0 1411142 I.) E. I: no: .1101.me '3 Ill-"f RAY I s.h.wm.1c 0mm In? 5 I .5. PUBLIC ACT ?Tm mm DER I - ?puma!? I. 5mm.? G.B.HI 4-w? .. worry?Ir? II [in emit Mir?; a} - 1? In?: I Uti) HI) 1 L312H I con-mot: 1:154:36? I .41. J. 335 AULT ru. . mud?~? . . .- nIsszS'r 't CF-tl?lfl?. Damn"ma-L 1-. a. I?m-1475513 I . I 039mm? HIGHWAY I ?312 DRUNK . WESLEY: '3 ?3?52? - . I. . I -wuv. i l. 63:; 3161 . 1+4 4 $319339 a? 5/2. The Receiver Metropolitan Police New Scotland Yard Broadway London SW1H OBG 23 May 1990 Although we do not normally minute our informal discussions, we covered so much ground today that I thought I might just send you this note of matters on which either you or I promised action of some sort. There is one oint I had do 0 raise, but which slipped my memory: Sir vitation to the Commissioner, in his letter 0 pri copied to you) to make a modest late bid for vehicles, plant and equipment to cover modifications to vehicles etc. in the light of the community charge disturbance on 31 March. There has been some discussion about this between police department colleagues here an on No. 2 Area: but clearly, any PBS bid could only come through you or MH and I would be grateful to know whether one will or coming and if so on what sort of timescale. Divi!ion hcc?Lwi 5 Fleck: pi; ?Cr- 3: pd:jl39 DISCUSSION WITH THE RECEIVER 22 MAY 1990 PES 1. I said I would write before the end of the week on a number of key issues, including pay assumptions and realism on the traffic wardens bid. . Nil cost civilianisation 2. I said I would write before the end of the week setting out our thoughts on the general proposition: and seeking a rapid clarification of where the benefits of nil cost civilianisation for the current year would fall, so that we could move rapidly to seek the Home Secretary's and Treasury approval. PAC report 3. I said that we would hope to have MWaterial by the end of next week, given the Treasu equirement that we provide a full draft (which would need to be cleared with the Home Secretary) by 20 June. Format and timing of Estimates 4. We agreed to look at this during the summer, ie, well in advance of Estimates for 1991/92. End year flexibility 5. I undertook to let the Receiver know of the prospects for end year flexibility under the new capital control regime; and similarly research current Treasury views on end year flexibility on current expenditure. Home OfficegMet liaison 6. We agreed to review the extent Eb which the Met was linked into central Government circulation lists on resource issues [Receiver receives PEO Minutes on a personal and in confidence basis; Establishment Officer meets head of ED3 regularly]. I said we might revive the idea of a meeting between our P?b, the Met's Director of Finances and the Receiver and/or his deputy. 7. On the question of the six bi-fateral Receiver/Deputy Secretary meetings, the Receiver undertook to reflect further on whether there was useful business to to discussed in this forum: I said we would be reviewin the pattern of liaison generally, in the light of departure, and the development of closer working con ac at grade 7/grade 5 levels. 8. The preceding item led on to discussion of the Receiver's Annual Report, and whether we ought to have a formal discussion of it in some forum or other. The Receiver saw his Report more as a internal management document, but had no objection to it being discussed with the Home Office. I undertook to discuss this with colleagues. May 1990 I find it difficult to know how to respond to you clearly. I sympathise with anyone who was caught up with the appalling lawlessness of this demonstration, and I understand the horror and shock which your daughter must feel at being catapulted into the middle of something of which she was totally unaware. 7 ow?z One of the most vexation parts of riots or near?riots is that the innocent get involved and hurt as well as or because of - the perpetrators. And in this context the police are often as offended against as are the by-standers. If a police officer does not display an identifying number then he contravenes the Force's General Orders which require uniformed officers to wear personal identification whenever they are on duty. Failure to do so renders them liable to disciplinary action. Of course, I am not aware if any - or, if so, how many - police 0.q2.3 officers did not wear'any identification as you suggest. All I The Lord can tell you is that it is against the Metropolitan Police Orders I I if they do So. The correct person to whom to take complaints about the conduct of police officers is the Commissioner, who has the operational responsibility for them. I am, therefore, forwarding our correspondence to him. If you like to continue this, I suggest that you do so either with the Commissionerfor, more formally with the Police Complaints Authority} .Thanks for your letter of 30 Apr? lviolence was used against the police, .yiolence against peaceful people. "if; MM E983 ?vxc Rd A.) If my? r??539??f, - M- (S. 10 May 1990 26?%?40 rel-b U4- Ecu? about the poll tax demonstra- tion on 31 March. I am afraid I have not been putting my point quite ckarly enough perhaps. I am not saying that there was no violence against the police, I am not saying that the police started the violence, I am not saying that in the places where and at the times when the police reacted excessively. What I am saying is this: at other times and other places where no violence was being used against the police, the police used 'This is a complex situation, hard to judge. The point I feel justified in putting to you with all the force I can is that it is no longer right to leave the judgement of such complex matters in the hands of the police themselves, whose conduct has been criticised and will continue to be criticised. When it comes to the inquiry - ascertaining what happened - the conduct of the police ought to be examined by an authority outside the police. I am pursuingt??j;matter with you for reasons of experien and knowledge. I enclose a photocopy of a letter from a to the "Independent Magazine": I wonder if I could ask you to' read it personally. I expect you will agree it is credible. of my daughters was present in the crowd (she is 4'11") wrote to the press describing her experience of police violence: she was one of those who were unaware of any prior violence by the crowd against the police. Perhaps I may at this point make it clear that I am not protesting on her behalf about what happened to her, nor is my concern about the events of the day based on the eve?dg; in which a member of my own family was involved. I only mention it because of the highly circumstantial account she has given me. One and Mrs. in her letter describes how there were police officers More than thirty years ago, my wife and I were present at a demonstration in Downing Street where we saw a policeman repeatedly raising the head of a demonstra* tor who was lying on the ground by the hair, and banging it down on to the pavement. He was not wearing a number, and nor were some others. At the time, we of course wrote protesting to the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police and to the Home Secretary against this perfectly clearly observed police brutality. We were assured by both that the incident we saw had not taken place. um In the absence of a number, of course, there was nothing more we could do about it. I believe it is very wrong for,policemen to be allowed to take their numbers off X4: 1/6 Sir: In last week's article about the poll?tax riot in Trafalgar Square (?The Mob's Brief Rule", 7 April) there is a large photograph labelled ?a West End shopper argues with a protester". The woman in the photo- graph is me, and I thought you might like feel so angry, how on earth did the young to know the true story behind the picture. hot-heads at the rally feelthe theatre, with my MRS RA SARI: husband. As we walked down Regent North-wood, Middlesex Street at about 6.30pm, the windows were intact and there was a large, cheerful, noisy group of poll-tax protesters walking up from Piccadilly Circus. We saw ordinary uniformed police walking alongside, on the pavement, keeping a low pro?le. The atmosphere was changed dramatically in moments when a fast-walking, threatening group ofriOt-squad police appeared. We walked on to the top of Haymarket, where the atmosphere was more tense and protesters were streaming up Hay- market from the Trafalgar Square end. gSuddenly, a group of mounted police char- ged at full gallop into the rear of the group of protesters, scattering them, passers-by and us and creating panic. People scream- ed and some fell. Next to me and my hus- band another group of riot-squad police appeared, in a most intimidating manner. The next thing that happened is what horri?ed me most. Four of the riot-squad police grabbed a young girl of 18 or 19 for no reason and forced her in a brutal man- ner on to the crowd?control railings, with her throat across the top of the railings. Her young male companion was frantically trying to reach her and was being held back by one riot-squad policeman. In your photograph I was urging the boy to calm down or he might be arrested; he was telling me that the person being held down across the railings was his girlfriend. My husband remonstrated with the riot- squad policeman holding?the boy, and I shouted at the four riot-squad men to let the girl go as they were obviously hurting her. To my surprise, they did let her go it was almost as if they did not know what they were doing. The riot-squad police involved in this incident were not wearing any form of identi?cation. Their epaulettes were un- buttoned and ?apping loose; I lifted them on two men and neither had any numbers on. There was a sergeant with them. who was numbered, and my husband asked why his men wore no identifying numbers. The sergeant replied that it did not matter as he knew who the men were. We are a middle-aged, suburban couple who now feel more intimidated by the Metropolitan Police than by a mob. If we THE l-l \l'RlL C) M: From: cc ivision Ext 2367 23 May 1990 Mi 552*. 1. You asked for a draft reply to the attached further letter from Lord "about the poll tax demonstration on 31 March. 2. It is hard to know to what extent on 31 March "peaceful people? were affected by the police using force to arrest or disperse disorderly elements. That some were is almost inevitable. As Lord said in his previous letter to Lor 't is matter for regret when innocent bystanders do get caught up in such operations. 3. The method of redress for those who feel they were unreasonably treated is to complain under the procedures which were established by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. We understand that 48 complaints have been made about the police's activities on 31 March. These have been mainly for assault (33 allegations), and incivility (8 allegations), but also oppressive conduct, dangerous driving, irregularity in procedure and false evidence. Eight of the investigations are being supervised by the Police Complaints Authority. 4. The claim that some officers did not have identification number showing on 31 March is wearisome. It is a recurring complaint in situations of disorder when protective clothing is donned. It was made at Wapping and the PCA has made a number of recommendations to improve the position, which the Met are considering. In the past with the help of HMIC we have exhorted forces to make sure that identification numbers are always clearly visible. It is disappointing that these claims are again being made in relation to the Met. 5. In reply to Lord. Lo out in more detail the role of the complaints procedure. And, if he agrees, I would propose that his correspondEnce with Lord ?is copied to the Commissioner to bripg home the importance we attach to clear identification in situations of may wish to bring disorder. ww-a 6. I attach a draft. gt i DRAFT House ords London SW1A OPW FOR SIGNATURE BY LORD- Thank you for your further letter of 10 May about the community charge demonstration on 31 March. on 31 March the demonstration spread over The As you say, a large area and took place over a long period of time. circumstances changed at different places and at different times. For the most part the demonstrators were orderly and well?behaved needing little more than simple stewarding. At other times the police were subjected to totally unwarranted attacks to which they had to respond. In that response, as in all situations where they employ force, the police were governed by section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. reasonable in the circumstances may be used in the prevention The section requires that only such force as is of crime or in making an arrest. It is a principle of which police officers are well aware. In answer to claims that officers used excessive force in some which should be investigated by an authority I would suggest that the police complaints circumstances, outside the police, system established by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, is the right machinery to use. This enables a person, or someone acting on his behalf, to complain if he feels he has been to which I referred in my letter of 9 April, wronged by the police. If the complaint is sufficiently serious the investigation may be supervised by the independent If the Authority does not it will nevertheless review the Police Complaints Authority. supervise the investigation, investigation on its completion. I understand that 48 complaints have been made, 33 of which allege assault. Eight investigations are being supervised by the Authority. As for officers not displaying identity numbers I agree with you that when it happens (as is claimed in the article you enclosed with your letter) it will not do. I know that it is the Metropolitan PolicemForce policy that constables in protective clothing should display identifying numbers. This policy is given effect by the Force's General Orders which require uniformed officers to wear personal identification whenever they are on duty. Failure to do so renders them liable to disciplinary action. The Police Complaints Authority's recently completed report into the events at Wapping on 24 January 1987 made a number of recommendations about the identification of officers in protective clothing and these are being given careful consideration in the Force. Apparent shortcomings in identification are therefore not a new problem and I was sorry to see claims being made that identification numbers were absent in some instances on 31 March. In view of my concern on this point I am arranging for a copy of our correspondence to be sent to the Commissioner. .violence against peaceful people19.54.: 10 May 1990 .t CAL Earl? 7 Em gin?g Hf M, Thanks for your letter of 30 Apr tion on 31 March. about the poll tax demonstra- I am afraid I have not been putting my point quite enough perhaps. I am not saying that there was no violence against the police, I am not saying that the police started the violence, I am not saying that in the places where and at the times when biolence was used against the police, the police reacted excessively. What I am saying is this: at other times and other places where no violence was being used'against the police, the police used This is a complex situation, hard to judge. The point I feel justified in putting to you with all the force I can is that it is no longer right to leave the judgement of such complex matters in the hands of the police themselves, whose conduct has been criticised and will continue to be criticised. When it comes to the inquiry - ascertaining what happened - the conduct of the police ought to be examined by an authority outside the police. I am pursuing thiSInatter with you for reasons of experience and knowledge. I enclose a photocopy of a letter from a Mrs. to the "Independent Magazine": I wonder if I could ask you to read it personally. I expect you will agree it is credible. of my daughters was present in the crowd (she is 4'11") wrote to the press describing her experience of police violence: she was one of those who were unaware of any prior violence by the crowd against the police. Perhaps I may at this point make it clear that I am not protesting on her behalf about what happened to her, nor is my concern about the events of the day based on the 5x?4w+g in which a member of my own family was involved. I only mention it because of the highly circumstantial account she has given me. in her letter describes how there were police officers therew_ wearing their numbers. More than thirty years ago, my "wife and I were present at a d?monstration in Downing Street where we saw a policeman repeatedly raising the head of a demonstra- tor who was lying on the ground by the hair, and banging it down on to the pavement. He was not wearing a number, and nor were some others. At the time, we of course wrote protesting to the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police and to the Home Secretary against this perfectly clearly observed police brutality. We were assured by both that the incident we saw had not taken place. One and x. 5:3. EYE-WITNESS Sir: In last week's article about the poll-tax- riot in Trafalgar Square (?The Mob?s Bnef Rule". 7 April) there is a large photograph labelled ?a West End shopper argues with a pro'EESter". The woman in the photo- graph is me. and I thought you might like feel so angry. how on earth did the young to know the true story behind the picture. hot-heads at the rally feel? I was on my way to? the theatre, with my MRS RA sans husband. As we walked down Regent North-00d, Middlesm' Street at about 6.30pm, the windows were intact and there was a large. cheerful. noisy .g'roup of poll-tax protesters walking up from Piccadilly Circus. We saw ordinary uniformed police walking alongside, the pavement. keeping aflow pro?le. The atmosphere was changed dramatically in moments when a fast-walking. threatening group of riot-squad police appeared. We walked on to the top of Haymarket, where the atmosphere was more tense and more protesters were streaming up Hay- market from the Trafalgar Square end. Suddenly. a group of mounted police char- ged at full gallop into the rear of the group of protesters. scattering them. passers-by and us and creating panic. People scream- ed and some fell. Next to me and my hus- band another group of riot-squad police appeared. in a most intimidating manner. The next thing that happened is what horri?ed me most. Four of the'riot-squad police grabbed a young girl of 18 or 19 for no reason and forced her in a brutal man- ner on to the crowd-control railings. with her throat across the top of the railings. Her young male companion was frantically trying to reach her and was being held back by one riot-squad policeman. In your photograph was urging the boy to calm down or he might be arrested; he was telling me that the person being held down across the railings was his girlfriend. My husband remonstrated with the riot- squad policeman holding the boy. and shouted at the four rim-squad men to let the girl go as they were obviously hurting her. To my surprise. they did let her go - it was almost as if they did not know what they were doing. The riot-squad police involved in this incident were not wearing any form of identi?cation. Their epaulettes were un- ;-buttoned and ?apping loose; I lifted them on two men and neither had any numbers on. There was a sergeant with them. who was numbered. and my husband asked why his men wore no identifying numbers. The sergeant replied that it did not matter as he knew who the men were. We are a middle-aged. suburban Couple who now feel more intimidated by the Metropolitan Police than b\ a mob. If we 'l'Hl: \l l-i \I'Rll CL Mr Ub?b?t mu I (3%;qu onfb ?m luau 'L?o Q. ~6m-m-?c tax-Tw? -cf?i?cta ANTI TAX DEMONSTRATION IN CENTRAL LONDON: LETTER OF 14 UNE FROM The Home Secretary has now seen the-letter of 14 June fro which we have referred to Mr? in F8 Division for a Vice. 2. The letter raises the question of whether any future marches of this sort should be banned. 11: has prompted the Home Secretary to ask whether he should make his own view - that the Commissioner would.have his full support in any measures he takes to avoid a repetition of the disorders on 1 April Eff?) Six. 3. This does not directly effect the drafting of the reply to Lady- But it is a difficult issue of handling on which I should be grateful for advice. Perhaps it can wait until the next meeting between the Home Secretary and the Commissioner where the point can be made in a way which does not suggest that pressure is being put on the Commissioner. Private Office PM 20 June 1990 'va Secre ary ?ea-?wee. W7 I if - if? lbwThe Leader oi the Councrl {aimed I Your reference: Direci ii I ?ension: 4" r? 19 . . Data: has mo?er IS being dealt by: My reference: II- ?3 QC Mpg/?ff? ff"- 67 50 Queen Anne's Gate London a . SW1 . awe?, fif?t?as?? 6475a 9 .m I am formally writing to express, on behalf of Westminster City Council, our grave concern at the renewed threat of disorder in central London posed by the proposed .Autumn .Anti-Poll Tax March. Local residents and businesses remember to their cost what happened earlier this year. A repeat performance would be intolerable. I would strongly urge you to consider banning the march as the only certain way of safeguarding the well-being and security of London's residents and business. As a result I would strongly urge you to consider preventing the demonstrators from marching through residential and commercial areas, requiring the march organisers to give ters satisfactory assurances about the conduct of their suppor and making sure that the Metropolitan Police have more than adequate resources to quell any disturbances before they erupt into a riot. In your letter of 9 April 1990 you gave me details of the investigation being undertaken by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I would be grateful if you could let me know the outcome of this review and the action you intend to take in respect of the .Autumn march. ?it. 1.4.7 . P.O. Bear 240, Westminster Ciiy Hall, 64 Victoria Streef, LONDON SW1 6QP Main Switchboard 071-828 8070 Taiav 7 WIT-CT I nun-inn n. 9'11 \Ilf?T?Dl a {ixlaii GATE LONDON *Esq 12 ing's Bench Walk Temple LONDON EC4Y 7EL 11 April 1990 Thank you for your letter of 2 April offering to help in any inquiry into the disorders in central London on 31 March. You will now have seen that an internal enquiry will be undertaken by the Metropolitan Police. I understand that it will review the events of the day to see what lessons there are to be learned: it will concentrate on how the police planned for the demonstration and put those plans into effect. These are very much operational matters for the Commissioner to consider, and it is not expected that there will be a role in this process for people from outside the Metrop Police. It will of course be very different from Lord nquiry after the riots in Brixton. Thank you for your interest and offer to help. LAD ER. From: - F8 Di ion Ext-? 10 April 1990 In your note of 3 April covering this letter from Mr ?011 asked if he should be put in touch with the Commissioner or someone else on the Commissioner's behalf. 2. We have spoken with the Metropolitan Police. The review which they undertake will be a thorough examination of the police handling of the event right through from the planning stages to the actions taken on the day. It will be very much concerned with operational matters. The Met will not call on the assistance of outside advisers during the course of the review. In the circumstances they suggest that correspondents should not be encouraged. 3. I attach a draft for you to send in reply to Esq in 5 Bench Walk Temple LONDON EC4Y 7EL For signature by- Thank you for your letter of 2 April offering to help in any enquiry into the disorders in central London on 31 March. VVQUKW seen reports that an internal enquirx will bl ndertaken by the Metropolitan Police. ~Ehisiwill review the events of day to seegwhat va?. lessons there are to be learned? It?will?bema?thorough~ ?examination?offhow the police planned for the demonstration and put those plans into effect. Theseg1asAyou?uial appregiate, are very much operational matters for the (j hEGh-are- Commissioner to consider . fw?oubt? vwhether be a role in this process for people from outside the Metropolitan Police. fr crvq?wk aftCE Fift: ?tdguxAU??\ 4 irx. KELLC . MEN Rm?nqmm. . .. J??u?w 2WD530? 43 r. adj?wkiiguds? fa?sz .gg :5 jj? Ea EEG 209204 5.40 thE. ZMMDO moEmO 36$ w. . .- l4 f] (3.) ?fix-i h? ?r 35! 12, BENCH WALK, TEMPLE, LONDON, EC4Y 7EL 01-353 589216 LONDON DOCUMENT EXCHANGE No.1049 FAX: 01-583 3026 RNA RIM (if90-1 ff Ark?; Can?$mmiv? pmw??. :hW Biol-Vs ?a at WW L2 Mom, WW3 (WW. 4,2 vaohc: (ll-N17! L6 {mu (.1 U. 10 DOWNING STREET LONDON 2AA From the Principal Private Secretary 4 April 19 9 0 Jim?s POLICING 0F DEMONSTRATION: SATURDAY 31 MARCH The Prime Minister has received the attached letter. It is courteous and pains- taking but in claiming that the police acted entirely without provocation it is totally at variance with the account which the Aetropolitan Police gave to the Prime Minister yesterday.c I would be grateful if a brief account could be set down of the sequence of events as the police saw them. I would be grateful also for a draft Private Secretary reply. This ne . attempt a detailed rebuttal of Mr. account. w} -. -. . I Esq. ??3135? me OfflC . 1 i w. w- a- yr fig?: uilnfw EFL-rifm'r em,- ?3sz . f tux-41 A 1m am armada: 3? (whoqu 8mm 8} A Wa?al? any? 6: fme Smart up? Mum, J?m?anfgb? sud forte?Jw ,cLMd Mt WW. ?at [fth YIN Ami I am sukcm?. avg/mind ,aM ca? 5114? mail. Fa: W??mfm 55,3411 it. 'o?rice, MM ?(mf MQ A0441 {boo WW WNW. mam/d DOM MW Sahrw zlg? March To mm dul ippaittw 10 1M 4N?ws M1 lax. abaMLul WM Mb 11m SYMPAMSQ mm (ms bu} I can 4? had" tub, 4m ?tb Ed?! (f [Momma/x mart mm ?1411!? anS had} Mosfbf Arm 4mm I am Jimmy 04141 (In: {mark MW ,bu} (shad! 51H: 7ch mm!? cam. . 7w mdeJt [who opt (Mimi mm? mm A 756d. ?25ch mix 5} out?. dulifw, ?at dx'm?d, a W, 5mm yr?m?awt IIWWI1 ftmg't was: In fa" A {m (f 941 Saudi: [Widths +6 a H??l?k6d41' and; um 61? [f A. WW MIAM- ?o wt wag/(dd lam bai?lWU 1 WM Ste Hat 4010 bare: darm(154. sa- wt?sllh ??ux if my mamas. AD not fund {at clam ll beam obn'am ?wi a Lat/qt (at {f min/mi Wild: (?Ali Liam, 114::qu PM: mrdun (NH {0 (Walt? side btruilrMQ Hawk mlud~ {lat mm {l mm mm REM 63pm. 9% {dud {Mt abs?ulrlt? N) 32pm Maui madam Jmmher (it [ht F?lict pram 1 ml a? mm dtzu?bi (?J-mitt {D?d?T?f gm {?ltrx?fif?? 9%"th (311? w?w?ila Sada/e31 ammw?gl magma Wm. Miami A Maggi {rim 6 m?u} 16' ill/Jag: $105} {Puan 11M wlxaw. Maidka? wih? Mw?dus?a. film!" Warn" aka?(d mail 54? rid {?me nw yaw-mi awaqu ?wh?t MEL-U EM Raid UL?it?tfi {115% Mb?? mu? imam/wqu Tm Mud/?it: @0551 WHEEL can Wt MM ovan :11? 6 {am A {?66 dolfm. ft; Lot pint/d ?amuwa ?lm/7% (ma?a/v! ?at rg?t'ce larqu a 51mm u? c; wk l?Wda 1M a 67$ Sat-mt [fwd/Fm 62? (M Luv ?at Ma br?fmrm ?dam/JM Tc}th whit/Wit . Ab 6111 [bus I gm .u fruoca?aw Mbi $6773misuln . no 61(th assaulti- qu Wm} mt mm: 6% Mach MMPB b13403 Wd wt: ilhid kw "At {Mice {Mm were Meow umam?wu mm {a In af ?cram {2mch I k? Eu}, M1 r7ch MWM 610?: m; be?th {a Affng Md . rm 0% spmi ma, cam Wm mind, ?it/1,43% [bit crud .M?ft Mm. is Aborilot mm id 'd bt :21 ?441 5: down I fwd/{ii . mar Shut admit auburn. Wu ?mm 5de9. its but ram saw a. Mom? Him dhwm?mu? {n ?(at (M {1m W41 dumrm 9M1 1%qu AU may Dorm. Hacked 111 in Mfg; . em and (in km I?v?bt- a awn/{dam wit Lam bra/u Lit/Hut Whit. 40M bum?: MM W32 (Wk. (Lt/3m mi 12mg ambw'mt [but ugh? Pram 55 J?b?t?ulx? L?-xi? saint bf Mw? . mm 501% {a s6? Meeiln WMVL, (2ka ?win: 6} UNA 9pm n'b?lmct Mm 1m welt-Mn uo??ft not ?3:31pm, a? raft 6. (RE ?314 C/brf?xi (5U: mrw'dm?v (Mrch hm:- uairg 51L Sigma $21 an} mime-i 41.1%? FM {Mr Shift? Raft 91m ,52 Ail?rm Emmi; {Ar-ft I ma baa/f fin-f ?nd dsw?q? ?3 ?ak? EU (mag-Ls a? wmya 2.11th xx. Tm'fgm [?me maxim, Mam: Mi M?i?hw?mwt ?g . i} {mg WM dam? ?thka nu MUS-M {b 3:er Lab? Kiwi-N6" f1 (3 {ram 07% A 7>mCQ$l daft/6%; Wham If mm Ra? Em" (U. (f fdinW1h?) mo [Blith WM {at $sz IWFIIW 6k farm, Int-.41 imam 1w W1 5am? ?mm (fwd he} iakdimfc? wwda, Wt A36th 054th km ?u grid? a} m-wdm '56 Maw's??l . ?5 a (but? Wham Mini man'an LNG akbkarri win if FEM Mat {50{mm mbsca?ow minus 4a Wm M?w ?fm, insm 1 on re?t. Saab? 11! Page Mm mmw? ?am not 04x1 ha m, 51W 4 QMMAMMKS, mm Hun: 6} PM: Mick (MM WM wan? M?hi saws (Ith aria}; SWUMW :1le Wheat: mm. . . 1 ML by? mix cwntomm a Sttufafwzu u-A new 5mm Rat Mali ?at {mitt in lash LQMCIA f?LLt an?: Lf?m?i'o bt Til/dz? Win 9mm! 1% ?at th i?b?Fglam af (M I al'??dli Off 601% Mmont?h .w Mat ?unk ?rml mi dude ?mfm. by?m?fwvo 21 57c rancid 6} MM 55 Quickpacks} Ehl??m Mo PM Ham's HAM, that Witt! QM mfm?b?s mus} kt sfaA To ful?l Md?fuu? ((th LEM mks?u? mis?t Pm am is [Awiamrlat (papf?mei {fam?} am! am wumbn": 4 Gilda-56 TN 5?ka Wine Lil 5:3: {ts rim {r Fiat mam? (2.05! Ft a Mariddn tax/x My sm?c width 001% W5 warm-?mam Wejkwi' am? m4 ,3 Mdmm? qufl?i?lut b?mma. ?rm ami 5% h?uf {r ?ll/:4 MU 411M NM WM ?u t? w?dt bf Kai? all 03- cam Mb. gig/mi LW with) M: Mg m: aihbdh czmi ?g?rL/lmw Ha; Paint Mb?ws wafda bu Hm} L?ka 4w?? aim: b: muss bf 5mm 1% on 51 um Agata-kw Hat mama?s! Soda (emf awi Husk WW1 Ezt fh?m? km %m 10mm.ng I UNCLASSIFIED UNCLAS ED ADDITIONAL DISTRIBUTION - 4/4/90 TO IATE FCO TELNO 311 DP 0413102 APRIL 90 155404 MDHIAN 7333 INPRISONMENT 0F SPANISH STUDENT 1. PRESS REPORT THE ARREST DURING THE DISTURBANCES IN LONDON OF A SPANISH ?manm CHARGED HITH STEALING THO BOTTLES 0F COLOGNE, HIS SU SENTENCING TO 28 DAYS IN SCRUBS. 2. UNDER THE HEADLINE SPANIARD, THE ONLY PERSON IMPRISONED AFTER LAST DISTURBANCES IN DIARIO 16 (POPULAR DAILY) CARRIES A CRITICAL, INSIDE-PAGE ACCOUNT OF THE CASE BY ITS LONDON-BASED CORRESPONDENT. THE ARTICLE STATES THAT SENTENCED BEFORE HE COULD BENEFIT FROM CONSULAR ASSISTANCE OR NAME A OF HIS CHOICE: THAT THE SPANISH CONSULATE WAS NOT INFORMED BY SCOTLAND IMPLYING A BREACH OF CONSULAR AGREEMENTS. THE ARTICLE NOTES THAT REPRESENTED BY A APPOINTED AT THE SUGGESTION, AND RECORDS THAT LANGUAGE DIFFICULTIES MAY HAVE CONFUSED THE COURT OVER MILITARY SERVICE. IT ALSO IMPLIES A DISPRIORITY BETWEEN THE VALUE OF THE COLOGNE, LESS THAN FIVE POUNDS STERLING, AND THE SENTENCE. FATHER IS GUOTED AS DESCRIBING THE SENTENCE AS A TOTAL THE ARTICLE NOTES THAT THE SPANISH EMBASSY HAS COMPLAINED TO THE BRITISH MEDIA oyER THEIR COVERAGE OF THE CASE, THAT THE EMBASSY IS Now ASSISTING AND THAT HE WILL APPEAL. 3. LESS SENSATIONAL REPORTS APPEAR IN AND EL PAIS REPORTS THE CASE IN AN ARTICLE ON THE STRANGENAYS PRISON RIOT (COVERAGE OF HERE HAS HIGHLIGHTED PRISON CONDITIONS IN THE UK). IT STATES THE IN A POLICE CELL TOGETHER NITH FOUR OTHERS, AND THAT THEY OBLIGEO TO AND SLEEP ON THE 4. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT WE SHALL RECEIVE PRESS ENQUIRIES 0N GRATEFUL FOR DETAILS OF THE CASE AND LINE TO TAKE. FEARN PAGE 1 UNCLASSIFIED MAIN MINIMAL SED ADDITIONAL F8 DIVISION, UNCLASSIFIED 28 CONSULAR NEWS 1 HOME OFFICE PAGE 2 UNCLASSIFIED 29 155404 MDHIAN 7333 QUEEN GATE LONDON SWIH 9AT Ci April 1990 Cc: ?Lo Thank you for your letter of 2 April about the serious disorder in central London last Saturday. I was appalled at 'what happened and as you know, I visited the area on Sunday. I enclose a copy of the statement which I made to the House on Monday. Most marches and static demonstrations whether they are held in London or elsewhere do of course pass off without serious incident: and as I said in my statement, I would want to defend the right of peaceful demonstration. There was nothing peaceful about what happened last Saturday. The Commissioner will now undertake a review to see what lessons are to be learnt from what occurred. I think it is right that the police should carry out such a review since it is the Commissioner who is responsible for Operational policing in London. Iiam glad if my visit on Sunday provided some support to the people and businesses of Westminster. I hope they recover quickly from the experience of Saturday. I must say that I was enormously impressed at the speed with which the debris in Central London was cleared away. I had hoped to be able to say so in the House but the opportunity did not arise. I u- was. ,t i !ea!er 0! !he Council of the City of Westminster PO Box 240 Westminster City Hall Victoria Street LONDON, SWIE 6QP a (and! 1 '1 SERIOUS DISORDER IN LONDON My Lords with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a statement about the disorder in central London on Saturday 31 March, which is now being made in another place by nu! rt hon Friend the Home Secretary. It is with a sense of outrage that I make this statement today, outrage which I am sure is shared by all Members of the House. Rt Hon and Hon Members will have seen on television some of the acts of criminal violence and viciousness which occurred and which no decent person could fail to condemn without reservation. At the end of the day's event 339 people had been arrested for public order and other criminal offences, including riot, affray and criminal damage. 374 officers of the 2,198 deployed in the police operation were injured, of whom 58 required hospital treatment. Several officers were knocked unconscious. Others received head injuries, and one officer sustained a fractured jaw and is still in hospital and has either had or is about to have an operation. 86 members of the public have reported injuries, some being in no way concerned in the demonstration but bystanders who were attacked by the mob. Forty police horses were used. Twenty were injured. There have been about 250 reports of damage to property but the full extent of it has yet to be assessed. Turning to the day's events, at about noon the demonstrators wishing to take part in the march began to assemble at Kennington Park, and at 1 pm they set off. More or less at the outset a group tried to take over the head (If the march but the police and stewards prevented them. .As, however, the march went up Whitehall small groups began to leave the main body and congregate opposite the entrance to Downing Street. A group sat down, partly obstructing the remainder of the march and encouraging others to do 50. Most marchers carried on. Another group attempted to pull down the barriers and break the police line. Some arrests were made and further officers were called up in support but the troublemakers refused to move on and increasingly the police line came under violent attack from missiles. Meanwhile the remainder of the march had been halted at the bottom of Whitehall and a previously agreed diversion was set up which sent them up Bridge Street, Victoria Embankment and Northumberland Avenue. The police had by then brought in mounted officers to help move the hardcore of troublemakers up Whitehall and into Trafalgar Square; and when this was achieved a cordon was set up on the junction of Whitehall and Trafalgar Square. This cordon, however, came under severe attack from people in the Square. At 4.40 pm the rally ended and most of those assembled dispersed peacefully. But about 3,000 troublemakers remained behind, the hardcore having assembled near the building site at the corner of Northumberland Avenue. Scaffolding was dismantled and used as n?ssiles. As police officers cleared demonstrators from the site, the site huts were set alight. South Africa Wouse nearby was attacked, a window broken and a small fire started. Officers protecting the front of the Embassy came under severe attack. Mounted officers were brought in to help; and using officers with protective clothing and mounted officers the police set about dispersing the troublemakers, who split up into four groups each of which then went on the rampage looting shops and causing damage to property and vehicles, even attacking a car with people inside. It was not until later in the evening that they finally dispersed. All responsible members of this House and the country at large will wish to condemn unreservedly the disgraceful criminal behaviour which occurred. vAll responsible members of society will wish to join me in paying tribute to the police for the courage and restraint which they showed in dealing with some of the most ferocious violence we have ever seen on the streets of London. I should also like to thank the ambulance and fire services for the part which they played during and in the aftermath of the disorders. The police are now going to make every effort to bring to justice those who committed these appalling crimes. A team of 100 officers has been set up to take charge of this major criminal investigation. There is plenty of evidence available in the form of photographs and film to enable those responsible to be identified and I hope that all sections of the press and TV will co-operate to the full with the police in the investigation. I have called for a full report from the Commissioner on the day's events and he will be reviewing what lessons are to be learned from what occurred. The right of peaceful demonstration is one which I will always defend. But the scenes in our capital city on Saturday had nothing whatsoever to do with peaceful demonstration. Clearly a large number of people set off bent on violence. There can be no justification whatsoever for the savage and barbaric acts which millions saw on their television screens not just in Britain but sadly around the world. A clear message must go from this House that those responsible should be brought to justice. My Lords, that conciudes the text of the statement. WHAT ARE THE POWERS FOR CONTROLLING Imposing Condition} Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 empowers the police to impose conditions on a demonstration, such as the route or the number of participants, where there is reason to believe that it might result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community or if the purpose of the demonstrators to intimidate. The imposition of such conditions is an operational matter for the judgement of the police. Banning Marches Under Section 13 of the 1986 Act the Commissioner may seek my consent to impose a ban on a march, if he has reason to believe that serious public disorder will result which cannot be avoided by otherwise imposing conditions. The Home Secretary cannot initiate a ban on processions. There is no power to ban static assemblies. WHY NOT REINTRODUCE THE RIOT ACT (AS SUGGESTED BY THE POLICE FEDERATION) I doubt whether attempting to read the Riot Act would have had any significant effect on .6v?ef1.. on Saturday where a section of the crowd seemed determined on causing trouble. The Common Law Offence of riot was abolished by the Public Order Act 1986 which introduced a new statutory offence of riot which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. SHOULD THE POLICE USE OTHER METHODS TO DISPERSE CROWDS - (89 CS gas and plastic baton rounds) The deployment of this equipment is a matter for the operational judgement of the police. EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE CAUSED DURING THE RIOT Line to Take Over 500 criminal offences have been reported to the police so far, including 371 offences of criminal damage, 60 motor vehicles were damaged and there was widespread looting and theft in the West End. It is too soon to estimate the cost of the damage, but it is obviously substantial. WHO WERE THE Line to Take C;a2;cxmni) Those responsible for initiating the violence were an amalgam of criminals, thugs and political extremists. Such people seek to undermine our democracy. Background Note No one group has been identified as organising or orchestrating violence but all reports indicate that many of the troublemakers carried or marched behind black flags. The anarchist group 'Class War' was also known to be involved. COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE POLICE LINES TO TAKE Over-reaction l. The police faced an intolerable situation of violence,. arson and looting. Ordinary citizens can only carry on their lives in peace and safety if that sort of thing is stopped at source. Any assessment of the police performance needs to be made on the basis of a careful investigation which the Commissioner has put in hand. Violence to innocent by-standers 2. It is always a matter of profound regret if innocent people become caught up in an affray of this kind. Clearly It is very difficult for the police both to deal with trouble makers and to ensure that the innocent come to no harm. The real culprits are those who disrupt a peaceful demonstration with violence. Truncheons use of horses van driven at crowd 3. The police have a duty to restore law and order. In such a tangled situation this is always a difficult task. We shall have to await the results of the Commissioner's inquiry and the various complaints investigations before we can say with any certainty whether any individual policemen over-reacted or behaved improperly. But I repeat that the real culprits are those who started the riot. Complaints 4. There is a statutory procedure for dealing with complaints against the police. The Commissioner of Police has this morning received 11 complaints against his officers, 9 of which related to assault. These will be dealt with under the statutory procedure and will be thoroughly investigated. NOTE Complaints against the police REFERRALS l. A complaint must be referred to the PCA for supervision and they must supervise it if it alleges death or serious injury (defined as a fracture or cut needing two or more stitches). 2. It must also be referred to the PCA if it involves assault occasioning actual bodily harm, corruption, or a serious arrestable offence. The PCA can choose whether or not to supervise these cases. 3. A non-complaint matter may be referred to the PCA by reason of its gravity or exce tional circumstances, as may any mk?ch?other complaints which the chief officer thinks it appropriate for the PCA to consider. 4. We do not yet know whether any of the 11 complaints so far made are sufficiently grave to require referral to the PCA under 1. above and the Commissioner has not so far indicated any intention to refer the matter under 3. above. The fact that he has announced his own inquiry.wou1d seem to indicate that this is unlikely. OUTCOME OF COMPLAINTS 5. All complaint investigations are reviewed by the PCA on completion. If the officers concerned have not already been charged with criminal or disciplinary offences and the PCA think there may be a case against them, the PCA can refer the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service or direct that police disciplinary charges be brought. COMPOSITION OF PCA 6. The PCA is made up of independent distinguished members of the public who have none of them ever served with the police. It is chaired by a judge of the Central Criminal Court and its members are drawn from all walks of life including the law, commerce, trade unions and social service. LENGTH OF TIME 7. Most complaint investigations take best part of a year to The Wapping investigations took 2% years but were complete. Early reports on the numerous and conducted by a small team. complaints should not be expected as detailed investigation of the sort required is very time?consuming. 2 April 1990 F2 Division Home Office COMPENSATION LIKE TO TAKE The Receiver to the Metropolitan Police will make compensation available in respect to houses, shops or buildings or their contents under the Riot Damages Act 1886 within the area in which he is satisfied that the riot extended. He will be issuing guidance for potential claimants. Notification of intention to claim should be made to the Receiver within 14 days of the event. People should claim against their insurers in the usual way even if they think they may be eligible for riot damages. Compensation under the Act does not apply to personal injury or damage to vehicles. Claims in respect of personal injury may be made to the Criminal Injuries Board in the usual way. GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO COMPENSATING: AUTHORITY: LINE TO TAKE The liability for compensation under the Riot Damages Act 1886 rests with the Receiver to the Metropolitan Police. If he request assistance we shall consider this carefully in the light of the ability of the Metropolitan Police to meet cost unaided without to its View to its efficiency. COMPENSATION UNDER THE RIOT (DAMAGES) ACT 1886: BACKGROUND NOTE The Act applies to houses, shops or buildings injured or destroyed and to property therein injured, stolen or destroyed by "persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together". Applications for compensation are made to the compensation authority which pays such compensation "as appears to them just". The Act does not cover loss of business or damage to property not in the buildings eg vehicles parked in the road. The compensation authority in the case of London would be the receiver to the Metropolitan Police. He has decided that he will make assistance available within an area which he will be defining as affected by the riots. Claims must be made within 14 days of the riot. The Receiver has said that notifying him of an intention to claim will suffice. GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO COMPENSATING AUTHORITY BACKGROUND NOTE In previous instances of riots financial assistant from Government has been made available to meet the costs if there exceeded a threshold. (In the past the threshold was the product of a 1p rate which translates according to to ?2 on the community Charge.) We have not yet received any claim from the Metropolitan Police. If we do it will need to be considered in the light of their ability to pay without detriment to efficiency, and the threshold and level of assistance will need to be agreed by the Treasury. 5?4.bm STATISTICS ANNEX A BREAKDOWN OF OFFENCES REPORTED TO THE POLICE SO FAR ANNEX DETAILS OF OFFENCES WHERE PERSONS HAVE BEEN CHARGED. ANNEX NUMBER OF ARRESTS AND DETAILS ABOUT THOSE ARRESTED. ANNEX NUMBER OF POLICE .v?