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

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev w71
cameras in tow, Police Authority Chairs from across the country had agreed the mutual aid which played an
indispensable role in restoring order to London and ensuring that those streets were again safe to stroll. This
was done without fanfare, but quietly, in the national interest.
It did not escape our notice that having insinuated that Police Authority Chairs did not represent their
communities to central Government, in your speech you also said how helpful the Chairman of Greater
Manchester Police Authority had been in relating the concerns of his community to you, and how his personal
representations led the government to issue directions from COBRA.
Police Authority members are the much talked of “big society” in action; groups of diverse politicians and
independents giving their time to the community, irrespective of the publicity that they attract. I’m sure you
would agree that we are in a sorry state if the worth of public service is only measured by the number of
column inches it fills in the newspapers or the minutes it merits in national media.
It goes without saying that the APA and the Government have completely different views on the future of
policing governance. But that disagreement is no justification for an inaccurate, and what some have seen as a
politically motivated attack on our response to this emergency.
Police authority members have not only given dedicated service but helped deliver results to the public,
namely; falling crime, rising public trust and confidence and a meeting or exceeding of every government
efficiency target to date. As the recent HMIC inspections made clear, of the 22 of 43 authorities inspected by
HMIC, none failed and over 97% of 110 HMIC assessments were scored Excellent, Good or Adequate.
Whilst others may command the airwaves, authorities continue to get on with the job; delivering savings,
preparing for cuts, holding constabularies to account, planning for any possible transition and highlighting the
public’s concerns to both politicians and the police at the highest levels.
The APA has no desire to “pick a fight” on this issue with you or the Government—we remain as committed
as ever to working within the Tripartite to shape policing in the public interest. But we could not let such
inaccurate comments pass without response. Our sincere hope is that they were more ill-informed than
maliciously meant.
Written evidence submitted by Stafford Scott
1. It is usual practice when someone is killed that their personal details are not made public until the next
of kin has been informed. Mark Duggan’s family saw in headlines that he had been killed as a result of a
“terrifying shoot-out”. Why such a difference in treatment? I was one of those who went to Tottenham police
station on Saturday, with members of his family, to get an official acknowledgement that Mark had been killed.
No official confirmation had been given to the family. As a community we were outraged they were being
treated with such disregard by both the Met and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
2. Why, 10 years after the Macpherson inquiry reported on institutional racism in the Met, should it still
occur? We are from Tottenham: we have seen Cynthia Jarrett, Joy Gardner and Roger Sylvester killed by the
police and do not expect finite answers from an investigation that has barely begun. All we really wanted was
an explanation of what was going on. We needed to hear directly from the police. We waited for hours outside
the station for a senior officer to speak with the family, in a demonstration led by young women. A womanonly
delegation went into the station, as we wanted to ensure that this did not become confrontational. It was
when the young women, many with children, decided to call it a day that the atmosphere changed, and guys
in the crowd started to voice and then act out their frustrations.
3. I am appalled, dismayed and horrified by the level of destruction that took place. I would not defend the
indefensible; however I would like to provide an insight into the mindset of someone willing to burn down
their own neighbourhood as I believe that on this point, little has changed since the disturbances on Broadwater
Farm 26 years ago.
4. To behave in this manner young people have to believe they have no stake in the neighbourhood, and
consequently no stake in wider society. This belief is compounded when it becomes a reality over generations,
as it has done for some. If the riots at the weekend and the disturbances around London today have come as a
surprise to the police and that wider society, the warning signs have long been there for those of us who engage
with black youths.
5. First, looting comes from the belief that if you cannot get equality and cannot expect justice, then you
better make sure that you “get paid”. “It’s all about the money!” is the motto of too many young black men,
who have given up all hope of attainment in a white man’s world. This is an absolute belief for those looting
at the weekend—born not only out of their experiences but their parents’, too. They want to follow the rappers
and athletes who live ghetto-fabulous lifestyles based on natural talents, as opposed to learned skills. They
cannot see that coming through education: those who live on estates generally survive from one wage packet
to the next. Sadly this mindset also makes it easier to legitimise the selling of drugs, as that too “brings in
the money”.
6. Another sign was when they allowed themselves to be referred to by the n-word. They weren’t simply
seeking to reclaim a word. They were telling the world that they were the offspring of the “field negro”, not