On 21 February, Britain First were met — and overwhelmingly outnumbered and outmanoeuvred — by a powerful antifascist mobilisation under the banner of Resist Britain First (RBF), a coalition of grassroots organisations from across Manchester. The message was unequivocal: the communities of Manchester will not tolerate fascism on our streets or anywhere else.
The day also exposed, once again, the brutal realities of policing. While sections of the Right have spent years making wild and unsubstantiated claims about “two-tier policing” favouring minoritised communities and left movements, the truth on the ground could not have been more stark. It is antiracists, antifascists, people of marginalised genders and particularly people of colour who continue to face the sharpest and most punitive end of police power.
It was immediately apparent at the RBF assembly point on Sackville Gardens that there would be large police force deployments focused on the counter demonstration. Officers and vans were visible from the start. As the crowd grew Tactical Aid Units (TAU) suited in riot gear took positions around the space. Horse units were stationed on Sackville Street and commanding officers could be seen instructing officers where to gather their lines. Meanwhile, other officers were seen to converse and joke with far-right streamers who came to agitate members of the crowd.
Police officers were repeatedly observed enabling the Britain First mobilisation — laughing and joking with fascists while those same individuals marched through the city hurling racist, sexist, homophobic, and extremist abuse. The supporters of Britain First did not stop at verbal abuse; videos circulating online show they attacked members of the public and counter demonstrators in front of officers. A video shared by The Canary documents a women approaching an officer for support after being threatened with sexual violence by someone with Britain First, but no support came from the officer, instead solidarity and support came from members of the public.
Meanwhile, antifascists faced kettling, and Greater Manchester Police engaged in repeated and shocking examples of police brutality against protestors. Several protestors have come forward to report violent and reckless assaults by officers, some exceptionally brutal, and footage from the day shows officers’ use of batons, punching individuals, grabbing and dragging people to the floor, the use of police dogs and agitated horses. TAU officers — many not displaying required identifying epaulettes, in clear breach of force policy and professional standards — were among those involved. Legal observers, a crucial tool for the movement and protestors, whose presence is there to document police conduct and offer rights information to members of the public, were also assaulted by officers. These actions demonstrate the arrogance and confidence held by GMP, and show that they believe themselves to be above the law and without reproach.
Another widely circulated video from the day shows an Asian man, alone, being violently attacked by several Britain First supporters. Despite being the victim of a clear violent assault, he was the one arrested by police. This single incident encapsulates the broader pattern of police hostility towards communities resisting the far right, and police indulgence of those promoting fascism.
Antifascists were therefore forced to contend with threats and violence from both the far right and the police. As we have long argued, the line between the police and the far right is perilously thin. Saturday’s events illustrated that with disturbing clarity.
This is what the recent precept increase – the council tax increase to fund policing – appears to be facilitating: the enabling of fascism and racism, and the escalation of far-right and state violence. We must ask whether Burnham and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority will continue to live in denial about the realities of policing in this city.
What is digital policing? How do surveillance technologies shape borders, workplaces, and welfare systems—and how are they being resisted?
Speakers: Dr Seeta Peña Gangadharan, Sara Chitseko, Zara Manoetoehoe, Laurence Meyer
Filmed in Manchester at The World Transformed, an annual festival and political education project building a creative, collaborative, and socialist movement for change.
One week ago today, in a cosy room largely insulated from dissent, the Greater Manchester Police, Fire and Crime Panel voted to approve an additional £14.4 million for Greater Manchester Police (GMP). The panel—almost entirely white, and far from representative of the communities most affected by policing—listened as the Mayor made his deeply-selective case for the increase. While one councillor briefly raised limited concerns, there was no substantive discussion of alternatives, no positive vision for public safety, and no acknowledgement of police racism, misogyny, violence and harm. The £14.4 million figure itself went entirely unmentioned. The panel simply nodded along dutifully.
