threats to attack bankers

In the run up to the G20 summit in London, the media dutifully repeated police claims that those planning to protest were dangerous types intent on violence. That was an important part of police strategy because it meant they could don their riot kits and wave their batons and turn off the cctv cameras, and still be praised for staving off a violent revolution. OK - so things turned out a little different. But that was no thanks to the media.

One of the more striking reports before the event, on R4's flagship Today programme, claimed that '...anticapitalist and anarchist websites are threatening to attack bankers...'. So I wrote to Jack Izzard, the man behind the report, to see if he could enlighten me...

His reply can be found here

Dear Jack Izzard

I listened to your report this morning on the Today programme, and you made the following claim:

'...anticapitalist and anarchist websites are threatening to attack bankers...'

Could you direct me to any of these websites please? I am not aware of this threat having been made.
Thank you for your attention

antarchi

No reply... try again (this time after the protests had taken place):

Dear Jack Izzard

I suspect you are not intending to reply to my request. Might that be because you are not aware of any specific websites which made that claim? Perhaps you simply reported that claim, as passed on to you by the police force. If so - and I can only speculate, since you have not replied - perhaps you will now think twice before taking police reports at face value. Is that not anyway meant to be the task of a responsible journalist: to investigate claims and counter-claims, making sure that anything reported is either substantiated, or reported as a claim (by someone, or some organisation)?

I would have thought that the Menezes death should have taught journalists a lesson about taking at face value statements made by the police force. How many deaths, before you begin to regard the claims of 'anticapitalists and anarchists', and those of official structures, as equally reliable (or unreliable)?

I would very much appreciate a response - even if to disprove my suspicions. I regard the media reporting before the G20 protests as highly irresponsible: it laid the ground for violent and offensive policing on the day. And that in turn led to the tragic consequences with which that day ended.

antarchi

A reply!

Hello Ellie

Thanks very much for your messages. Sorry not to respond sooner - you raise some interesting points and I'd like to get back to you on a couple of them.

Your initial question was about threats of violence made in the run up to last week's protests.

You're absolutely right in your assertion that the Metropolitan Police did talk about the potential for violence beforehand. Officers cited "web activity" as the grounds for their concern, but would not go into specifics.

My own research found that the internet was being used by activists to plan protests. Many of the websites I saw talked of uprising and revolution, but steered clear of exhorting people to violence.

However some were more explicit. Here's an example:

<>
Others in my view encouraged disorder by insinuation and innuendo. Posts hinting at violence appeared on the facebook pages of the big, organised demos. And the group London Class War was another interesting case. Its website has a tongue in cheek disclaimer distancing itself from violence. But its heavily ironic descriptions of previous acts of violence could reasonably be seen as a form of encouragement. Here's its page:

http://www.londonclasswar.org/

So I feel that my on air assertion that some websites were threatening violence was completely accurate. As you point out, it is my duty as a BBC journalist to check facts before I broadcast them - not take the police's word for it. This is what I always do - and did in this case. You may be interested in the following link, which gives a flavour of how the BBC covered the run up to the protest. It includes my report, and some others which give you a bit more context:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/03/090327_g20_protests_sl.shtml

Finally, I thought you might find the following interesting - it's an article about how the media as a whole covered the protests.

http://www.mediastandardstrust.org/medianews/blogs/blogdetails.aspx?sid=...

I hope this answers your questions. I take very seriously my duty to report impartially, as does every other reporter I've ever met at the BBC.

Many thanks for your feedback and best wishes,

Jack

another one from me...(no reply as yet)

Dear Jack

Many thanks for the detailed response. I've looked at the sites you mentioned and listened to your report again, and I'm afraid I do still believe that your report was alarmist and even inaccurate. Quite apart from the general message behind your report - which was that bankers had cause to be alarmed, to dress down on the days of protest, and so on, you also made one very specific claim:

'... anticapitalist and anarchist websites are threatening to attack bankers...' This is a strong claim, and if correct, it might indeed be cause for bankers to be alarmed, and even for potential (peaceful) protesters to be alarmed. It also might provide a good reason for a stronger police presence than otherwise. And yet you have not been able to point me towards a single example which actually makes that threat: an example of a site which threatens bankers (as people) with physical violence.

Of the two references you provided, I do not agree that the Storm the Banks Flyer does that (unless, perhaps, you take literally the idea of '[kicking] the bankers and their political cronies out of the city and out of power'!?) The London Class War site is more aggressive, but even there I could not find a 'threat to attack bankers'. Your report gave the impression that such direct threats had been made: as far as I understand it, all we know is that the police claim that such threats have been made. At the very least, that surely should have been made clear. At most, I would suggest that without substantiation, the claim is hardly worth reporting.

In fact, given the number of false claims about violence from protesters that have been put out by the police force, and the increasingly repressive and even violent tactics being employed by the police force at public protests, I believe your report was both misleading and not entirely responsible. People who took this threat seriously may have stayed away from the protests; and the public concern about possible violence - dutifully reported by the media - gave the police licence to use what most people have seen as excessively repressive measures.

It may be worth recalling one of the conclusions of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in their recent report on Policing Protest (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/47/4...). They suggested that:

'In addition to its positive duty, the state is required not to restrict protests unless it is justified as being both necessary and proportionate to do so in pursuance of a legitimate aim: this is a high threshold. Whilst protests may be disruptive or inconvenient, the presumption should be in favour of protests taking place without state interference, unless compelling evidence can be provided of legitimate reasons for any restrictions and those restrictions go no further than is strictly necessary to achieve their aim. (my emphasis)

I am suggesting that not only was the specific claim you made in your report unsubstantiated, but it also contributed to the general belief that there might be 'legitimate reasons' for the restrictions the police imposed on this generally peaceful protest. Where, after all, after the event, did the 'threats to bankers' materialise? The only case of violence that has been widely reported (apart from that carried out by the police force itself) was the attack on the RBS building.

I do think this is an important point, and I do believe that the media has been careless and irresponsible in repeating unsubstantiated police claims, building them up and disseminating them widely, with the end result that legitimate protest is becoming increasingly heavily policed - this time, apparently with fatal consequence.

Thank you for your attention,

antarchi