Just Finished Reading: Shooting in the Dark – Riot Police in Britain by Gerry Northam (1988)

For most of the history of the British police force individual ‘bobbies’ have been armed with no more than a wooden truncheon, their authority and their own wits. Mostly this was enough. The public respected the police and saw them, by and large, as someone there to protect them. Even criminals saw them, mostly, as someone to respect. Of course there have long been armed criminals but few resorted to fatal violence against the police and those who did where both vilified and treated with heavy sentences. Then came the 1960’s and an era of large scale protest. The police coped, mostly, and relied heavily on large numbers of (again) unarmed police to restrict any public disturbance to a minimum. But it couldn’t last.

With increasing terrorist activity from the IRA and other groups throughout Europe as well as political upheaval and increasing political violence at home the police authorities themselves began to wonder and worry that their membership was at increased risk of injury or even death. Added to this was the concern that the increasing number of women officers could be in enhanced risk of serious attack. Respect for the ‘thin blue line’ was, it seemed eroding year by year. At first the changes were unobtrusive. The design of the traditional helmets was changed to make them tougher giving enhanced protection against thrown missiles. Likewise the material used in the uniform was upgraded to provide better fire protection from the increasing use of petrol bombs during rioting. But such subtle changes were nowhere near enough. During a series of urban rioting in the early 1980’s television audiences saw unarmed and clearly under equipped police driven (however briefly) from the streets under a hail of rocks and other objects that they fended off with bin-lids. It was a pitiful sight that deeply disturbed the establishment and, to be honest, a good portion of the public. Something had to be done and done it was – although largely behind closed doors and without much in the way of oversight.

Of course the British police had much experience to draw on from, for example, the French CRS anti-riot squads and the RUC in Northern Ireland. The idea of a dedicated riot police force was rejected as both too extreme and too expensive. Likewise the more military response in Belfast and other areas was considered too controversial and too confrontational. So the police looked elsewhere – Hong Kong. The Colonial Police in that exotic urban environment had a great deal of experience in riot control and could offer comprehensive advice on details such as armoured Land Rovers, the use of ‘snatch squads’ and CS gas not to mention ‘baton rounds’ and plastic bullets. Such advice was eagerly sought and incorporated into the classified Public Order Manual then distributed to Chief Constables around the UK. An intensive training programme followed with thousands of officers and senior officers training in simulated environments against real people (other police officers) using real rocks and real petrol bombs. The next time a riot and public disturbance happened the police were ready and it showed.

Which, as the author maintains, was part of the problem. The police had indeed become semi-professional riot police and had, seemingly, moved from a force operating by consent to one operating by force of arms – and all without a hint of public debate. It was this fundamental change in role and the secrecy surrounding it that the author aimed to expose to the world. Interviewing many of the people involved in the programme, including some of its critics on the inside, this is a detailed (and sometimes over-detailed) analysis of how we got here (in 1988!) and the way it seemed to be going with the increasingly apparent para-militarisation of the police and the slow drift into an occupation force dedicated to the suppression of revolt and dissent.

But hindsight is a wonderful thing. Looking back from 2018 we can see that most of his fears were unfounded. The police might be much better today at managing public disorder and coping with urban riots - to say nothing of responding to terrorist incidents - but they have not morphed into the paramilitary occupation force the author feared. Still most of the police are unarmed most of the time. The number of armed officers has certainly increased as has their level of individual protection with light body armour fitted as standard issue but this has been a slow, gradual process and may actually be trailing public opinion on the subject. Seeing armed police today – including those at airports or outside public buildings with automatic weapons (usually the H&K MP5 or MP7) no longer causes comment or even a second glance. I clearly remember in the early 1990’s when the government brought in the idea of a ‘ring of steel’ in central London where I worked which included roving road blocks. Walking along, minding my own business one lunchtime, several unmarked transit vans stopped in the road and seemingly dozens (so probably around 10-14) police armed with machine-pistols emerged, took up positions on either side of the street and started pulling cars over. It was astonishing to see and people stopped and stared as it went on. By the third time I’d seen this in action people around me didn’t even slow down or comment on what was happening mere feet away. We’d already adapted to the new reality. Likewise seeing an armed police officer in my local supermarket who had popped in to pick up a few supplies before going back on motorway patrol. Odd, but barely worth talking about.

So, despite the fact that the author’s polemic stand now seems rather quaint, this slice of political history is still very much worth reading as an insight into the mind-set of both the police at that time and the dissenters who, wrongly in my opinion, saw what they thought would inevitably give rise to paramilitarism. I don’t believe that the police themselves want it (as evidenced in a recent survey inside the police about the regular carrying of guns) and I don’t think that the public would stand for it without a very good reason – after appropriate public consultation. An interesting read but probably only for those actively interesting in the history of riot police.