-Iv an . i, u: ?elk 3650 09.5mm Evan.? wuwamwm Rank?. 095% .nmw?nwm. mowwnm rmmn?hm E5 03.9.6 306% 855.. LJ -J (n .11. . H4 hf .V: .. meWaHm @3839? worwnm ?Ia Edda Hang Egg WE Om H From cc F8 Division Ext 2367 8 March 1990 HMCIC MEETING WITH MR HUNT AT 10.45 AM ON MONDAY 12 MARCH 1. Mr- is the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities and therefore responsible for the introduction of the community charge. He has asked to see Lord- on the public order implications of the introduction of the charge. CURRENT DISORDER 2. As you will have seen from the submission which I put forward yesterday there has been disorder at some (but by no means all) council meetings where the community charge level is being set. For the most part it cannot be said to have been serious. The worst instances have been in Bristol on Tuesday night (see Annex of submission of 7 March) and on Wednesday night in Southampton. Brief details of what happened at Southampton last night are attached as an annex; so too are brief reports on other places where we know there' were demonstrations last night. 3. The assessment of the involvement of Militant Tendency remains as I described in my submission of 7 March. That is, no evidence of national co-ordination, and varying degrees of involvement at demonstrations ranging from none to considerable. 4. There has not been any suggestion (yet) that the police have done less than they should have done in policing the community charge level setting meetings. I understand from the Department of Environment that the situation-is made more difficult because some councils do not mind their meetings being disrupted if it means they can put off awkward decisions. The Department of the Environment is currently considering imposing on councils model standing orders so that meetings are conducted in a more orderly fashion if there are attempts at disruption. 5. None of the officials with whom I have spoken at the Department of Environment is aware of what?wants to raise. The police's duty in the case of demonstrations is to maintain the peace and prevent or deal with the commission of criminal offences. We cannot direct them how they perform these duties. I have not heard it suggested, and nor do I believe from what I know, that the law or their powers are inadequate for dealing with the demonstrations and disorder which has occurred in connection with setting the community charge. 6. As I explained in my note of 7 March budget setting meetings have to be completed by 11 March by which time councils will know what their community charges are, although by law they do not have to set them until 1 April. POSSIBLE FUTURE DISORDER 7. may be worried about the longer term and what will happen if people refuse to pay their community charge when their bills start arriving later this month and in April. I understand that if people do not pay, a council may use civil procedures to obtain a liability order from the courts. The council may then obtain the due amount by a number of methods and if necessary, by sending in bailiffs. In the final analysis debtors can be imprisoned but this again is a civil procedure. It is hard to imagine defaulters and/or dissatisfied payers coming together spontaneously in sufficient numbers with intent to cause serious public disorder. More probable, I would suggest, is organised demonstrations where behaviour deteriorates and the police become subject to attack as they seek to control the demonstrators. It is not an unusual situation with the police finding themselves as the immediate face of Authority and thus regarded as a legitimate target. 8. As I have said in the previous paragraph the charge seems unlikely by itself to lead to spontaneous serious disorder. But it is not inconceivable that it could be a factor which raised community tension and therefore made this more likely. We are next week going to set in train the annual exercise of asking inner city forces for an assessment of the likelihood of disorder this summer. If chief officers see the imposition of the community charge as having significant effect on the prospects for disorder they will report this to us. SCOTLAND 9. The experience in Scotland where the charge has been in place for a year has been different. At the time of setting the level of charge there was organised opposition by political parties. There were marches and demonstrations. There were not however the same determined efforts to disrupt council meetings that there have been in England. Since the charge bills went out (a year ago), the Scottish Nationalist Party has encouraged people to resist payment and make life difficult for collecting authorities but there has been no street violence. 10. I will attend the meeting. - Index Southampton Leeds Liverpool Walton?on-Thames Plymouth Newbury London Bolton Oldham Leicester Newcastle-upon-Tyne ANNEX SOUTHAMPTON Approximately 500 demonstrations gathered outside the Civic Centre; 100 of these were permitted into the public gallery. Once the meeting of the council commenced there was a lot of disruption from the gallery, shouting, abuse etc, and one man lowered himself into the main chamber and started to knock things off tables. He was overcome by council members and held until the police took him away. The Chairman adjourned the meeting temporarily while the police attempted to clear the Chambers, forcibly removing a number of people. Others tried to storm the Civic Centre from the outside by ramming doors but failed to gain entry. Damage however, was minimal. 27 people in total were arrested for public order offences. It is estimated that there were approx 50 SWP demonstrators and most of the 27 arrests were from this group. Most of those, however, it was later identified were from the Southampton area. Only one of those arrested has been charged. There were also a number of Student Union and a NALGO demonstrators. LEEDS 120 protesters were present. 2 arrests were made for Public order offences. There was no damage and there were no injuries sustained. There were a small number of Militant supporters but it is not known whether these were local or from outside the area. LIVERPOOL 100 protesters were present which included a large number of Militant supporters. There were no arrests or injuries and no damage was caused. However, yesterday's Council meeting was to discuss the budget for the area. The actual community charge will be decided at a meeting to be held on Wednesday 28 March when further demonstrations are expected. WALTON- Up to 750 protesters were present. 2 arrests were made for minor public order offences. There was some slight damage with a couple of windows being broken. No injuries were sustained. There was no obvious outside influence from left?wing groups. PLYMOUTH Councillors met at 11.00 am yesterday (7 March) at the Civic Centre to set the community charge. 300?400 people gathered outside to demonstrate. The majority of these were concerned citizens from the area although there was apparently quite a large presence of SWP members and other extreme political groups. SWP members totalled about 40-50 and some were wearing balaclavas and chanting slogans and carrying banners with the words 'Kill the Police'. The police believe that a number of SWP members had been shipped in from outside the area . There were also a number of local polytechnic students demonstrating and five were arrested for minor public order offences, a few for assault on police and one elderly man for criminal damage he broke 4-5 windows of the Civic Centre with his banner. NEWBURY 600 demonstrators gathered outside the Town Hall at approximately 6.30 pm on 7 March. Most of these were identified as local inhabitants apart from 50?60 non?locals who appeared to come 'en masse' from outside the area. There was no indication however, that any of these were Militant supports. 50 people were admitted to the Council Chambers and as the meeting progressed became increasingly vociferous with the result that one person was ejected. Approximately 125-150 youths attempted to gain entrance to the Town Hall but were held back by police. They proceeded to organise a 'sit?in' in the road. A number of other youths attempted to disrupt the traffic diversion scheme that had been organised and when this failed proceeded to block the main A34 trunk road both north and south?bound. 2 injuries resulted, one a who was knocked off his bike and one demonstrator. 