Intelligence will quell riots, not rubber bullets

Published on 15 Aug 2011 under category: article

On 28 July 2011 the government published its organised crime strategy in a document titled “Local to Global: Reducing the Risk from Organised Crime”. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, introduced the strategy as a “comprehensive cross-government organised crime strategy” that was “the first of its kind in this country”. She declared that the impact of organised crime “is seen on our streets and felt in our communities every single day” and this strategy would “help galvanise and co-ordinate the work of all those with a role in combating organised crime”. Among the stated aims was the safeguarding of communities, businesses and the state and the proposals included some radical and politically sensitive measures such as publicly elected Police and Crime Commissioners to whom police forces would be accountable and greater involvement of the private sector. The strategy further identified the need for better intelligence development and “horizon scanning” reports.

This need for a new approach to crime became crystal clear when, barely a week into August a riot at Tottenham was followed by riots across London and other parts of England. I use the term “riot” loosely, it was large scale, nationwide, violent disorder and looting. Those at the sharp end of the criminal justice system have long known of the numerous street gangs that exist in most post codes of most cities in England. Their proliferation is such that many young men, especially (but not exclusively) those in street gangs risk attack if they venture beyond their postcode boundary or “endz”. These gangs menaced their local communities but were contained in size because they recruited locally and in geographical impact because of the “endz” within which they operated.

The looting, violence and apparent inability of the police to cope with the initial riot in Tottenham led, I believe, to copy cat criminal activity by street gangs that were effectively criminal cells ready to exploit the opportunity. It should be no surprise (however unpalatable) that others, unconnected with gangs or criminality, participated, swept up by the frenzy of looting and lawlessness. If reports are correct that many of the rioters were not local then we seem to have witnessed a new phenomenon, cross postcode street crime; pockets of street criminals using Blackberry, smart phones and social networking tools to overwhelm entire neighbourhoods.

The use of numbers to overwhelm and perpetrate crime is nothing new; “steaming” is a long used gang tactic of large numbers “steaming” into a shop or establishment in order to loot. What was new here was that local rivalries were overlooked to ensure sufficient numbers were present to overwhelm all that came their way. In my humble opinion they were not united by any political or social cause; there were no placards or slogans in sight and those engaged in street gangs generally have little apparent regard for other gang members or innocents who are beaten, maimed or murdered. They were united by greed, thrill and opportunity. For many the opportunity was seen to present itself when initial rioting in Tottenham was ineffectively policed.

There has been both criticism and praise of the police. Criticism that they appeared to stand in line, transfixed, whilst shops were looted and properties destroyed. Praise that they exhibited bravery and dedication in the face of wholesale criminality and violence. What was striking was that, before Tuesday (9 August) at least, the police seemed entirely unprepared. They were slow to react and when, finally, officers were present in numbers there was no apparent tactic save passively holding the line. The restraint shown by officers is, I contend, a product of missives, training and direction that began after the Brixton Riots of 1981 and the resulting Lord Scarman report which identified the need for police to be more representative of and sensitive to communities. This notion of community policing was continued with the Macpherson Report and later developed to a principle of partial (rather than impartial) community policing to take into account the different community sensitivities and the need for a balanced approach. If one adds to that the fear that police tactics may become the subject of a court challenge (e.g. kettling), that officers themselves risk prosecution if they are over zealous, and that there is a visible absence of senior officers (above the rank of Inspector) directing operations at the front line, it is perhaps easy to understand the caution of junior officers. Those officers would likely have never faced such a situation before and decisive, top led leadership was imperative if the police opportunity was to be grasped; the potential to arrest large numbers of people committing crime and put down a marker to prevent escalation or copy cat criminality.

David Cameron has raised the possible use of baton rounds and water cannon together with powers to compel the removal of face masks as potential measures to quell future riots. Interestingly there is a document, hot off the press, that might provide some of the solutions- “Local to Global: Reducing the Risk from Organised Crime“ That strategy realises the importance of gathering and analysing intelligence, tapping into the multitude of skill and expertise in the private sector and scanning the horizon to pre-empt and co-ordinate a response.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime works closely with private sector experts to tackle organised crime and views the co-operation with the private sector as crucial to success and in areas such as cybercrime international businesses have joined the International Cyber Security Protection Alliance (ICSPA) to aid law enforcement agencies in the fight against cyber crime.

Perhaps it is time to apply skills and leadership that are available outside the strict confines of the police force to supplement those within in the fight against organised street crime? One thing is certain, strategies identified for combating crime should not be left as words on a document but implemented swiftly if we are to be confident the impact of crime will not, in the words of Theresa May, “be seen on our streets and felt in our communities every single day”.

A slightly abbreviated version of this article appeared in The Times newspaper, 15 August 2011. (Please note only Times subscribers are able to view this news items online.)

Dan Hyde is a Consultant at Cubism Law specialising in Complex Crime and Fraud.