Policing Large Scale Disorder: Lessons from the disturbances of ...

Ev w28 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence
8. Training of officers to deal with riots:
8.1 Cambridgeshire Constabulary is of the opinion that its officers are appropriately trained for
public order policing whatever the scale.
8.2 The force trains to Common Minimum Standards (CMS) along with the majority of forces.
8.3 Our views around the use of tactic types are contained in previous paragraphs, however, it is
important to recognise the affects of this on training. It is as impractical to train two tactic types
together as it is to deploy them together. When training together individual forces maintain
interoperability by using their own tactic types and maintaining effective communications about
the objectives to be achieved.
8.4 Regional forces visit Cambridgeshire to take part in public order exercises. During these
exercises forces will use either Metropolitan Tactics or CMS and use the interoperability
described in paragraph 8.3.
8.5 The regional exercises described in paragraph 8.4 have been observed by officers and staff of
Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary and the force has received positive comment about
them.
8.6 PSU training within Cambridgeshire is as “life like” as possible and uses members of the public
as role players including young people. This provides officers with the most realistic conditions
and ensures that our officers are proportionate in their actions.
9. Whether there were any constraints on the police such as limited resources or powers:
9.1 We believe that the present legal powers are sufficient to effectively police public disorder
situations.
9.2 The constabulary did have limited resources during this period. An operational commander
described resourcing during this period as “cut to the bone with no surplus, no fat”. At times
there were gaps in our resourcing that were dynamically risk assessed to avoid compromising
local response to crime and disorder.
9.3 Vehicle resilience proved challenging for the constabulary. Our garage staff were fully stretched
keeping our vehicles going. At one stage we had to hire vehicles to maintain our resilience.
10. Whether there should be any changes to the legislation regulating normal policing processes during times
of major disorder:
10.1 We believe that the current legislation provide us with all of the necessary options we need.
11. Whether the age of many of the rioters constrained the police in their use of anti-riot technique:
11.1 Anecdotal evidence from our officers that were deployed in London during the first week
suggests that there were no particular age groups involved in the disorder.
11.2 We would refer to comments made in paragraph 8.6 and the use of young people in the public
order training environment. A public order tactics advisor suggests that this helps officers in
live situations. The same officer went on to stress the importance of this issue as it helps our
officers train for the reality of situations.
12. The application of the Riot Damages Act 1886:
12.1 The Riot Damages Act is unhelpful. The arson in Croydon was, arguably, not part of riot. It is
not clear whether media terms such as “riotous behaviour” are a de facto determination that an
incident was, in fact, a “riot”. It would be helpful to revisit this legislation.
13. To revisit relevant recommendations made in previous Home Affairs Committee reports into policing
the G20 protests and Knife crime, and other relevant recommendations, to assess if they have been implemented
by successive governments:
September 2011
13.1 An operational commander suggested that at present the presumption is that the starting point
for the police in protest situations is that protest is assumed to be peaceful. The historical
approach was that police traditionally assumed that protest would be violent unless it could be
seen that it was not.
13.2 We would wish the committee to consider the presumptions around policing large scale public
disorder.