There are many different angles to approach stop and search form. Reports have shown a startling disparity in the likelihood of black and Asian men being stopped and searched. There have also been investigations into its impact on communities, on trust in the police and its possible role in the 2011 Riots. But, its rare to see people explicitly assess whether changes in the level of stop and search deter people from committing crimes. This is the implicit, ‘common-sense’ idea that lies behind recent attempts to use the overall level of stop and search as a policy tool to reduce crime. But, despite a feeling amongst many officers and policy-makers that ‘it must have an effect’, there’s not much evidence to base these policies on.
Our study aimed to test this ‘common-sense’ assumption. Using ten years of Metropolitan Police data (2004-2014), grouped in months and weeks within each London Borough, we tested a large number of possible associations between stop and search under different powers and different crime types. The central finding is that the effect of stop and search on crime is marginal, at best. Although you can never prove a null hypothesis, there’s precious little evidence of a meaningful effect. We find some associations, particularly suggesting that stop and search might be reducing the number of recorded drug offences, but the overall picture is of tiny and inconsistent effects. Given recent trends in London, we were particularly interested in the connection between stop and search and violent crime. Looking initially at non-domestic violent crime we found no real evidence of an effect. The tiny association between section 1 and section 47 (weapon) searches showed that a 10% increase in stop and search would lead to a 0.01% decline in crime, but this effect disappeared when we looked across months and other search powers. When we tested the same models using ambulance incident data for calls related to ‘stab/shot/weapon wounds’, we found no significant effects whatsoever. This all suggests that, if there is any association between the overall level of stop and search and crime, it is likely to be at the outer margins of social and statistical significance.
This finding echos earlier studies. A Home Office report into the impact of Operation BLUNT 2 (a knife crime initiative involving a large increase in section 60 searches in some Metropolitan Police borough) found no effects. There were similar findings from a variety of other studies looking at New York, London and Chicago, all of which we describe in our paper. If this is the evidence base for Sadiq Khan’s policy proposals, then it’s not a strong one.
What should we conclude from this? If we are interested in policy tools which will reduce the overall level of crime, particularly violent crime, then there’s not much evidence to suggest that forcing/empowering officers to do extra searches on each patrol is going to be effective. But, this was never the legal justification for stop and search in the first place. The question should not be about if token stops and searches will deter potential offenders, but whether each and every stop is legally and operationally justified.
“Matteo Tiratelli is a PhD candidate at the University of Manchester looking at the changing practice of rioting in Britain from 1800 to 1939. His broader interests are in power, protest and the state. He also works for the Labour MP, Marsha de Cordova. He tweets at @MatteoTiratelli
A thread for Manchester protesters. We’ll be available via Twitter &
email all weekend: npolicemonitor@gmail.com. Reach out, if you need us. Go
prepared – mask, hand sanitiser, water, food, charged phone. Wear nondescript
clothing. The police will use facial recognition tech.
Try to maintain social distancing. Police may try to contain protesters,
pushing you together. Try to keep 2m space, if possible. The police may
“kettle” (contain) protesters. They can keep you there as long as they deem
‘necessary’. The best thing you can do is stay calm.
Write these numbers on your ARM in case you are arrested, and your phone
is off or lost.
Manchester Green & Black Cross 07761911121
Hannah @ Burton Copeland 07768805384
Avoid filming and taking photos. Blur faces if you do. The police can
use the footage against you and other activists.
Consider knocking off your phones. The police may use it for surveillance
& to extract data. https://uk.pcmag.com/how-to/127212/how-to-lock-down-your-phone-for-a-protest
No matter how ‘friendly’ they are to you, do
NOT engage in conversation with the police, even with Protest/Police Liaison
Officer (often dressed in light blue). They’re there to gather intelligence on
you and others. They are not your friend.
.@GBCmanchester Legal Observers will be present – they are independent
and have ‘Legal Observer’ on the front and back.
The police will have ‘Community Observers’ there who look similar. But
ARE NOT INDEPENDENT.
If the police stop you and ask questions, ask “Am I free to leave?” If
you are, you do not need to give them any information about yourself.
If the police stop you under Stop and Search powers, you are legally
obliged to comply. Stay CALM. Ask why they want to search you, what their
reasonable suspicion is & under what powers they’re searching you. Ask for
a receipt of the search.
If you are arrested, say “No Comment” to all questions, including
‘chats’, until you have free legal advice. Avoid the duty solicitor. See
numbers above. Do not accept a caution – it’s an admission of guilt & will
appear on a DBS check.
If you witness any incidents of police brutality, take down the collar
numbers of the officers. Check on the welfare of the victim. Afterwards, please
send us an account of what happened. npolicemontior@gmail.com
Look out for our Bust Cards (Know Your Rights
cards) at the protests.
If you receive a fine at the protests, get in touch with us. We can offer you support.
IMPORTANT: If you’re a migrant, please remember that police & Home Office databases are linked – and that rights are far less protected. Take extra care.
Finally, if you’re not attending the protests due to social distancing,
don’t feel guilty. There’s lots of ways to engage in anti-racist activism.
Come along to our (virtual) open meeting on 16 June to learn more about
how you can get involved in NPMP https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/npmp-community-meeting-what-were-doing-and-how-you-can-get-involved-tickets-108071135676?aff=ebdssbonlinesearch
As an anti-racist organisation committed to the abolition of the police, we want to express our solidarity and support for protesters in the US and for the many protesting and speaking out here in the UK.
It is necessary to speak up in the UK to stand in international solidarity with our siblings in the US, but also to draw attention to the racist nature of policing in the UK. Radical change is long overdue.
We are aware of the many public protests in the UK. Whilst we support people’s right to protest in this way, we wanted to be clear on our position. We have been reluctant to call or encourage street protest because of the dangers of Covid-19, and the particular vulnerability of Black communities and communities of colour. Whilst we have faith that activists will seek to uphold social distancing measures, we recognise how difficult this can be in practice, especially in interactions with the police, including police kettling. We also think it important that protesters are mindful of the likelihood of police deploying facial recognition at protests, and the ever-present danger of police violence.
As with many of our friends and allies, we were active before these protests, and will continue to be so during and after. We are working alongside other monitoring groups to develop resources related to Covid-19 police powers. We also continue with building our campaign for Police Free Schools in collaboration with Kids of Colour, and we continue to work with Resistance Lab as we build towards a campaign to abolish the use of lethal tasers.
We encourage those who are interested in our work to look out for details of our community meeting on the 16th June and please come along to find out more.
Those who do choose to protest – all power to you. Please look out for our bust-cards, and get in touch if you need some. Ensure your face is covered, wear black where possible, have water, some snacks, and a charge pack with you, and look out for each other. Please don’t film yourself or other people, and do not take photos of people’s faces. Write the number of a lawyer on your arm, in case you are taken into police custody.
cc:
Bev Hughes, Police Crime Commissioner for Greater Manchester
We
are writing with regard to a video circulating on social media, seemingly
filmed on the evening of Wednesday 6th May 2020. The video shows GMP officers
deploying a taser on a man in front of his young child.
We
are deeply concerned about this incident. The taser appears to be deployed
without warning or justification, and without any regard to the lasting impact
that witnessing such events will surely have on the child, and our wider
communities – particularly those that are already familiar with police
violence.
We
know that this example of the excessive use of force via taser is not an
isolated incident. Rather, it follows a national ramping up in the use of
Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs), in which GMP seem to be leading the way.
Indeed, Home Office data for 2018-19 indicates that GMP reported more incidents
involving CEDs than any other force, with the exception of the Metropolitan
Police.
As
with police use of force generally, taser use is disproportionately used
against Black people. In 2018-19, Black people were 10 times more likely to
have a CED used against them by GMP than white people, relative to population
size (Resistance Lab, 2020 unpublished). There must, therefore, be recognition
of – and action to end – the racist (and classist) practices of GMP, and UK
police forces more generally.
