Peter Trent
Aug 23, 2017 · 5 min read
Grantham police: Nazi collaborators?

Grantham police: Nazi collaborators?

Grantham police boss, Simon Outen has made a public statement regarding policing of the recent National Front march in Grantham. The full text can be accessed via the link below, ideally, it should be read before continuing with this article

https://www.lincs.police.uk/news-campaigns/news/2017/grantham-ci-outen-how-we-plan-for-and-police-demonstrations/?hootPostID=193c20a14114bd442ecb78e1a4562769

CI Outen’s arguments are not accepted, it is alleged that his decision making was flawed, his operation was under resourced and his officers behaved deplorably. Whilst it is agreed that the police have a duty to facilitate peaceful protest there is a line between facilitation and collaboration. The evidence presented here suggests that this line was crossed and that Lincolnshire Police collaborated with the Nazi National Front.

Collaboration: Helping the Nazis march unchallenged!

The oath of constable requires, that the office holder discharges their duties impartially, this must mean that in instances where there are conflicting interests the rights of all parties are taken into account and balanced. CI Outen failed to do this, in facilitating a secret march the rights of the community to protect itself and its freedom to object were ignored.

The National Front wanted to march unopposed and to this end they kept the location secret. This was posted to their Facebook page:

“The exact location will be held [sic] closer to the time of event however we can confirm the town is located in East Midlands and is accessible off the motorway with excellent links via the rail network”

The location was never made public, party members were updated via a paper newsletter. The police were informed well in advance.

CI Outen attempts to justify his decision to protect the National Front’s secret with reference to the state’s “positive obligation…to take reasonable steps to to facilitate this right [of free assembly] and to protect participants in peaceful demonstrations from disruption by others” Stating that:

“In relation to the Grantham demonstration we had no reason to believe any of this legislation would be breached, nor would it have appropriate for us to ‘publicise’ the fact that a march was taking place for all of the reasons listed”

Having ensured that the National Front’s right to free assembly was fully met, CI Outen failed ensure that the rights of others were equally upheld. Surely warning should have been given to black and Muslim residents that Nazi thugs would be present in their town, likewise, local businesses and transport providers needed to account for the possible disruption and perhaps consider increasing security. As it turns out, even the staff at the pub where the fascists were mustering were not informed. The National Front wanted to march unopposed and CI Outen went above and beyond the call of duty to try to allow them to.

Collaboration: Giving the Nazis free reign!

Intelligence from various activist groups has identified members of both Combat 18 and proscribed terror group National Action as being present on the march. They were free to congregate both before and after their event. Police intelligence is better than that of amateurs, therefore, CI Outen either was aware or should have been aware that these individuals were going to be present.

Section 12 of the Public Order Act [1986] gives the senior officer powers to impose conditions on public processions which he reasonably believes are necessary to prevent serious public disorder, serious criminal damage or serious disruption to the life of the community (it is obvious that the attendance of terror groups meets these requirements). These conditions are regularly imposed upon antifascist protesters:

In Birmingham, antifascists opposing Pegida were compelled to assemble in a certain area, contained in that area and then dispersed in a controlled manner dependent on their mode of transport. In Telford, activists opposing Britain First were subject to similar conditions

Despite the terror threat CI Outen failed to impose any conditions, choosing to believe that the National Front and their proscribed allies would be law abiding citizens. For some reason the same goodwill was not extended to opposing groups. Again, CI Outen considered only the rights of the National Front and chose to disregard the rights of the wider community.

Collaboration: Failing to stop the march on safety grounds despite police under resourcing!

Witnesses to any previous fascist demonstration will appreciate the level of police resource usually dedicated to maintaining public order: When the EDL marched in Nottingham police from as far afield as Wales were drafted in as were specialist units, police vehicles, dogs and horses.

CI Outen chose to police this march with a single line of local police, it was clear that the police were short of both staff and confidence.

When the EDL tried to march in Liverpool or the Casual Infidels in Nottingham, the size of local opposition made it apparent that the police didn’t have the facilities to clear a path for the march using reasonable and proportionate methods and that attempting to do so would have risked a serious breach of the peace. On both of these occasions the police made the sensible decision to stop the march on safety grounds. No human rights abuses were alleged as a consequence.

When it became apparent that the march in Grantham was under policed, CI Outen had two reasonable options: Either increase policing or prevent the march. He chose neither. Instead, the order was given to draw batons and beat back protesters. Up until this point the counter demonstration was peaceful. This was the action the precipitated the violence.

Conclusion

The police often have a difficult duty in balancing the rights of one group against the rights of another. Realistically, the only way that this duty can be fairly discharged is by keeping the level of police support for any group to the minimum dictated by law anything else is a favour and a favour bestowed upon one group is an oppression committed against the other.

When CI Outen sought to facilitate a secret, unopposed march he gave too much to the National Front and not enough to everyone else. When he gave the Nazis free reign he put their right to march unconditionally above the rights of the community to stay safe. When he chose to make good his deficiency in personnel by resorting to brute force coupled with a zealous enthusiasm to give the National Front a nice day out in Grantham the line was crossed. Facilitation degenerated into collaboration.

)
Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade