Many of the issues that surround the right to hold parades in
Northern Ireland have also, in some form or another, been raised
in Britain, and the legislation pertaining to marches has much
in common with that in England and Wales and in Scotland. Unlike
many countries the right to public political activity is not enshrined
within a Bill of Rights, rather it is based on common law. That
is, civil rights are 'protected by the principle that people have
the right to do anything which is not expressly forbidden by law'
(Hadden & Donnelly 1997:16). Yet in practice, as the right
to march and demonstrate is not enshrined in a Bill of Rights,
there have always been reasons that the authorities could use
to prevent meetings or processions, and during the twentieth century
various pieces of public order legislation have effectively superseded
common law (Card 1987: 57-80; North 1997:89-107).
Legislation
Public order legislation giving the police powers to restrict
processions was first introduced in 1936, in large part to deal
with the fascist movement in England. At the time this was opposed
by civil libertarians as being profoundly 'un-British' (Townshend
1993:104-111). One of the ways that the 1936 Act tried to deal
with fascism and the development of private armies was to restrict
the wearing of uniforms. This had of course long been common practice
in Ireland and had given particular concern to the British authorities
between 1912 and 1914 with the development of the Ulster Volunteer
Force. However many who wore a uniform would have been considered
harmless and as such, legislation was difficult to introduce and
even harder to enforce. Whilst the issues of the wearing of uniforms
did not trouble the state in the long run, the right to hold meetings
and processions had become governed by public order legislation
and the police gained formal powers to impose conditions on events.
The policing of public political events was nor without problems
in the post-war period, particularly in the 1970s when anxieties
were raised during the miners' strikes and demonstrations involving
the National Front. But it was only in the 1980s as a result of
the rioting in areas such as Brixton, Southall and Toxteth and
the 1984 NUM strike that public order became a high profile issue.
Policing practice was analysed, developed and influenced particularly
by reports produced by Lord Scarman on disturbances both in Northern
Ireland and Britain and new legislation was introduced in 1986.
In his report after the riots in Brixton in 1981 Scarman had argued
that:
A balance has to be struck, a compromise found that will accommodate
the exercise of the right to protest within a framework of public
order which enables ordinary citizens, who are not protesting,
to go about their business and pleasure without obstruction or
inconvenience. The fact that those who are at any time concerned
to secure the tranquillity of the streets are likely to be the
majority must not lead us to deny the protesters their right to
march; the fact that the protesters are desperately sincere and
are exercising a fundamental human right must not lead us to overlook
the rights of the majority. (Lord Scarman 1981 quoted Townshend
1993:149)
The Scarman Report acknowledged that public order policing in
Britain relied on a society in which there was some considerable
degree of consensus (Townshend 1993:1 59-166). In the 1970s and
I 980s such a consensus had become increasingly difficult to find.
The Public Order Act 1986 increased police powers in a way that
some have argued detracts from individual civil liberties (Card
1987:6). The Act requires organisers to give advance notice of
a parade to the police, although many local authorities had previously
required such notice and many organisers would have freely provided
it. There is an exemption 'where the procession is one commonly
or customarily held in the police area (or areas) in which it
is proposed to be held' although there is no clear definition
of what 'commonly or customarily held' means. One should note
that while this differed from legal provisions in Northern Ireland,
where it is the customarily held route that is specified, it might
well apply to events such as Orange parades in Liverpool.
The Act also allows for the Chief Constable to impose conditions
upon a procession prior to an event or a senior police officer
who is present at the procession. Conditions can be imposed on
the grounds of the possibility of serious public disorder, serious
damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community'
or if the Chief Constable believes 'the purpose, whether express
or not, of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others
with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right
to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do' (8.12.1).
This last criteria effectively tries to differentiate intimidation
from persuasion although as we are well aware in Northern Ireland
making judgements on what constitutes intimidation is not always
easy.
A ban on a parade can only be imposed if serious public disorder
is likely and the police have insufficient powers to impose conditions
to prevent the disorder. The Chief Constable has to make an application
to ban processions, or a class of procession (it is not possible
to ban a single procession), to the local council or borough who
may approve such an order with the consent of the Home Secretary.
In London, where events tend to have more national rather than
local significance, the district councils are nor involved and
the Commissioner of the City of London Police or the Metropolitan
Police can make a banning order with the consent of the Home Secretary.
Note also that it is not possible for local residents of a local
authority to force a Chief Constable to impose conditions as was
attempted by Lewisham Borough Council under the old legislation
over a National Front march in April 1980 (Card 1987:88-92).
Public assemblies do not carry the same legal restrictions as
processions and no form of notice is required to hold a public
meeting. Card argues that in some senses this is anomalous since
protest meetings can be just as likely to cause public disorder
as a procession. But the 1985 Government white paper, Review of
Public Order Law, argued that it would be too substantial a restriction
of freedom (meetings and assemblies apparently being deemed more
important than marches) and that the administrative burden would
be too great (Card 1987:82). However conditions can be imposed
on assemblies by a senior police officer on the same grounds as
those for a procession.
As has happened in Northern Ireland in recent years, conditions
or bans imposed on processions can be taken to judicial review.
However, it must be remembered that in the main a judicial review
does not examine the merits of a case but simply checks that correct
procedures have been followed in reaching the original decision
The Notting Hill Carnival
The Carnival held in the Notting Hill area of London over the
August bank holiday weekend involves an estimated million and
a half people and is one of the largest annual public events to
be held in Britain. It is the largest single routine policing
operation and in the early 1990s required 9,000 officers, with
costs estimated at £3 million (Waddington 1994:18). It is
a complex event involving a moving parade of floats and masquerade
dancers that travels a three-mile route and a number of stationary
sound systems. It is highly diverse event that increasingly involves
not only the ethnic Caribbean communities but also reflects the
cosmopolitan, international, nature of London; Carnival draws
thousands of spectators from Europe and other parts of the world.
Whilst the Notting Hill Carnival has developed its own specific
localised cultural forms it shares characteristics with many other
similar events around the world. It is a heady pleasurable mixture
of masking, anonymity, fantasy, sexuality, alcohol and other drugs.
An opportunity for individuals to express themselves in ways they
would feel unable to do at any other rime. It provides an occasion
when social norms are abandoned or inverted. It provides a rime
when some of the structures of power of the society are temporarily
excluded from an area, where people masked by costume can both
act anonymously and be on centre stage within a large crowd. For
many participants who are allowed to dance the streets to their
own rhythms it is a deeply empowering event (Alleyne-Dettmers
1996).
The Development of Carnival
Carnival as a general cultural form has been around for hundreds
of years and has developed in a range of historical and geographical
contexts. The roots of the Notting Hill Carnival can be found
in Trinidad where West African slaves celebrated emancipation
in 1834 by drawing on European festival and African cultural forms
in public expression. Carnival provided opportunities to show
political opposition and to express a public identity within the
complexities of Trinidadian society (Alleyne-Dertmers 1996, van
Koningsbruggen 1997).
The development of a Carnival in Notting Hill stems from the influx
of West Indians into the Ladbroke Grove area of west London. The
area had seen race riots in 1958 and suffered growing social problems
in the years that followed. There is some dispute about when and
how the Carnival was started (Cohen 1993; Wills 1996), but in
1966 a multi-ethnic fair took place which over the years came
to increasingly take the form of a Carnival. In 1968 the lack
of support from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and
local business led to the event being dubbed the 'Carnival of
the poor'. In the 1970s racial tension increased and relations
between the police and the local black community worsened, particularly
with the random use of stop and search tactics on black youths.
Carnival rook on more West Indian cultural forms first through
Trinidadian steel bands and masquerading and then later in the
decade with Jamaican Rastafarianism and reggae sound systems.
In 1975 attendance reached a quarter of a million and a significant
increase in crime was reported. The following year 1,500 police
officers were used and they apparently acted in a high handed
way, confrontations between youths and police developed and hundreds
of people were injured. The violence further fractured relationships
between the police and organisers but also revealed the stresses
between the Trinidadian style Carnival and the more overtly politicised
Jamaican Rastafarianism. The disturbances of 1976 also convinced
the Metropolitan police to equip themselves with reinforced plastic
riot shields (Waddington 1994:19).
Relations between the police and black youths remained poor for
much of the 1980s, fuelled by continuing use of stop and search
tactics by the police and raids on local social centres. Each
year Carnival proved a potential focus for political confrontation
as well as an arena for crime. The authorities felt duty bound
to provide massive policing, while the organisers regularly asked
the police not to provoke the youth by appearing in large numbers.
Yet whilst the organisers complained at the high profile police
presence they had failed to take responsibility for maintaining
order themselves. In 1977 they had hired hundreds of stewards
but these were quickly over run by youths, many stewards took
off their T-shirts and disappeared into the crowds. Over the years
there have also been many calls from politicians to have the Carnival
sited in an enclosed park or stadium. This has always been resisted
by organisers who believe that it wotild change the character
of Carnival.
In 1986 the police introduced a new strategy with their control
room 'Gold Control co-ordinating 'Silver' and Bronze divisions
in the field. More streets were closed to traffic and streets
in which reserve forces were kept were open only to residents.
The police mingling with the crowd were instructed to turn a blind
eye to minor offences. Only when large gangs started to operate
did the police intervene. Yet in 1987 the number of crimes reached,
as far as the police were concerned, unacceptable levels and confrontations
developed after an attempted arrest. By the end of the Carnival
there had been 798 reported crimes, 243 arrests (60 for the possession
of offensive weapons), and 13 police officers and 76 civilians
had been injured, most from gang attacks. There were the usual
calls for the Carnival to be stopped and particular criticisms
were aimed at organisers for providing too few stewards. In the
following year there was further criticism of the organisers in
a Coopers and Lybrand report paid for by the Commission for Racial
Equality. The debates were concerned with the financial management
of the event and the attempts to control events on the ground.
Differences between various organisers over the way the Carnival
should be run further complicated issues. There were no major
problems at the 1988 Carnival and before the event in 1989 a new
Carnival Enterprise Committee signed an agreement with the police
defining the procession route, the roads to be closed, the positioning
of sound systems and the time the Carnival was to close down.
The Carnival was very successful until close down on the second
day when a confrontation developed. The police later accepted
some criticism that they had been too rigid in clearing the streets
and had failed to communicate their plans to the crowd. They also
agreed to replace the invasive police helicopters with a surveillance
airship.
The re-organisation of the running and policing of Carnival had
a fundamental influence on the event itself. The number of sound
systems was cur dramatically, Carnival was restricted to daylight
hours and the parade route was differentiated from the areas where
stationary sound systems were placed. The police established 'sterile
areas' or safety zones which allow them to move around freely
and also meant that police reserves, necessary to control public
order, could remain largely our of view. Many saw the controls
as too strict and the numbers fell in 1990. There were also fears
that the commercialisation of Carnival might transform the event
into something akin to the Lord Mayor's Show, and there was heated
debate over the 'ownership' and origins of the event. 'Traditionalists'
argued that commercialisation was changing the nature of the event
and was removing it from the people of the area (Cohen 1993:74-78;
Waddingron 1994).
During the 1990s Carnival has further developed with sponsors
providing greater funding. Since 1995 Carnival has been sponsored
by the makers of the soft drink Lilt, owned by Coca Cola. There
has been a greater involvement by large companies and radio stations,
including BBC Radio 1 and Kiss FM, in the running of sound systems
and staging live performances. By 1997 Carnival had become more
ethnically diverse: Latin American, Asian and European influences
have combined with West Indian and African to make the event a
major tourist attraction. Compared to the 1980s there has been
a reduction in crimes and there are almost no serious public order
incidents. Programmes are available showing the parade routes
and listing all the events taking place and maps attached to lampposts
also provide information for the bemused spectator. Problems with
spectator flow and crushing which were severe on a number of occasions
in the 1980s have also greatly reduced.
Carnival has developed within particular social, economic and
political relations in London. It may have drawn upon Trinidadian
styles, but a combination of factors has meant that it has developed,
and will continue to develop, its own distinctive form. Carnival
has become a larger and more successful event, yet for some the
changes have not been for the better believing the commercialism
and organisation have taken the Carnival away from the participants
and reduced its spontaneity. And yet it could also be argued that
such changes have ensured the survival of the event. Carnival
developed in an area of poor housing but Notting Hill has now
become more desirable with new residents voicing concerns about
their property. The organisers have had the difficult task of
addressing the fears of local residents. Had police and organisers
nor developed a good working relationship one wonders how long
Carnival would have lasted in that part of west London.
Celebration and Control
Carnival is difficult to organise and control. Cohen describes
it as a 'a celebration of disorder', that its essence is 'chaotic'
(1993:69). It can not be expected that organisers should be responsible
tot all that takes place. The police have a duty to ensure public
safety but too much control, too much policing, and too many restrictions
are counter-productive and impinge upon the nature of Carnival.
In many ways there is no harder event for the authorities to deal
with since much in Carnival is about raking away the normal structures
of society, removing inhibitions, and empowering individuals in
the area in which they live. The rules of the street that normally
govern the busy roads of Notting Hill are over-turned.
Over the past thirty years there have been many who would have
liked to see Carnival either stopped altogether or restricted
to a stadium or enclosed park. The organisers have had to fight
for the right for Carnival to take place. At the same rime the
police and the local authority have had ongoing concerns about
Carnival ranging from issues of public order to concerns over
public health. In addition, as the nature of the area has changed
the interests of some local residents have also changed, and whilst
Carnival organisers have nor always been able to satisfy some
concerns, they have been well aware that it is partly their responsibility
to look at issues that might arise. As such the Carnival takes
place in a political environment in which there exist a whole
range of different interests. There are five areas that appear
to be particularly relevant in comparing Carnival with parades
in Northern Ireland: liaison, police/organiser co-ordination,
stewarding, residents and resources.
Liaison: Relationships between the local authority, the
police, other public agencies, residents and organisers has never
been easy and even in 1997 there were disagreements and problems.
Since the late 1980s those organisations involved in the event
have signed a 'Statement of Intent and Code of Practice' which,
though not legally binding, acts to create a common understanding
over the conduct of the various agencies involved. The code of
practice specifies such things as agreed routes, noise levels,
close down times, safety zones and pedestrian only zones, the
licensing of street traders, and the placing of road signs, while
the 1996 Statement of Intent suggested that signatories would:
There are also regular meetings between different agencies, although
a liaison group including residents and the Chamber of Commerce
broke down in the last year. Public meetings to allow organisers
to liaise with residents are held annually. That is nor to say
that relations have run smoothly but it has certainly given interest
groups the ability to make their difficulties known.
Police/Organiser Co-ordination: A central feature of the
changes that have taken place at Carnival has been the relations
between the police and organisers. In the 1970s and 1980s Carnival
acted as a barometer for racial tensions in the city. There is
no doubt that over the last ten years the Metropolitan Police
have placed considerable efforts on trying to improve the situation.
A special section was set up which deals with Carnival all year
round and those officers work closely with the organisers, sharing
information and resources.
The structure of management on the day involving police and organisers
has also developed over the years. The police have a command structure
that liaises with the organisers at the different levels. The
'Gold' control centre used to be at a local school which particularly
suited organisers but it is now located at Scotland Yard. The
police have an officer at the Carnival office and there is a phone
line which residents can call if they have any problems. Carnival
itself is divided into particular sectors in which officers co-ordinate
with organisers in their particular area. By maximising communication
at all levels it becomes possible to minimise the chance of misunderstanding
the actions of either participants or police officers.
Stewarding: In an ideal situation much of the control of
Carnival would be done by stewards. Good stewarding means that
the police can be less visible without reducing public safety.
At present between 120 and 170 stewards are paid about £90
each and given food and a uniform. The stewards are trained by
the police and other emergency services prior to the event. Forty-five
stewards, known as Route Managers, are responsible for the movement
of the Carnival procession. Each steward is allocated a sector,
which coincides with the police sectors and the chief steward
liaises with the officer in charge of that sector. It is pointed
out to stewards that they must assist police officers and behave
responsibly.
Both the organisers and police officers expressed concerns about
the reliability of stewards. For stewarding to work well it must
strike the correct balance of providing knowledgeable direction
without becoming either too authoritarian or getting too involved
in the event. There is also an issue as to whether you employ
outsiders or locals. It would in principle be possible to hire
from agencies that run stewarding at large sports events and rock
concerts, but as well as increasing the likelihood of getting
insensitive stewarding, it is also expensive. On the other hand,
detached outsiders are less likely to get drawn into the revelry
of the Carnival. The quality and training of stewards is an ongoing
problem, for example one participant felt the stewards did not
do enough to protect the floats or the performers. However, the
need for good stewarding is recognised by all concerned as an
essential requirement for a successful Carnival.
Residents: Many residents look forward to the Carnival
and get involved in some way. However, there are contradictions
between the right of people to hold a Carnival and the rights
of residents to live peacefully, to retain access to the area
and to have their property protected. Anyone who has visited Carnival
will know how difficult it is to move in and out of the Notting
Hill area, how noisy the event can be, and how it can spill from
the streets onto private property. Whilst the organisers recognise
some responsibilities and declare sympathy for residents, it would
be financially impossible for them to be liable for damage that
might be caused. Policy therefore has been aimed at communication
and prevention. Public meetings are held at which residents are
able to air grievances and at Carnival time a telephone line is
available through which residents can contact organisers and police.
Resources: As with all events of this nature money is an
issue. How much should an event that can bring in money through
sponsorship cost institutions of the state and agencies of the
local authority? It costs the local council £100,000 for
toilets and £60,000 to clear up afterwards. Notting Hill
Carnival Ltd receives some money from Kensington and Chelsea,
other London Boroughs, the Arts Council, from sponsorship and
franchising and from street trading. But the demands on that money
come from both the requirements of agencies to help pay for organising
the events and from participants who feel that money should go
towards helping them prepare elaborate costumes and floats.
The use of resources is a significant political issue. Organisers,
participants, sponsors, local businesses, police and emergency
services, local authorities and residents all have different and
often competing interests. The objective has been to give people
their rights and the facilities to hold the Carnival whilst ensuring
public safety and security.
Conclusions
Notting Hill Carnival is a large, complex event that has adapted
to changing social circumstances since its inception in the mid-1960s.
The event raises a series of issues over tights and responsibilities
that are pertinent to issues in Northern Ireland.
Organisers and participants view it as their right to hold the
Carnival and it plays an important role in the artistic expression
for many within the West Indian community. Yet the event presents
difficulties for residents and businesses in the area and creates
costs for local and government agencies.
Carnival has become a focus for police community relations over
the years. For the Metropolitan Police it is an expensive and
difficult event to police, combining as it does a large number
of people in confined streets for a somewhat chaotic and anti-authoritarian
festival. Carnival has been a focus for the expression of opposition
and defiance towards the police, sometimes resulting in significant
civil disturbances.
Both the police and organisers have recognised that the future
of Carnival depended upon improving the relationship between organisers,
participants and police. Since the early 1990s the relations between
the police and Notting Hill Carnival Ltd. have been good. This
process has not been easy, is not without its critics, and may
change in the future, but through good communication and liaison
difficult issues over the management of the event have been worked
out. Both organisers and the police have had to change the way
the Carnival is run and controlled.
A number of methods have developed that have attempted to improve
the relationships that surround the Carnival. (i) A Statement
of Intent and Code of Practice has been drawn up, which though
not legally binding gives those involved an area of their responsibilities.
(ii) Public meetings are held to allow residents to voice their
opinions to organisers. (iii) A liaison group worked to try and
bring together interested groups. (iv) The police and Carnival
organisers work closely together and are prepared to share information.
Changes in the way the Carnival has been organised have allowed
the event to attract greater outside funding and sponsorship.
Increased commercialisation has changed the event in ways that
some have welcomed and others have criticised. The Carnival has
attracted an increasingly broad range of people from Britain and
abroad.
Management of the Carnival on the day has involved a close, structured,
relationship between the police and organisers, the provision
of trained stewards, and a telephone line dedicated to problems
that residents might have.
The Loyal Orders in Liverpool
Although the Orange Order has never been as strong in England
as in Northern Ireland and Scotland, it has played a significant
role in the political culture of Liverpool. Like Orange parades
in Northern Ireland parades in Liverpool have reflected changing
social and political circumstances. In the 1930s concertina bands
were prominent in the demonstrations, reflecting the strong maritime
links in the city. Until the late 1960s sectarian divisions in
the city were such that a Protestant Party was represented on
the local council and up to 30,000 people would watch the Twelfth
parades with more than one hundred lodges taking part. Members
of the loyal orders recount clashes with Catholics in the London
Road and Bullring area as recently as 1986. However, the inner
city has changed dramatically as a result of slum clearance programmes
and many communities have been dispersed to towns outside Liverpool.
There are now less than seventy lodges, including women's lodges,
in the district.
The Orange Order in the Liverpool and Southport area holds about
eighteen parades a year, whilst the Black Institution has four
and the Apprentice Boys hold three. All but four of the Orange
and Black parades are Sunday church parades, as are two of the
three Apprentice Boys parades. By far the largest event is the
Twelfth of July in Southport. Three feeder parades take place
in Liverpool before Orangemen go to Southport where they meet
with other brethren from the north-west for a joint demonstration.
There are return parades in Liverpool in the evening. It is customary
for two children to be dressed as William and Mary for the day.
Members of the Order see the Twelfth in Southport as a family
day out.
There are twelve bands in the Liverpool North End area, most are
flute bands and are directly connected to Orange lodges in the
city. Unlike in Scotland or Northern Ireland members of bands
raking part in an Orange parade must be members of the Orange
Order but as in Scotland and Northern Ireland bands must follow
certain conditions of engagement. These include requirements on
types of uniform and the use of regulation marching steps. There
are also clauses which requires bands not to play tunes 100 yards
either side of a hospital, church or Cenotaph, banning the drinking
of alcohol whilst in regalia, and a clause forbidding the playing
of party runes, including the Sash, on a Sunday.
There is also an Independent Orange Order, founded in 1986 after
a dispute within the Orange Order over the right to carry 1912
UVF flags. The Independents have less than a dozen parades each
year. There are also six independent loyalist bands. These march
with both the Apprentice Boys and the Independent Orange Order.
Policing the Parades
Public order legislation requires that seven days notice be given
before any procession takes place. However, in Liverpool members
of the Orange Order meet with the police as early as February
or March to discuss any problems that arose at the previous year's
parade and any changes that might be needed. The Order also provides
the police with a full list of parades planned for the forthcoming
year and a list of the lodges and bands expected at each event.
In general the police felt that problems over parades were being
reduced, but they identified a number of issues that remained
problematic. The Twelfth parade in Southport is not always easy
because there are a lot of holiday makers in the town who know
little about Orange parades and who sometimes cause problems if
they walk through the ranks of the parade. The police felt that
it was not always easy to find a balance between the rights of
marchers and the rights of people to go about their business.
As such, the police are keen that the Orangemen are aware of this
and are patient with the general public. There are also a few
problems on the return parades in Liverpool as a number of the
people who gather to watch are often the worse for drink. While
there is no need to close any roads in Liverpool for the morning
processions, they do close two roads in the evening. Although
the police like at least one steward for every 50 people, they
would be nervous of having stewards deal with anyone not in the
procession.
There have been no disputes with local residents since 1986 but
the relationship between the Orange Order and Independent Orange
Order is so poor that arrangements have to be made to keep the
two events separate in both Liverpool and Southport. This means
liaising to check that buses do not arrive in Southport at the
same time. Also in recent years, there have been problems with
fascist groups such as the National Front and Combat 18 attaching
themselves to loyal order parades. There were incidents at a pub
in Southport in 1996 requiring the use of the riot squad. However,
senior members of the Orange Order made it clear that they would
nor tolerate members of Combat 18 in the Institution and the police
believe that C18 just attaches itself to the event to raise irs
own profile.
In general the changing social circumstances have meant that there
are fewer problems over Orange parades in Liverpool than there
used to be and relations between the Orders and the police are
now very good. In Liverpool many of the customary routes in the
city are less populated than they would have been in the past
and in Southport the main concerns are with the interests of tourists
and local businesses.
Conclusions
As social and political circumstances change the environment in
which events are policed can become quite different. In Northern
Ireland the policing of Orange parades has become increasingly
more problematic with political and residential changes. In Liverpool
the events seem to be less tense than in the past and any problems
are more to do with crowd control, the use of alcohol and the
interests of tourists and businesses. The police were particularly
appreciative of the co-operative attitude of the Orange Order
in contacting them at the start of the year to make arrangements
for forthcoming events.
Democratic Dialogue {external_link}
53 University Street, Belfast, BT7 1FY Northern
Ireland
Phone: -44-28-9022-0050 Fax: -44-28-9022-0051
E-mail: info@democraticdialogue.org