A meeting “in public” that sidelined the public
Amongst other patronising and condescending remarks, the Chair repeatedly reminded us that this was a meeting in public, not a public meeting. We already understood the format, but the tone made clear that public presence was (barely) tolerated, not welcomed, and that critical voices were viewed as an irritation. There are effectively no channels through which the public can meaningfully challenge these decisions, and this is only compounded by a panel that behaves more like a rubber stamp than a body of scrutiny. In such a context, dissent is not only unwelcome, but actively managed out.
When members of the public attempted to speak, we were met with threats of removal, and a manner that was openly patronising. The response escalated dramatically when two TAU vans and multiple officers were dispatched to the venue—simply because members of the public dared to speak in, what ought to be, a democratic forum.
The irony could not be starker. We were repeatedly told GMP is overstretched, yet they could summon a heavy tactical response at a moment’s notice, for something as minor as speaking up. The police arrived to shield the panel from scrutiny, while the panel simultaneously shielded GMP by approving further funding: an arrangement that signified a friendly alliance (rather than a relationship of checks and balances).
Misplaced optimism and selective storytelling
The Mayor highlighted a survey showing 65% public confidence in GMP. What he did not highlight was the more troubling figure: one-third of the public do not have trust or confidence in the police—a finding that should have prompted serious reflection. Instead, he celebrated the consultation result being “closer” than previous years, even though—by a very small margin, and despite the GMCA’s best efforts to engineer a yes vote— the majority still voted against the increase, as they have consistently done in recent years.
Burnham’s claim that racially minoritised communities would support the increase – saying that “communities would not thank [the panel] for not backing GMP with the funding” — displayed a striking level of arrogance and ignorance. It is clear that he neither understands, nor centres, diverse communities and their experiences.
We put forward an alternative—one rooted in care and community
Our position has been clear: the £14.4 million would be far better spent invested in communities, not policing. That case still stands, and we will continue making it.
Our briefing Fund Communities (Not Policing), sets out costed, constructive alternatives for how the same funds could support community centres, income security, migrant justice work, youth provision, emergency housing and survivor support. Contributions come from:
Today’s vote may be over, but our work is not. We will continue to organise, to scrutinise, and to build the case for funding communities rather than expanding policing.
We hope others across Greater Manchester will join us—next year, and every year that public money continues to be directed toward enforcement instead of care.
This collection, coordinated by the Northern Police Monitoring Project (NPMP), examines the proposed £14.4 million police precept increase in Greater Manchester and raises concerns about both the democratic process surrounding the consultation and the continued expansion of policing despite sustained public opposition. Bringing together contributions from the Greater Manchester Living Income Campaign, a local community centre, Kids of Colour, Migrant Justice Manchester, and the Manchester Women’s Justice Collective, the collection outlines how the same funds could be invested in community-led initiatives that address the root causes of harm. NPMP is encouraging members of the public to vote against the proposed increase.
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) is currently running a public survey on the proposed police precept increase. Though the results have consistently been ignored in recent years, it is presented as a consultation—an opportunity for residents to have their say. However, serious flaws in the design of the survey raise fundamental questions about its legitimacy and purpose.
At the heart of the problem is a basic methodological issue. Respondents are asked whether they “support” a list of ten priorities in the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Plan, and are required to select at least one option in order to proceed. As the consultation initially appeared – before a challenge from some of our members – there was no meaningful way to register opposition to the precept without first endorsing one or more policing priorities. In other words, it was impossible to say “no” to the tax increase without simultaneously generating data that could be presented as support for policing.
This is not a minor technical oversight. Any survey that requires respondents to agree with at least one predefined option before they can continue is structurally biased. It constrains dissent by design, and ensures that opposition is filtered through apparent endorsement. A survey constructed in this way would not pass even the most basic standards of ethical or methodological review.
Following our challenge, GMCA has now added an “other” option. However, this does not resolve the underlying problem. Many respondents will already have completed the survey without this option being available, meaning that the dataset is internally inconsistent. Some responses were gathered under one set of constraints, others under another. This alone draws the reliability of the results into question. More importantly, the late addition of an “other” box does nothing to address the core issue: the survey still fails to meaningfully test public support for policing as the appropriate response to the issues listed.