At
a time when the police have been given unprecedented powers, this adds to an ever-growing
body of evidence that the police simply cannot be trusted with such power,
particularly where Black and Brown communities are concerned. As such:
We call on GMP to suspend the officers
in question, pending a full and thorough enquiry by the Independent Office of
Police Conduct.
Given that these problems are institutional, we also urge GMP not to
individualise blame, but to consider how the force produces racist outcomes,
specifically through use of violence. As such, we urge GMP to establish an
urgent inquiry into the racially disproportionate use of CEDs in Greater
Manchester.
Finally, we urge GMP – and forces
nationally – to review their use of CEDs, which have proven health and safety
risks. CEDs have also been identified by Coroners as having caused or
contributed to the deaths of Marc Cole, Jordan Begley and Andrew Pimlott.
Sincerely,
Northern
Police Monitoring Project, in partnership with:
Kids
of Colour
The
Monitoring Group
Institute
of Race Relations
The
Racial Justice Network
Resistance
Lab
Justice
for Marc Cole Campaign
Justice for Adrian McDonald Campaign
Sites
of Resistance
StopWatch
UK
Haringey
Anti Raids Network
The
London Campaign Against Police and State Violence
Amidst the coronavirus pandemic, the government has proposed a set of emergency powers that are likely to be rushed through parliament next week. Whilst a robust response to the pandemic is necessary, elements of the proposals represent a grave threat to justice and the protection of human rights.
Purportedly to halt the spread of Covid-19, the emergency powers will give ‘unprecedented powers to law enforcement agencies’. If passed, these powers will enable police (as well as public health and immigration officers) to detain individuals who they suspect may have Covid-19. Set to be in place for two years, the powers will also enable police and public health officers to force people to be tested, to provide biological samples, to detail their travel history, and to isolate.
It seems highly likely (if not inevitable) that these enhanced powers will be used disproportionately against particular social groups. After all, at every level of policing, its impacts are felt unequally. Amonst others, it is racially minoritised people, working class communities, migrants, and sex workers who are routinely criminalised.
It is clear that the impact of coronavirus is already being unevenly felt. As a consequence of precarity and poverty, self-isolating is far more difficult for those on the breadline than it is for the rich. Social distancing measures are important, but these cannot be punitively enforced without the implementation of social welfare responses. To enable the most precarious to stay at home, universal basic income, rent and mortgage freezes, protection from eviction, and assurances of secure jobs to return to are needed. As is a cessation of the hostile environment agenda.
In the coming months it will be of the utmost importance that we remain vigilant to the creeping infringement of policing and punitive measures into our daily lives, and the risk that this poses to the most disenfranchised in our society. Particularly in these testing times, we welcome the opportunity to work in collaboration and partnership with other liberation groups and look forward to conversations to these ends.
‘Section 60’ refers to Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. A Section 60 order is applied to a specific geographical area, and is authorised by a police officer (of or above the rank of Inspector). The order essentially allows police officers to stop and search people without ‘reasonable suspicion’. Since 2019, the government has been piloting changes that make it easier for the police to obtain authorisation for Section 60 orders. After initially being piloted in seven locations, the pilot has now been extended to cover all 43 police forces in England and Wales. This article highlights five key reasons why we, at the Northern Police Monitoring Project, are concerned about the piloted changes, and opposed to section 60 more broadly.
The police force is institutionally racist. All of the evidence on policing points to racist disproportionalities that impact most harshly on ethnic minority communities. This is evident in stop and search, taser use, so-called ‘gangs’ databases, and police use of force. These indicators suggest that the police force remains institutionally racist. It is therefore difficult to imagine that police applications of Section 60 will not discriminate against ethnic minority communities.
Existing evidence on Section 60 highlights racism. Whilst disproportionality in stop and search rates is already stark, the disparity under section 60 is even more worrying. According to the Home Office’s own data, in comparison to white people, Black people are 40 times more likely to be stopped under the order.