2 peOple were arrested one for breach of the peace and the other for drunkenness. Both have been released. LONDON There were no arrests made at any of the demonstrations last night (7 March). No injuries were sustained and there was little, if any damage. The police believe that the absence of any disorder was largely due to their contingency planning. Left wing supporters were present at most, if not all, of the demonstrations. However, there was no evidence to suggest that these supporters were travelling from meeting to meeting. In fact, the police believe that the SWP had advised its members/supporters to attend their local council meeting and demonstrate. BOLTON 100 demonstrators protested in front of the Town Hall of which 50?60 were admitted to the public gallery. These became increasingly vociferous and the council meeting was temporarily adjourned whilst the public gallery was cleared. There were no arrests, no damage and no injuries. It was clear that there were a few SWP supporters but these were all locals. OLDHAM 150 people gathered outside the Town Hall. There was no evidence at any Militant supporters. No damage resulted and there were no arrests or injuries,82 people were admitted to the public gallery and although there was some noise and shouting the meeting continued without any major disturbances. LEICESTER 300 demonstrators gathered outside the City Hall and the meeting was temporarily adjourned when a member of the public became increasingly noisy and disruptive in the public gallery. An effort was made by protesters outside to gain access to the building but was unsuccessful. Most of the demonstrators left shortly after this. No arrests were made and although one local Militant supporter was interviewed by the local TV station there was no evidence that there was a large presence of Militant supporters and certainly no one from outside the area. NEWCASTLE- 600 protesters were present on 7 March. There was 1 arrest for drunk and disorderly behaviour. There was no damage and no injuries were sustained. There was evidence of left?wing demonstrators but those were believed to have been local. PRESS RELEASE I attach the final version of the Home Secretary's press release about the Stafford by-election. Private Office 8 March 1990 1 . - 1n." Knu? I I. . 3? u. Release time: 7 00 pm, 8 March 1990 PRESS RELEASE HOME SECRETARY CONDEMNS CHARGE VIOLENCE AND ATTACKS STANCE ON The Home Secretary, the Rt Hot-P, speaking last night at a public meeting in the Mid- Staffordshire By?election said: utterly condemn the scenes of violence and intimidation organised by extremists protesting against the Community Charge. There is often an excuse for this kind of violence, but never a good one. It is time that- not only condemned these hooligans, but drummed out of the Labour Party the numerous members who support them. But support for law and order has never been Labour's strong point. When Scargill's miners launched their assaults in what was close to an attempt to overthrow democratic government, the Labour leadership sat mute or contented itself with sniping at the Police. And this week they have shown again they are soft on terrorism by voting against the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism legislation which provides powers which are essential in the fight against this terrible evil. The Prevention of Terrorism legislation has been in existence for over fifteen years. Without it, the work of the security forces in countering terrorism would have been more difficult and less effective, and the appalling toll of casualties would have been greater still. Any hint that the determination of the citizens of the United Kingdom, who believe in the rule of law, is weakening and any sign that they were no longer prepared to take the necessary measures to control terrorism, would serve only to encourage those who respect neither law nor democratic government. For many years the Opposition recognised this and voted each year to renew the legislation which they introduced. Then suddenly in 1982 they changed their mind. Why? Not because terrorist killings had ceased; not because the threat to_our armed forces and civilians was over. It was not the terrorists who had changed; it was the Labour Party. And in doing so they lost any claim to be considered a responsible Opposition. Two nights ago in the House of Commons they had the chance to show they were made of something and fit to govern, that if returned to power they would face up to their responsibilities. But united they trooped in to the lobby in an attempt to weaken our defences against the IRA. I shall certainly do my level best to keep the public aware that when it comes to the most fundamental issues, the country's defence against attack from without and within, the Opposition cannot be trusted. Concerning local law and order issues, the crime clear-up rate in Staffordshire is higher than the national average (45 per cent compared with 35 per cent). As in most police forces the clear?up rate has risen from its 1987 level (42 per cent in Staffordshire and 33 per cent in England and Wales). Neighbourhood Watch is the largest community watch initiative in Staffordshire. Efforts are concentrated on preventing burglary, theft, criminal damage and public disorder. Neighbourhood Watch appears to be one of the most effective crime prevention initiatives ever undertaken. Crime tends to be reduced in areas where the scheme is adopted with a corresponding reduction in the fear of crime. The Scheme is excellent for community spirit and police/public relations." (Ends) (554 words) ?He. From cc D1vision Ext 2367 7 March 1990 DEMONSTRATIONS AGAINST THE COMMUNITY CHARGE 1. You asked for a note following reports about demonstrations over the last few days at council meetings where the level of community charge was being set. Some of the demonstrations yesterday evening resulted in scenes of public disorder which have been widely reported. Other demonstrations have been orderly. Details of the demonstrations of which we are aware are annexed to this note. 2. Typically the demonstrations where there has been some disorder have involved groups of people entering the council chamber or council premises to disrupt the council meeting, with larger groups of demonstrators outside. The police have been called upon to restore order both inside and out. 3. Generally the number of arrests has been small at each demonstration with few and only minor injuries to the police and the public. Bristol was an exception last night with 21 arrests, mainly for minor public order offences. Four police officers required hospital treatment. 4. Much of the media coverage has focussed on the alleged involvement of far left groups particularly Militant Tendency and the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) - in organising demonstrations and fomenting disorder. We understand from the police that there was evidence of Militant and Socialist Workers Party involvement at Bristol and at a meeting at Haringey the night before but there was no evidence of them being involved in the demonstrations at Maidenhead, Reading, Norwich or Bradford. 5. Thus the involvement of Militant Tendency and other left wing organisations is not uniform. From the reports we have received there is no indication of national co?ordination of the demonstrations. The left wing demonstrators seem likely to be the most vociferous and active where they are present but it is evident from the reports we have received that they have been joined by other demonstrators wishing to show their disapproval at the setting of the community charge. PROSPECTS 6. Liverpool Council is meeting this afternoon to set their budget. The police are expecting and prepared for a demonstration. There is a possibility that disorder may occur. A number of London boroughs are also meeting this evening to set the community charge but no disorder is expected. Uxbridge Council will be re?convening on Thursday evening and Haringey Council will be re-convening on Friday to set the community charge. Earlier meetings of these councils had to be abandoned due to demonstrations and further attempts at disruption are expected. 7. I understand that councils are required to set their budgets by 11 March and thus by then will know what their level of community charge will be, although in law apparently the charge does not have to be set until 1 April. The spate of demonstrations at council meetings setting the charge should not therefore be long?lived. 8. We will keep you informed of developments. ANNEX INDEX A1 Bristol A2 Maidenhead A3 Reading A4 Weston?super?Mare A5 Norwich A6 Bradford A7 Exeter A8 Birmingham, Dover, Gillingham and Worcester A1 BRISTOL Initially, 200?250 protestors were present at the demonstration. These were later joined by a further 200?250 protestors who were believed to represent various left?wing organisations including "Militant" and the "Anti-Poll Tax Federation". Trouble started when a large number of protestors stormed the council premises, attempting to stop the council meeting taking place. A total of 21 arrests were made. The offences included: Breach of the Peace (later released without charge) Assault on police Public Order offences Actual Bodily Harm (to a police officer) Obstruction (of the above arrest) -A A -4 a: Criminal Damage 4 police officers were injured and required hospital treatment. A2 MAIDENHEAD The meeting in the Town Council Chambers to set the community charge was attended by 70 members of the Public. After about half an hour approximately 60 protesters entered the Chambers and proceeded to protest vociferously in front of council members. The meeting was temporarily adjourned until the police secured control and ejected the protesters. By this time there were a further 300 demonstrators outside the Town Hall. Two arrests were made for breach of the peace (later released without charge). Three external windows of the Town Hall were broken and one police officer was injured by flying glass. There was no indication of any Militant supporters among the demonstrators. READING A3 500?600 people attended a demonstration outside the Town Hall. Most of these demonstrators were orderly apart from a group of about 40?60 who attempted to gain access to the Town Hall. Two people sustained minor injuries in the crush but police officers managed to contain the demonstrators and entry was not gained. Two people were arrested for breach of the peace. There was no indication of any Militant supporters among the demonstrators. A4 Approximately 600 protesters were present. Six arrests were made for public order offences. There was criminal damage to doors, windows and paintings. The cost of repairing this damage is estimated at between ?3,000 ?10,000. 