While the items are formally described as policing priorities, many are in fact broad social problems that most people would reasonably agree are serious concerns. “Tackling drug, alcohol and wider addictions”, “keeping children and young people safe”, or “reducing gender-based violence” are not controversial propositions. The survey therefore risks being read not as a question about policing, but as a question about whether these problems exist or matter.
Crucially, the survey never asks the question that actually matters: whether respondents believe the police are the most appropriate, effective, or desirable institution to address these issues. There is no opportunity to say, for example, that addiction is a serious problem but should be addressed primarily through health services; or that young people’s safety requires investment in housing, education, and youth provision rather than policing; or that gender-based violence demands survivor-led, specialist support rather than criminal justice responses.
By collapsing recognition of social harm into apparent support for policing, the survey converts concern into consent. Agreement that a problem exists is quietly transformed into endorsement of a particular institutional response. This is a sleight of hand, and it fundamentally undermines the validity of the findings.
These design flaws are compounded by the broader framing of the consultation, which strongly nudges respondents towards supporting the increase. The implication is that the rise is inevitable, but that public backing would be useful. This is particularly troubling given recent history. In previous years, residents have consistently voted against precept increases when consulted—only to see those views overridden regardless. Against that backdrop, a consultation process that constrains dissent appears less like an exercise in democratic engagement and more like an attempt to manufacture legitimacy.
Public consultation should be about listening, especially when decisions involve taxation and public spending in the context of a cost-of-living crisis. When surveys are designed in ways that limit opposition, blur the meaning of consent, and are altered partway through the process, they erode trust rather than build it.
If Greater Manchester Combined Authority is serious about democracy, transparency, and accountability, it must do better than this. A fair consultation would clearly distinguish between recognising social problems and endorsing policing as the solution. It would allow respondents to reject the precept and the logic of policing outright. And it would treat public opposition as something to be reckoned with, rather than managed or neutralised.
Until then, claims that this survey reflects genuine public support for further investment in policing should be treated with extreme caution.
The Greater Manchester Police, Fire and Crime Panel meets several times a year and is ‘responsible for holding Kate Green, the Deputy Mayor for Safer and Stronger Communities, to account on policing and fire rescue issues’
With 17 members in total – including 10 appointed councillors from each of the Greater Manchester local authority areas, the panel is consulted on police and fire plans and funding.
Supposedly, ‘the panel works to ensure that the actions and decisions made by the Deputy Mayor reflect public priorities’.
However, as we noted in January this year when £13.1 million in extra funding was given to the police in spite of strong public opposition, it’s clear that this panel serves the police’s interests in expanding its powers and reach.
NPMP members went to the panel to see what was discussed.
Election of a new chair
As the first panel meeting in this financial year, the panel had to appoint a chair. They did this within 30 seconds, electing Janet Emsley (Labour, Councillor for Rochdale). Janet wouldn’t even speak with residents when we went to the panel to voice our concerns in January, saying to members of the public: ‘I’d really rather you weren’t here today’. She flat-out refused our one page briefing on information about why GM shouldn’t be giving the police a £13 million increase in funding.
The panel then collectively agreed the notes from the last meeting, where there was no reference to our concerns being raised. It doesn’t seem like the panel in any way wants to represent views of residents who aren’t supportive of the police.
Progress Reports on the 2024-2029 Police and Crime Plan
The panel first discussed the Fire and Rescue Service Plan, and then went on to discuss the Police and Crime Plan. Deputy Mayor Kate Green gave a progress update on two of the ‘priorities’ for GMP that were outlined in this plan:
Priority 1 – ‘Improving Public Trust and Confidence in Policing’
Priority 2 – ‘Increasing Police Accessibility, Consistency, Responsiveness, and Outcomes’
Kate began by praising GMP as “the most improved police force in the country”, citing significant improvement in solved crime rates and more stop and searches and arrests being carried out.
But what does this actually mean when we look closer at GMP’s own reports?
In actual fact, the Priority 2 report shows solved outcome rates have remained static over the past 12 months, at 12.6%.
Between 2023 and 2024, Greater Manchester saw a 52% increase in the use of stop and search. We already know that Black and Asian people are disproportionately targeted by stop and search powers and are subject to more arrests, and this shows in GMP’s ironically named ‘Race Equality Report’.
In Greater Manchester, Black and Black heritage people are 2.4x more likely to be stopped and searched than White people, and Asian and Asian heritage people are 1.4x more likely. For arrests, Black and Black heritage people are 1.8x more likely to be arrested, and for Asian and Asian heritage people this figure is 0.8x, and this has risen from the previous year.
The Priority 1 report states 65% of public survey respondents had confidence they could get help from GMP in an emergency (this is only an increase of 3-4% from previous surveys). In addition, 46% had confidence in GMP in a non-emergency (compared to only 43% and 44% in previous surveys). Despite the positive spin, both of these statistics show the police are in no way trusted to deal with emergency situations or harm. We must explore alternative ways to invest in community safety and wellbeing.
The false promise of community consultation
During the discussion on ‘Improving Public Trust and Confidence in Policing’, major emphasis was placed upon “proactively going out and seeking what ethical issues people in Greater Manchester” would like the Independent Police Ethics Committee to consider.
Responding to a question on whether budget constraints would inhibit this process, Kate gleefully responded by stating that “GMP, [had] a budget of well over £800 million” and so this was unlikely.
This is incredibly ironic to discuss getting residents’ input, considering that the GMCA ignored the results of their own public consultation on whether the amount of council tax that goes towards the police should be increased in January. 67.6% of respondents said they didn’t support an increase in the police precept. Yet, the panel ignored this and went ahead and approved a £13.1 million increase in funding anyway.
According to Kate, GMP are “fairly open to when things go wrong”. Shockingly, she cited the following examples: the racist policing of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people (mostly children) at the Christmas markets last year, and Moss Side’s Caribbean Carnival.
Tellingly, the Deputy Chair of the panel Barbara Bentham (Labour, Councillor for Salford) made this statement on increasing trust in police using community consultation: “I think we need to recognise that there is gonna be a long-term problem with people who we need to re-educate and who have certain behaviours instilled in them”.
This incredibly concerning statement shows clearly that the GMCA panel aren’t interested in listening to the public about issues of policing at all, and instead are merely using public consultation as a front to propel police interests – a pretty rosy view of ‘public consultation’.
Key takeaways for community to be aware of:
Here’s a list of the key things discussed in both Progress Reports that will impact on future policing in Greater Manchester.
The Baird Inquiry and Violence Against Women and Girls
The 2024 Baird Inquiry – an independent investigation into the experiences of women and girls in GMP custody – uncovered, in the words of Mayor Andy Burnham, “examples of extremely poor, indefensible and inhumane treatment” by GMP.
The Inquiry detailed evidence of unlawful arrests and detentions; inappropriate and traumatising strip searches, including of victims of sexual abuse; systemic failures in supporting people who are vulnerable, and deeper cultural issues within the force.
Yet again when there is a scandal, the police and the political institutions that support them promise us training will fix everything. The report on police trust that Kate Green presented in the meeting detailed that police have responded to the Baird Inquiry by making ‘improvements in training on domestic abuse and trauma informed practice.’
The harm they inflict every day will not be waved away with training, and the stats are clear that people don’t really trust the police to support them. And why would they?
Misconduct hearing outcomes often show that officers who harass and abuse their female colleagues — or target vulnerable women, including those who have come to the police to report sexual violence — are frequently given only final written warnings or allowed to resign before facing dismissal. For example, one Superintendent between October and December 2024 was given a ‘final written warning’ for ‘subjecting a female colleague to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature’.
This is in spite of Kate Green’s assertion during this panel that the Chief Constable Stephen Watson has a “zero-tolerance approach” to misconduct, and Deputy Chief Terry Wood’s emphasis on a “root out and boot out” approach, saying that he personally “suspends a lot of people”.
Kate Green claims that GMP have a ‘strong story to tell on gender-based violence’ but again, their own statistics show this simply isn’t true. There is no change in charged outcomes for domestic abuse, remaining at 10.3%. There are also no changes in charged outcomes for rape. For sexual offences, there’s actually been a 0.9% decrease in charged outcomes.
Misogyny and abuse are deeply embedded within policing, something that clearly cannot be altered with a few more dismissals or ‘special trainings’.
Joint Enterprise
GMCA has developed its first iteration of a draft Framework for Joint Enterprise.
Joint enterprise is a racist law; Black people are 16 times more likely to be prosecuted under joint enterprise than white people. We need to see the end of Joint enterprise.
After years of campaigning from family and community members, Kids of Colour and JENGbA, especially on behalf of boys like those involved in the Manchester 10 case, the GMCA and Andy Burnham finally seem ready to acknowledge that the use of Joint Enterprise “is seen to have a disproportionate impact on young Black males”. Tellingly, however, it states in the Priority 1 report that this framework will “not create any routes for Mayoral intervention in ongoing investigations nor court proceedings”. It’s an incredibly shallow statement that will seemingly have no bearing on the many boys and young men who are sitting in prison or currently being trialled in specially designed ‘super-courts’.
We must keep a collective eye on this and remember that the devil is in the details. We need to see changes in outcomes, and justice for those convicted.
Live Facial Recognition
GMP are preparing for the roll out of Live Facial Recognition technology through a national Home Office programme, and have been working closely with the much-disgraced Metropolitan Police in doing so.
The Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy, at the University of Cambridge has highlighted that facial recognition is unethical and there are concerns around racial bias. The Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights (CRER) highlighted that introducing this technology to Scottish policing would have highly detrimental effects on race equality, community-police relations and human rights.
There is no dedicated legislation in the UK on the use of facial recognition technologies.
In the EU, the European Parliament recently introduced rules heavily restricting the use of LFR through the Artificial Intelligence Act 2024 (AIA). The act prohibits the use of LFR in publicly accessible spaces for the purposes of law enforcement, unless such use is “strictly necessary” to search for specific suspects, missing persons, or victims of exploitation, or to prevent threats of terrorism or physical safety of people. In an open letter to the Prime Minister in August 2024, several human rights and civil liberties organisations suggested following the new restrictions introduced in the EU.
We know already that in London, the areas in which LFR has been rolled out are those which have primarily working-class and Global Majority populations. We can surely expect to see the same in Manchester.
Police Pursuits
An insultingly brief mention was given to the issue of police pursuits in Manchester. The panel mentioned that there have “been public concerns about the conduct of our blue-light services in recent years”, but gave it no further attention. This is in spite of the campaign efforts of families working with the End Police Pursuits campaign, who have lost so many loved ones to reckless, unnecessary pursuits targeted at young, working-class Black people. The campaign continues to grow, the issues haven’t gone away, so look out for future events and actions to support the campaign.
Attempts to diversify the police
The Priority 1 report stated GMP continues to experience challenges in recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce and particularly Black and Black heritage police officers. Only 9.04% of officers are Black or of Black heritage. Worryingly, the report outlined plans to ramp up recruitment efforts at football and cricket clubs and in schools and churches. We have written before about just how limited and flawed an intervention diversifying the police is.
Safer Summer Town Centres Campaign
At the behest of the Home Office, GMP are implementing this summer a ‘safer town centre campaign’. This campaign centres on high-profile, visible town policing in our town centres, targeting so-called ‘Anti-Social Behaviour’, which often does little more than criminalise and harass people who are homeless, and those with addictions. It forms a part of wider efforts at ‘neighbourhood policing’, an iron fist in a velvet glove, with 176 more officers in neighbourhoods.
Conclusions:
The new normal for GMP is more of the same. As is clear to overpoliced people and communities, we need to see alternatives to policing. While people have been demanding and organising for this for decades, it’s not clear to communities and residents how the panel is accountable to people over the police. Only by building community power will we be able to care for our communities in Greater Manchester. This means learning more, supporting community alternatives to policing and resisting policing and the harms it creates.
To get involved in the fight, reach out via social media or email.
