The
last time a Tory government pushed university costs onto students in
the '80s, a big demonstration ended in police fighting with protesters.
But after the clashes Tory ministers entered a bizarre scheme with a Lib
Dem peer and leading academic to create a dossier to "point the finger
at the SWP" for the disorder. The scheme, which involved leading London
University historian Conrad Russell, is revealed in papers released
under the Freedom of Information Act. The plan fell apart when Russell's
students blamed a police cavalry charge for the violence.
Thatcher's
government replaced grants with loans in 1988. Students responded with a
30,000 strong demonstration. The protest ended with the "battle of Westminster Bridge,"
with police horses charging against students who were trying to reach
Parliament. The Mail and Telegraph reported this was a "riot" involving a
"mob" and "agitators," but the role of the police soon came under
question. The Daily Mirror headline read: "Riot cops charge students at
demo: Fury at police brutality." The Times reported: "Police brutal at
demo, say MPs." The Metropolitan Police were clearly shaken by the
protest and rushed out a report for Home Office ministers the day after
the demo blaming "at least 2,000 Socialist Worker Party, Socialist
Worker Student Society and 'black' anarchist members" for the
disturbances. The police report has a paranoid tinge, shown in this
paragraph. "When the march set off 1,000 SWP members had congregated
together in the first 2,000 marchers. The remainder which included
Greenpeace and the LSE contingent of the SWP had placed themselves in a
like formation at the centre of the march. "The anarchist group
infiltrated various university groups throughout the length of the
march. When close to police observation points the anarchists quickly
lowered their black flags so as not to be easily recognised. "This
particular organisation circulated throughout the march, as did the more
active SWP members. Their tactic from the outset was clear to
infiltrate, persuade and later lead the more moderate factions away from
the march. "Portable telephones were prominent, regular calls appeared
to be made and it is suspected this method of communication was part of
the ploy." The documents show that, despite the combined efforts of the
Daily Mail and police and their tales of undercover agitators using
"portable telephones," home secretary Douglas Hurd received many
complaints of police brutality at the demonstration. But his minister
Earl Ferrers did get one offer of help from Earl Russell, aka Conrad
Russell. He was son of philosopher Bertrand Russell, the first Liberal
Democrat peer and a history professor at University College London.
Russell wrote to the Home Office to say: "My colleagues at University
College have been talking to a lot of our more reliable undergraduates
who had the misfortune to be on Westminster Bridge
last Thursday. "If it would be any use, we could make a valuable
dossier of their statements, which tend to point the finger at the SWP.
Is there any use and, if so, to who should we send it?" Ferrers wrote
back to Russell, encouraging him as "our information suggests however -
as does yours - that there were other elements intent on causing trouble
and disorder. "We would of course be interested in any evidence which
University College felt we ought to be aware." An internal note from an
official in "F8 division" of the Home Office shows that it welcomed the
dossier offer as a relief from the many complaints about the policing of
the demo. The note for the minister reads: "You sought advice on the
attached letter from Lord Russell concerning the SWP's involvement in
the student day of action in London on 24 November. "We agreed over the
telephone that it would be inappropriate for the department to give any
appearance of actively commissioning material of this kind, but that
since there is already a post-mortem under way (by means of
P[arliamentary] Q[uestion]s and MP cases etc) into the allegedly
heavy-handed policing of the demonstration, it was clearly wrong to
overlook any evidence which shed reliable light on events."
Correspondence about the proposed dossier takes up a considerable
proportion of the file on the 1988 demo, suggesting that the Home Office
had high hopes of Russell's proposed "evidence." With ministerial
encouragement, Russell sent a questionnaire to students about the
demonstration, demanding they reply "with scrupulous honesty." The
questionnaire does not make clear his intention to "point the finger at
the SWP." Russell was a leading historian of the English civil war, but
the amateurish and leading questionnaire he prepared doesn't show an
impressive approach to historical evidence. Unfortunately for Russell
and the Home Office, his students failed to do as expected. Russell
wrote to the Home Office on December 15 and expressed his
"disappointment" at the lack of evidence against the SWP and at the way
his students instead focussed on a "cavalry charge" by the police. Even
the earl was forced to admit the use of horses seemed "rather
Cromwellian." The police have always denied their horses charged. The
Home Office, in its extensive notes on Russell's proposed "dossier" also
admits to its disappointment. A note to minister Lord Robin Ferrers
from officials in F8 division says: "Lord Russell's intention was to
volunteer a dossier confirming that SWP activists were to blame for the
disorder which broke out. "The depositions have proved to be less
forthcoming in this respect than he had anticipated and a number of them
express the same concerns about police action that we have seen in
other correspondence." So the papers show that in 1988 Tory ministers
spent time and energy working behind the scenes to show a demonstration
was all about "elements" causing "trouble and disorder." When the
evidence actually pointed to a police cavalry charge as the shocking
event of the day, they shuffled their papers and buried the facts. Faced
with a new wave of protest, today's Tory government is publicly making
the same noises about "agitators" - and presumably privately burying any
inconvenient evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment