Edward Woollard: the meaning of his harsh sentence

Britain treats illegal violence against the state very differently from illegal violence committed by state officials.

In January 2011 Edward Woollard (18), who threw a fire extinguisher from the roof of Tory HQ at lines of police, was sentenced to two years and eight months in jail for violent disorder. Apparently, the harsh sentence handed out to the youngster was intended to send a message to the British people. But what is the message?

Woollard is undoubtedly a stupid youth who almost certainly didn't intend to hurt anyone in his irresponsible act, and he didn't. Yet, every institution of the state has been quickly lined up to punish him and make an example of him.

It is interesting, then, to compare Woollard’s case with that of PC Simon Harwood, the police officer who fatally assaulted the newspaper vendor, Ian Tomlinson, during the G20 demonstrations in April 2009. Harwood, a trained police office, certainly did intend to hurt and injure Ian Tomlinson by tuncheoning him and hurling him to the ground; but in his case every institution of the state was lined up to prevent him from being held to account for his actions.

These two examples taken together show the real message sent by the British state to the people. Violence by people against the state is given exemplary punishment; illegal violence by police against the people is brushed under the carpet.

Sir Hugh Orde on the British policing of protest

The UK police service has a long and proud history of upholding the right to lawful protest

This is far from true.

On 1st April 2009 the police in London mounted a full-scale attack on the freedom to demonstrate. Peaceful and defenceless protesters were herded into street concentration pens, held for hours against their will, beaten with riot equipment and had dogs set upon them.

The police acted with impunity, removing en masse their service numbers in order to beat, punch and otherwise assault the general public.

None of this happened because of bad apples in the barrel, but as a result of a police management that couldn’t give a damn about civil liberties, human or political rights.

G20: Police commander blames own officers for misdeeds

The attempt by the police commander Bob Broadhurst to explain away the extensive police violence against demonstrators on 1 April as merely the deeds of inexperienced young officers is disingenuous.

It was Broadhurst who earlier inflamed the situation with his predication of a summer of rage, who gave orders to imprison (i.e. kettle) thousands of peaceful protesters without food, water or toilet facilities, then to baton-charge them and beat them. It was officers under his command who with impunity took off their service numbers so they could assault at will.

Individual officers certainly sometimes went on a frolic of their own, but they did not decide to compulsorily photograph individual demonstrators as the left the street concentration centres, or issue that wholly false press release about the death of Ian Tomlinson.

Quite clearly Broadhurst miscalculated. He though the police violence which he unleashed would be applauded by New Labour and the Daily Mail. Thanks to people-photography he got it wrong – and now the coward wants to blame his own officers.

G20 See the whole picture of police violence

Two cases have been highlighted of people being assaulted by police: Ian Tomlinson because he died and Nicola Fisher because she is a woman – and in both cases video evidence shows very clearly what happened.

Police authorities will try to pass off Tomlinson and Fisher as isolated cases using the ‘rotten apples in the barrel’ argument. However this approach deliberately deflects attention from the wide scale use of police violence.

The truth is that tens (if not hundreds) of demonstrators, who were neither violent nor vandalising property, were beaten with truncheons, riot shield, or were kicked or punched by police officers. Officers removed their identification number en masse precisely so they could assault with impunity.

Many of the victims were people who were corralled for hours into street concentration pens (the so-called kettling) who could not even leave the demonstration if they wished.

After several hours without food, water or toilet facilities demonstrators were allowed out the kettles, only if they agreed to identify themselves and be photographed. No legal authority for this exists; yet neither police management nor the government cares.

It is impossible not to draw the conclusion that police tactics were to punish demonstrators, not to police the demonstration. And the government is quite content, it would seem, to let that stand.

For the government Lord West has already congratulated the police on their operation. The Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is anything but independent, has thus got the political support to procrastinate and to exonerate the police whenever it can. We need not hold our breath for them to finish their deliberations.

Indeed Tomlinson and Fischer need justice in their individual cases. But what really needs to happen is that large numbers of these police thugs need prosecuting and should be dismissed from the police force – and those senior officers in charge of these police on April 1st should be put on trial for conspiracy to assault.

Police violence against peacful protesters

It is revolting to see batons, dogs and fists used against protesters who are protesting wholly peacefully. The police deal with the protesters as if their protest were a crime per se, instead of a democratic right which the police should protect. How else can you understand the gratuitous police violence and the incarceration of hundreds of innocent people in street concentration pens for hours?

If someone breaks the law during a demonstration (e.g. committing vandalism, assaults or trespassing) they should be arrested not subject to on an on an on-the-spot beating. If they are not breaking the law they should be left in peace.

These police and policing tactics are incompatible with the norms of a democratic society.


(I find utterly vacuous the argument of the people who argue that because police in similar situations in some other countries might beat more people and more brutally that therefore people in London have nothing to complain about. By this criterion nothing can ever be wrong because there is always worse. It is hopeless and depressing argument.)