The requirement of ‘reasonable suspicion’ should be protected. Under the PACE laws that generally govern stop and search, the police are required to have ‘reasonable suspicion’ before stopping somebody. This requirement came after decades of Anti-Racist campaigning against ‘sus’ laws, which – under section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 – allowed the police to stop people without establishing reasonable suspicion. Unsurprisingly, ‘sus’ laws were incredibly racist in their application. Section 60 allows the police to bypass Anti-Racist gains, and to return to stopping people based on racial profiling and other subjective criteria . Whilst ‘reasonable suspicion’ clearly does not prevent racial discrimination, it does at least place an onus on officers to justify their actions. It should therefore be protected.
Black communities are already less able to trust the police. Due to the institutional racism that underpins the police force, Black communities are less likely to view the police as a legitimate institution. Creating the impression that the police are unaccountable, the use of Section 60 only deepens this mistrust. Given that ethnic minority communities are more likely to be victims of crime, it is significant that their faith and trust in the police is significantly lower than that of their white counterparts. Whilst we ultimately hope to see the abolition of the police, given its centrality to our current societal structure, it is unjust that Black and Brown communities cannot afford to trust the police.
Stop and Search is highly ineffective in preventing violent crime. As well as the vast array of negative outcomes of stop and search, and specifically of section 60, it is also important to note that – as a significant body of research has shown – stop and search is highly ineffective in reducing levels of violent crime. The government’s own data shows that whilst stop and search generally is ineffective, stops under section 60 are even more ineffective. Unless, of course, the aim is actually to create an intimidating environment for particular communities. In response to violent crime, we would advocate for public health approaches that prioritise investment in community centres, schools, and youth work. This approach will be far more effective than punitive policing.
To many, the ‘ACAB’ slogan may seem like little more than radical posturing. The prospect of a police-less future is so impossible that it exudes pharaoh-nic levels of naivety. So naturalized has the existence of the police become, that many think reform, rather than abolition, is the only way to advance beyond racist policing. It is akin to when Fredrich Jameson, the famous cultural theorist, once said ‘it has become easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism’.
Part of the difficulty many have in accepting calls to abolish the police, seem to lie in the absence of practical, short-term solutions towards abolition. However, there has been serious engagement on police and, relatedly prison, abolition in both activist, academic circles and even popular press. This post, largely aimed at communities and campaigning groups, argues for a more modest but related position against engagement with the police. By no means exhaustive, these are not purely positions of principle but rather concrete arguments that demonstrate how engagement can and has undermined the ability to hold the police to account.
Before detailing these positions, largely restating things written and heard elsewhere, it is worth recognising the strategic position that other groups and individuals may have in specifically-targeted engagement with the police. However, this article briefly argues for a general default position for non-engagement with the police and locates itself within the larger anti-racist tradition of prison and police abolition.
Vulnerability to police intrusion and intelligence gathering
Underlying much of the argument against police engagement is the false presumption that it is a safe and effective way in addressing and resolving concerns around police racism, brutality, harassment and impunity. The argument here is that engagement invites infiltration. The police, as an institution, are largely not interested in dialogue but information gathering. Perhaps most importantly, once a person, community or organization is exposed to dialogue with the police, it leaves them vulnerable to data gathering. The nature of data gathering is such that it becomes part of a permanent archive that can be exploited and used for other security imperatives when necessary and convenient. This is painfully apparent in how disparate and entirely innocent pieces of information are pulled together to create profiles of risk about individuals in determining their potentiality to commit crime.
The police have a history of using ‘dialogue policing’ to gather intelligence. Police Liaison Officers (PLO), created in light of the appalling policing of the G20 protests and police killing of Ian Tomlinson in 2009, emerged following a report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The parliamentary group argued for greater dialogue with the police and criticized police units, such as the protest-intelligence gathering team FIT, for being more interested in surveillance than engagement with those exercising their right to assemble. The formal role of PLOs therefore, is to engage in a more dialogic approach with protestors.
The Network for Police Monitoring produced a report providing compelling evidence that many former FIT officers had gone on to become PLOs. The report contains several admissions by senior officers that PLOs were less concerned about dialogue and more about intelligence gathering. Among a litany of failures, Chief Inspector Sonia Davis, head of the Police Liaison Teams (PLT), gave evidence as a prosecution witness in the trial of an environmental cyclist group who were arrested on the evening of the Olympics opening ceremony in 2012. She admitted that PLTs gathered information on protesters and had been deployed at previous mass bikes rides to try to identify ‘leaders’. PLOs illustrate why dialogue and engagement with the police, more generally, is problematic and can potentially incriminate communities and individuals while posing serious challenges to the integrity and functioning of campaigns and organisations.
It’s also worth saying something about the 2015 Undercover Policing Inquiry because it also shows how engagement and working with the police can leave individuals and groups vulnerable to infiltration. There have been many shortcomings with the inquiry which, though extremely important, are not the focus of this post. Generally however, there are fundamental problems with undercover policing. One famous example, which only came to light many years later, was the infiltration of the Stephen Lawrence Justice Campaign in which police spies tried to gather information about the Lawrence family. While the family were grieving about their son who had been murdered in a racist attack, they were also trying to persuade the police to properly investigate their son’s racist murder. Police spies tried to gather information about the parents of Stephen Lawrence, including the breakdown of their marriage. They used this information to try to deflect criticism that they messed up the investigation- an investigation which, coupled with mass mobilistion from the community anti-racist campaigns, prompted an inquiry that showed the police to be institutionally racist.
Political groups have also been infiltrated. Many women have provided testimony to the undercover police inquiry that they had been tricked into having sexual relationships with people they believed to be activists but later turned out to be police officers. Police officer Mark Kennedy had lied about being an environmental activist and infiltrated many left wing groups, providing intelligence which led to the arrest of several activists at demonstrations and direct actions. During his time undercover, he had formed close friendships and sexual relationships with activists. In a legal case which eventually collapsed, involving a group of environmental activists trying to shut down a coal station in Ratcliffe-on-Soar, one of the protestors, Danny Chivers, described Kennedy not just as an observer but as an agent provocateur.
Ultimately too, dialogue provides an invaluable ‘PR win’ for the police as they are being seen to engage with communities which illustrates the police’s desire for resolution and assuages their often violent and long-lasting interventions into those very communities. It provides the illusion that they are doing something, whilst in fact they are often entirely unwilling to make any meaningful change.
Non-effectiveness of Dialogue
It must be said from the outset that when you enter into dialogue with a state institution like the police, the difference in expertise, in resources, in well-curated legitimacy, will always create an imbalance of power than can inform discussions and dialogue. Thus engagement is typically rendered meaningless. Consider the role of independent advisory groups (IAGs) whose role, among other things, is to ‘improve communications with groups not usually in dialogue with the police.’ In the conversations that we have had with members of the Independent Advisory Group in Greater Manchester, they have seen it as a powerless forum. To help illustrate the ineffectiveness of engagement, we can refer to Sherry Arnstein’s level of citizen participation which looks at the different levels of involvement that public and community forums can have in decisions that impact them.
Sherry Arnstein’s Ladder of citizen participation (1969)
This can range from manipulation at the bottom, where the forum is used as a means to dictate the responses and framing of communities concerns, through to consultation, or, right at the top, delegated powerand citizen controlwhere communities actually dictate, implement the agenda and action policy. The sense that many people get is that IAGs are more about therapy and informing at the very least, thoughare often about manipulation, with the police often steering the conversation. While members from the community get understandably angry and upset and are able to vent at the police, which is important, little gets done. Again, however, it provides the police with an absolutely vital opportunity to demonstrate that they are sincerely committed to listening, engagement and reform.
Compromises Community trust
Central to any community-led organization or campaign, is securing trust of individuals and impacted communities. It is important, not only that independence from the police is done but also that is it seen to be done. Anxieties are often stirred by working with the police, particularly in communities that have been criminalized and over-policed. Many people within impacted communities reasonably see the police as an antagonistic force and perceive any organization working with them as merely being interlocutors of the police rather than impartial brokers. It is not merely that communities hate the police (often with good reason), but that dialogue can often trigger traumatic episodes. An organization that works with the police therefore may be perceived as trying to appease the damaging work the police do and often soften the trauma they have imposed, rather than genuinely being committed to supporting individuals and families. Much anecdotal evidence gathered through protracted conversations with impacted families have spoken to this effect, often creating a deep sense of mistrust in police investigations into their own wrongdoings and a general hesitancy of the state in conducting public inquiries and inquests.
Limits Radical imaginations
Finally, engagement with the police limits our imagination. The arguments for abolition of the police are not pie-in-the-sky fantastical thinking, but well researched, forensically thought out positions. It forces us to reflecting on the role and need for the police and thinking about alternative forms of public safety. To do otherwise can blind us to the contingency of the police force. In other words we think of them as a ‘natural’ institution rather than a relatively new institution in the UK that emerged around the time of 19thcentury capitalism and that imported and exported expertise from the colonies in how it has policed communities of colour.
However, arguments of police abolition are not isolated and they necessarily require engagement with wider social structures that control racialized, gendered and classed populations. Abolition of slavery for example, required more than just disappearing enslaved people from plantations. It required society to eliminate its reliance on forced and brutal racialized labour. A similar logic is needed here. In his recent book, the End of Policing, Alex Vitale makes a broader argument against social and economic injustice, and against criminalisation and racism. He locates these injustices in the neoliberal exploitation and its spiraling inequalities of wealth and power- of which the police have a role in socially reproducing. The solution isn’t just about abolishing the police but restructuring society in such way that doesn’t require them as an institution.
The kinds of ‘short-term’ measures or ‘non-reformist reforms’ we can make, away from police engagement and toward abolition require both a discursive battle as well as a material one. The former, which has already been touched on, is questioning the presumption that the police are invested in preventing crime (what is crime? does it prevent crime in particular communities and spaces?) and that societies need ‘law and order’. The latter alternatives to policing may include initiatives such as community monitoring, divestiture (particularly toward social infrastructure like youth clubs, social and mental health care, education, sports etc), decriminalization and restorative justice. Many abolitionists have argued that we need to see policing as a public health issue not a criminal justice one. Thus, perhaps an often ignored focus on some anti-police brutality organisations is articulating and working toward these alternatives. The position of non-engagement therefore is not esoteric, ivory-tower thinking, but one which is necessary to maintain the integrity of our campaigns which works toward a more just and realizable future.
The Northern Police Monitoring Project (NPMP) wishes to offer its full support to the Stop the Scandal campaign launched by the Racial Justice Network and Yorkshire Resists. The stop and scan initiative allows police to check people’s fingerprints in the street against immigration and crime databases.
As the Stop the Scandal campaign has argued, the introduction of this scheme acts to ‘turn the UK police into a border force’. This scheme has been introduced without due consultation with the public, and there is no indication of: any checks against officer discrimination, checks against (racist) issues with the biometric technology, and checks of the accuracy of Home Office immigration databases. Given robust evidence of racism at all levels of policing, including evidence of racial discrimination in biometrics and data, stop and scan will undoubtedly impact most harshly on Black and Brown communities.
The interlocking of policing and immigration control agencies is likely to perpetuate racism and contribute to what is already a ‘hostile environment’ for People of Colour who live with the ubiquitous threats of detention, deportation, criminalisation and incarceration.
We encourage people to support the Stop the Scandal campaign, and particularly it’s demands that the Home Office:
end the racist stop and scan initiative immediately, before it irreparably further damages relations between police and communities;
sever all connections between police activity and immigration databases, to prevent the police becoming an extension of border forces;
keep fingerprint scanning a step that only happens in police stations following arrest, in order to protect citizen privacy rights;
and publicly release the data captured in the West Yorkshire pilot, including its impact on axes of race, age and gender.
We, the undersigned, are concerned about the implementation of ‘Project Servator’ in the city of Manchester.We are more concerned about the unwillingness of Greater Manchester Police to justify this practice, or to respond to the legitimate concerns of the community.
In a statement on Project Servator, the Northern Police Monitoring Project drew attention to a video tweeted by Greater Manchester Police (@GMpolice) which showed uniformed officers handing out leaflets in the Manchester Arndale shopping centre. In the video, Superintendent Chris Hill stated that those who do not want to engage with leafleting officers would be ‘watched’ by plain-clothes officers. He has also urged the public not to worry about more ‘checks’ taking place.
We echo the contention of the Northern Police Monitoring Project that the public have the right to go about their daily lives without fear of state monitoring and surveillance. When individuals are not obligated to engage with the police, they have a choice, and choosing not to should not be grounds for suspicion. Whether in a rush or averse to leaflets, there are countless reasons individuals may choose not to engage with leafleting officers. Given the harm that over-policing has caused to many communities, we would even suggest that a direct desire not to engage with the police could be entirely justifiable and should not be grounds for suspicion.
Tactics like ‘stop and search’ have been shown to criminalise people and communities, without leading to effective crime prevention. ‘Project Servator’ is another example of police forces monitoring and imposing themselves upon individuals without any legitimate justification. ‘Project Servator’ presents itself as the police and community working together, but there can be no true partnership when individuals who do not participate are deemed potentially criminal. Given that GMP seek to present itself in this way, we are particularly disappointed that there has been no response to concerns raised and no attempt to justify this practice.
We hope that the public will continue to question this practice and believe that policing cannot continue without accountability. We call upon Greater Manchester Police to respond to our concerns and to end Project Servator.
Signed:
Northern Police Monitoring Project
Dr Remi Joseph-Salisbury, (Northern Police Monitoring Project; Racial Justice Network; University of Manchester)
Dr Laura Connelly (Northern Police Monitoring Project)
Dr Tanzil Chowdhury (Northern Police Monitoring Project, Queen Mary University of London)
Ilyas Nagdee, NUS Black Students Officer
Dr Asim Qureshi, Research Director, CAGE
Ewa Jasiewicz, Writer and Union Organiser
Jas Nijjar (Brunel University London)
Roxy Legane (Kids of Colour)
Zita Holbourne, National Chair BARAC UK & National Vice President, PCS union
Dr Meghan Tinsley (University of Manchester)
Dr Kate Hardy, Associate Professor, Leeds University Business School
Dr Patrick Williams (Sites of Resistance, Manchester Metropolitan University)
Scarlet Harris (University of Glasgow)
Lee Jasper, Former London Deputy Mayor, Blacksox Sponsor
Hamish Reid, University of Nottingham
Dr Lisa Long (Leeds Beckett University)
Dr Adam Elliott-Cooper (King’s College London)
Peninah Wangari-Jones (Racial Justice Network)
Lowkey (HipHop Artist)
Chantelle Lewis (PhD researcher, Goldsmiths)
Dr Waqas Tufail (Leeds Beckett University)
Dr Azeezat Johnson (QMUL)
Jessica Perera (Institute of Race Relations)
Yusef Bakkali (Birmingham City University)
Katrina Ffrench, Chief Executive – StopWatch
Dr Jamie Woodcock (University of Oxford)
Dr Musab Younis, (Queen Mary University of London)
Dr John Narayan (Birmingham City University)
Hafsah Aneela Bashir ( Poet, Playwright, Co-Director of Outside The Frame Arts )
Dr Leon Sealey-Huggins (University of Warwick)
Dr Gary Anderson, Senior Lecturer Drama, Liverpool Hope University
Dr Niamh Malone, Senior Lecturer Drama, Liverpool Hope University
Dr Necla Açik (University of Manchester)
Manchester Momentum
Afshan D’souza-Lodhi (Northern Police Monitoring Project, poet and playwright)
Dr Katy Sian (Northern Police Monitoring Project, University of York)
Ian Allinson (former candidate for Unite General Secretary, Manchester)
Kojo Kyerewaa, (Black Lives Matter UK)
Guy Parker
James Chambers
Mea Aitken (Kids of Colour)
Fowsia Cansuur (Kids of Colour)
Clara Paillard (PCS union, President of Culture Group, personal capacity)
Farzana Khan (Director, Healing Justice London, Fellow International Curators Forum)
Right to Remain
Dr Kim Foale (Geeks for Social Change)
Liz Fekete, Director Institute of Race Relations
Dr Kerry Pimblott (University of Manchester)
Becky Clarke (Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Manchester Metropolitan University)
Dr Karis Campion (University of Manchester)
Dr Samantha Fletcher (Lecturer in Criminology, Manchester Metropolitan University)
Dr Helen Monk (Lecturer in Criminology, Liverpool John Moores University)
Isobel Cecil (PCS Union, youth engagement worker)
Niamh Eastwood, Executive Director, Release
Y-Stop
Sharon Adetoro
Opemiposi Adegbulu (Lecturer, University of Huddersfield)
Dr Charlie Ingham (Clinical Psychologist).
