G20 Crowd Control

A researchers view

I must admit that I feel slightly embarrassed by my own feelings in response to the
telereportage cameos of the G20 policing in the UK. As a Senior Ex-Policeman with a
background in crowd violence research I should be repulsed by any abuse of civil rights, and I
am. But my main reaction was a feeling of despair, that the depicted police actions were so
inefficient and counterproductive. In a word ‘unprofessional’. The Machiavelli in me shrivelled
up and died.

30 years ago, just in time for Maggie to use it, I did extensive research into crowd control from
the police point of view. Our interest was not pure academic research, but the practical
objective of how to use the knowledge of such aggregations to control violence effectively and
economically.

I and my colleagues found that not all crowds are equal, the composition of all crowds is more
complex than popular conception and each component needs to be treated differently where
practicable.

To control such assemblages Police Commanders need to understand and use this complex
composition of crowds. They also require a fine perception of the fast changing Psychological
and Physiological differences inside and outside of the melee and to have the ability to take
advantage of each new situation. These are the tools of their supervisory trade.

The enforcement of calm collaborative team discipline is also essential. High testosterone or
chewing agaric mushrooms may have enhanced the Viking’s individual aggressive
performance, but it has limited value in police serials. The isolated incidents that we saw on
our TV and YouTube screens were a failure of police crowd control management as well as
unacceptable personal behaviours.

The authorities obviously need to revisit some of the strategic control practices which have
either been accepted or have crept into the police armoury. Whilst I would not reject the tactic
of ‘Kettling’ out of hand, it does seem to fly in the face of all we know about the reactions of
demonstrators under pressure. The police approach should be to achieve their control
objectives with the minimum of violent confrontation and this procedure does not seem to
satisfy that criteria.

The use of riot clothing, riot vehicles and related paraphernalia also needs a subtle touch.
Front Line Officers must be given personal protection against potentially violent crowds.
However at the same time supervisors must be aware of the images that they are projecting
to crowd members. Sometimes you may want to look tough. In other situations deploying
troops dressed like praetorian guards makes it much easier for protagonist leaders to
stereotype the police as aggressors and further whip up the emotive crowd.

I have not described the concepts of crowd composition such as convergence or contagion,
actions such a keynoting or effects causing physiological arousal, cognitive limiting etc, nor
the tactics that can be deployed to moderate these factors. Suffice it to say that the touch
stones of effective crowd policing should be unemotional, almost stoic, disciplined behaviour
by officers and well informed skilled tactics by supervisors.

In a few areas of the G20 crowd containment exercises those laudable aims were not met. In
many others I am sure that they were, but that does not make news.
I advocate robust police crowd control. However public support will only be maintained if the
current containment powers and rights are used in a temperate and competent manner.

JohnH

Dr John Hulbert BA, MSc, PhD, FBCS is an Ex Chief Superintendent of Police. He

carried out research into crowd phenomena in the 1970’s and 80’s. That research involved
Aston University, The Metropolitan Police, City of London Police, The Police College and
assistance from most UK forces. [john@hulbert.net]