This International Day Against Police Brutality, we stand in solidarity with those resisting police violence across the world. Police brutality is not an exception —it is the norm, an extension of their everyday exercise of power and violence. From violent arrests to unnecessary, high-risk, often fatal, pursuits, stop and search, surveillance, ‘gangs’ policing, use of taser, and harassment, policing harms our communities daily, here in Greater Manchester, and around the world.
Whilst commemoration of the day began in Canada and Switzerland, its message resonates globally. Policing is a tool of control and oppression. Our fight is international, because the harms of policing are felt everywhere.
To resist this system, we must organise, disrupt, and build alternatives. You can do this by supporting local police monitoring groups, supporting UFFC (United Families & Friends Campaign), building community and showing up for those who are subject to the harms of policing: being an active bystander when you witness police violence.
We oppose police violence today and everyday as we – alongside others in Manchester, the UK and globally – fight for a world where communities keep each other safe and no more lives are lost to, or harmed by, the police, prisons and other agents/agencies of state violence and injustice.
At the end of the Coroner’s Inquest on 26th March 2024, Ronaldo’s family says:
Ronaldo Johnson – known to many as Ron or Uncle Dodo – was a shy boy who was well loved by his peers. He was a boy of very few words but when he spoke he was honest, extremely wise or very funny. At 16 he became his nephew’s official carer, a role he took on with pride. Ron was patient, kind, caring, strong, loving, passionate and dedicated to caring for others. He lit up any room he entered.
Ron is bitterly missed by his heartbroken family, friends and wider community.
Ron was the back seat passenger in a car which collided with a taxi after being pursued by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) on 31st March 2021. He died from his injuries in hospital on Tuesday 6th April 2021.
Not only has his family endured a devastating loss, they have had to fight every step of the way to get the truth of what happened.
Ron’s family have been made to wait 3 years for an Inquest, for which they were only granted a half day. They have been met with restrictions, roadblocks and a lack of transparency and complete lack of empathy and care throughout this process.We feel it is unjust that the coroner refused to grant an Article 2 inquest – which takes place when the state and/or its agents have failed to protect someone’s right to life.
We believe that GMP failed in their ‘duty of care’. The APP guidelines dictate that they have a responsibility to prioritise the preservation of life, the prevention of injuries and public safety. The pursuing officer confirmed that his priority was apprehending and pursuing a suspect. His decision, by his own admission, was based on limited information, no knowledge of the car being linked with any criminal activity (besides allegedly running a red light) and a lack of certainty or awareness of occupants in the car and injuries. We believe the responsibility to prioritise the preservation of life was breached and totally disregarded.
Article 2 would also have enabled a ‘Prevention of Future Deaths’ report. Given the coroner’s refusal to do this, his refusal to grant a narrative conclusion and refusal to acknowledge that Ron’s death occurred in the context of a police pursuit lead us to be concerned by the thwarting of learnings out of this process and we’re deeply concerned about future lives being lost as a result.
Losing Ron has devastated his family, friends, loved ones and the community. We are fighting for justice for Ronaldo and will continue to fight for him. We ask you to support the Ronaldo Thierry Johnson Foundation. We are also working collectively with other families who have lost their loved ones in high-risk, unnecessary police pursuits. We do not want to see another life lost and invite you to support the #EndPolicePursuits campaign.
On the one year anniversary of the passing of Anu Abraham, we again extend our love and solidarity to his loved ones.
As his friends and loved ones have noted, Anu was a wonderful, caring, kind and compassionate young man.
Anu was let down so horrendously by institutions that failed to show him the care he deserved.
We are dismayed, if not surprised, that these failures have continued after his passing. Anu’s family are still having to search and fight for justice and accountability.
As long as Anu’s family remains committed to seeking justice, we will stand with them.
As Anu’s family have made clear, questions must be answered regarding institutional racism, inadequate mental health support and a lack of duty of care, in both West Yorkshire Police and Leeds Trinity University.
We invite others to learn about Anu, the terrible injustice which brought about his passing, and to raise the alarm for justice.