Ashli Mullen (University of Glasgow)
CAGE
Abigail Stark, University of Central Lancashire
Dr Lauren Wroe, Social Workers Without Borders
Rob Dawson
Dr Philippa Tomczak, University of Nottingham
Ryan Bradshaw (Solicitor, Leigh Day)
Simon Pook (Human and Civil Rights Solicitor, Robert Lizar Solicitor)
Sue Lees (retired resident of Greater Manchester)
Paul Duggan (retired resident of Greater Manchester)
Phil Edwards (Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Manchester Metropolitan University)
Dr Sadia Habib
Mx Dennis Queen, Disabled Activist, GMCDP (Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People) and MDPAC (Manchester Disabled People Against Cuts)
Michael Etienne, Barrister
Black Lives Matter UK
Lara Datta
Manchester Disabled People Against Cuts (MDPAC)
Rose Arnold, Rising Up! Manchester Families
Dr James Trafford (University of the Creative Arts)
Max Farrar (Emeritus Professor Leeds Beckett University)
Melz Owusu (Kinfolk Network)
Tom Kemp (University of Kent)
George Grace (Next to Nowhere, Liverpool)
Sisters Uncut Manchester
Dr Fahid Qurashi, Lecturer in Sociology
Marion Dawson, activist, Smash IPP
Anandi Ramamurthy
Lani Parker on behalf of sisters of Frida
Jan Cunliffe Co Founder JENGbA (Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association)
SuAndi Black Arts Alliance
Dr Rajesh Patel, Senior Lecturer Manchester Metropolitan University
Sisters Uncut Leeds
Dr Rizwaan Sabir (Liverpool John Moores University)
We are concerned about the implementation of ‘Project Servator’ in our city.A video tweeted by Greater Manchester Police (@GMpolice) showed uniformed officers handing out leaflets in the Manchester Arndale shopping centre. Superintendent Chris Hill stated that those who do not want to engage with leafleting officers would be ‘watched’ by plain-clothes officers. He has also urged the public not to worry about more ‘checks’ taking place.
NPMP contend that the public have the right to go about their daily life without fear of state monitoring and surveillance. When individuals are not obligated to engage with the police, they have a choice, and choosing not to is not grounds for suspicion. Being in a rush or simply preferring not to; there are countless reasons individuals may not take a leaflet or have a conversation.
Tactics like ‘stop and search’ have been shown to criminalise people and communities, without leading to effective crime prevention. ‘Project Servator’ is another example of police forces monitoring and imposing themselves upon individuals without any legitimate justification. ‘Project Servator’ presents itself as the police and community working together, but there can be no true partnership when individuals who do not participate are deemed potentially criminal.
We have asked Greater Manchester Police to justify this approach but, unsurprisingly, are yet to receive a response. We encourage the public to be aware and critical of ‘Project Servator’ and are calling on Greater Manchester Police (and forces nationally) to end this practice immediately.
Northern Police Monitoring Project is an independent campaigning and advocacy organisation, educating, empowering and organising the people of Manchester and the surrounding area in the face of increasing police harassment, violence and racism.