2 police officers received minor injuries but did not require hospital treatment. The police have no evidence at present to suggest that the demonstration was influenced by left wing organisations. NORWICH A 5 1000 people gathered outside the Council Chambers to protest at the setting of the community charge. 100 members of the public were allowed into the spectators' gallery. They became increasingly vociferous. The police were unable to contain them sufficiently for the council meeting to continue and it . was adjourned to a later date. A number of windows were broken by demonstrators outside and a number of them tried to gain access to the chamber. Four arrests were made for criminal damage. A few police officers sustained minor injuries. Further trouble is expected at the next meeting, although a date has yet to be set. BRADFORD A6 At Bradford Town Hall last night 120 people were allowed into the Council Chambers. Although vociferous at times the meeting proceeded without any major interruptions. The demonstrators outside the Town Hall were relatively orderly. The numbers were swelled by members of the National Union of Teachers who were holding a one?day strike in protest about budget spending and the community charge. No arrests were made and no injuries were sustained by either the police or the public. EXETER A7 150 - 200 protesters were present. No arrests were made. 3 police officer were injured but did not require hospital treatment. Members of various left wing organisations were present in small numbers. Those members of the public inside the meeting were well? behaved. However, those outside stormed the building and attempted to stop the council meeting. This movement seems to have been prompted by the start of television filming. When the cameras left so did a number of demonstrators even before the level of charge had been announced. Apparently a number of the protesters had been present at a meeting in Torbay earlier in the day. A8 BIRMINGHAM 200 present. No arrests, no injuries or damage. Minor influence from regular (left?wing) organisations. DOVER 30 present. All entered the Town Hall. One ejected. No arrests, injuries or damage. GILLINGHAM 400 present. No arrests, injuries or damage. WORCESTER 150 present. No arrests, injuries or damage 12-3.AH cc Mr, Mr PNQ Briefing for Table Office The setting of the level of community charge has led to demonstrations in many parts of the country in recent days. 2. Typically these demonstrations seem to have involved some tens of demonstrators entering council premises and causing some disruption of the meetings with more demonstrators (perhaps hundreds outside). The police have been called to restore order at meetings and to keep order outside. 3. Generally the number of arrests has been small, maybe 2 or 3, at each meeting with few and only minor injuries either to the public or the police. Bristol seems to have been exceptional in the number of arrests made (21). These were for minor offences. 4. In the Thames Valley police force area where there were demonstrations last night at Maidenhead and Reading there was no evidence of militant tendency involvement. At Norwich, too, there was no evidence of militant tendency involvement. At Haringey the night before members of militant tendency and other left wing groups such as the Socialist Workers' party were present; so too were there at Bristol last night. F8 Division 7 March 1990 16-3.AH BRIEFING FOR THE LEADER OF THE HOUSE DEMONSTRATION AGAINST THE COMMUNITY CHARGE Line to take The Government condemns the violeqhe that has taken place. For the most part the demonstrations have not been seriously disorderly although some council meetings have been disrupted. In most places there has only been a handful of arrests for minor public order offences. There were more arrests at Bristol on Tuesday night when there were g1, and last night at Southampton when there were g1. In both those places virtually all those arrested were local peonle. The police report that there is evidence that Militant Tendency and other left wing groups have been present at some demonstrations but not at all. [Of course the Government supports the right to demonstrate within the law. What is unacceptable is when people attempt to disrupt the business of council etings by using threatening and violent behaviour]. BACKGROUND NOTE There is no indication of national co?ordination of the demonstrations by Militant Tendency or other far left?wing groups. Reports from the police indicate that Militant Tendency and other left?wing groups have been present at some of the demonstrations (for example, Bristol, Southampton, Liverpool and Haringey) but by no means all (for example, Maidenhead, Norwich, Bradford and Walton?on?Thames). Generally speaking, where there have been disorderly scenes at demonstrations against the community charge there has not been more than a handful of arrests for minor public order offences; there have been few injuries to either the police or the public and these have been minor. Bristol on Tuesday night was an exception with 21 arrests mainly for public order offences and with four police officers requiring hospital treatment. At Southampton last night there were 27 arrests also for minor public order offences. At both places virtually all those arrested were local people. 35-3.BM we From F8 Divisio Ext 3390 9 March 1990 Mr.- DEMONSTRATIONS AGAINST THE COMMUNITY CHARGE 1. You asked for a report on the disturbance yesterday evening in Hackney and Swindon. I am sorry that you have not had this sooner but it has taken the Met some time to provide information about those arrested in the Hackney disturbances. 2. You may also wish to know that Haringey, Southwark and Lambeth Councils are meeting this evening to attempt to set the level of community charge. The Met tell us that demonstrators are likely in all three boroughs and there is a risk that further disorder may occur. a HACKNEY 3. The Met tell us that a crowd of 3?5000 demonstrators gathered outside Hackney Town Hall yesterday evening. Militant and Socialist Workers Party banners were in evidence. The SWP had a stand and collecting table and distrbuted placards and leaflets through out the event. Members of the crowd were frustrated at not being able to enter the Town Hall and there also were a number of demonstrators clearly determined to Cause trouble. At around 6.30pm police began to be pelted with missiles including coins, bottles, eggs, fruit, pieces of wood and fireworks. Officers were also attacked with sticks. A number of the more difficult demonstrators brought dogs with them including'Rottweilers, Alsatians and a pit?bull terrier. In view pf the deteriorating situation reserves were deployed at 7.30pm and the area in front of the Town Hall was cleared. A number of demonstrators moved into Mare Street began to smash shop windows. There was some looting. A crowd also laid siege to Hackney police station police car parked outside was overturned and the police station wir ~ws were smashed. At 9.00pm mounted officers were deployed to help disperse the demonstraters. Order was been restored by 10.00pm. 4. A total of 312 officers were deployed during the disturbances 29 officers sustained minor injuries. 9W 5. There were 60 arrests mainly for public order offences (39 cases). Other offences included criminal damage (3) burglary (looting) (6) and drunk and disorderly (3). These people were charged in a number of different charging centres and information about addresses is only available for 47 of those charged. Of these 32 were resident in the Borough Hackney. Swindon 6. Wiltshire police tell us that demonstrators began to gather outside the City Hall in the early evening and by 7.00pm the crowd had grown to around 500. A number of demonstrators carried banners or wore badges produced by Militant and the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). Violence erupted at 7.05pm when about 40 demonstrators, some believed to be associated with Militant or the SWP, made a determined attempt to force their way into the building. Three people were arrested. Two live in the Swindon area. The third man, who has a record of convictions for violent offences, comes from in South Wales. None of the those arrested are known to have connections with Militant or the SWP. 7. Outbreaks of disorder continued until around 8.30pm when the Crowd began to disperse. During the demonstration an effigy of the Prime Minister was burnt. 8. Ten police officers received minor injuries, mainly as a result of being hit by missiles thrown from the crowd or being punched or kicked by demonstrators. 9. The disturbances were video Eaped by the police and there may be further arrests following detailed study of the tapes.