Metropolitan Police Federation

Dear politician, would you like a protestor sitting on your lap?

The events surrounding the G20 demonstrations have led to intense scrutiny of police tactics, with the Palace of Westminster's wizard policing experts joining assorted pressure groups in a stampede to get their condemnations trumpeted in the media.

Now it is time for Government ministers and senior police officers to take up the publicity baton by letting everyone know their answers to some of the perplexing questions which face the cops who actually stand in the front line at big, high-profile public order events.

Such as:

Does the requirement to facilitate peaceful protest over-ride the duty to prevent disorder if that threatens to occur?

As a rule of thumb, how many police officers should be injured before those who are left can put some protective equipment on (your answer may be expressed either as an absolute number or a percentage of the total police deployment)?

How much criminal damage is acceptable at a demo before the police are expected to do something about it? If, indeed, they are expected to do something about it?

Are verbal abuse, spitting and urinating on police officers approved types of behaviour on the part of protestors? If not, is it permissible for police to try and stop such behaviour, or should they instead vacate the area to avoid further unpleasantness?

In cases of civil disobedience, such as blocking major bus routes and public rights of way, are the police being unreasonable in trying to uphold the rights of ordinary, non-protesting citizens by attempting to move the people who are causing the obstruction?

Indeed, are the non-protesting citizens themselves being unreasonable if they want to go about their business unhindered?

Police officers at public order events eschew - unlike some of their foreign counterparts - the use of cattle prods, water cannon, tear gas, plastic baton rounds and live ammunition. But have we gone far enough? Should we shed more of our equipment, even if this means we are powerless in the face of violence?

Do you want to emasculate the police to the point where pressure groups can realistically expect to achieve their aims through a bit of violence (as some groups and their legion of lawyers seem hell-bent on achieving) rather than the tedious trip to the ballot box which law-abiding citizens are obliged take when they want change?

Are you aware of the thousands of public events which are conducted peacefully - and with amicable relations between police and public - every year? Do the police deserve any recognition in this regard? Maybe even congratulations? If so, could you please mention this the next time you mount your media soapbox?

Have we been reading your messages correctly? We thought you wanted us to stop the countryside protestors from storming Parliament, so we stopped them.

We thought you wanted us to prevent widespread criminal damage in the heart of the City of London, so we stopped it.

We thought you wanted us to prevent commerce being hampered in one of the world’s great financial centres by people camping in the streets, so we prevented it.

On the other hand, we thought you were happy - for whatever reason - for Tamil protestors to over-run Parliament Square, so we allowed them.

But were we wrong? Did you, in reality, want the countryside protestors putting their point of view sitting on MPs' laps in the Commons Chamber?

Are you, perhaps, not communicating your messages clearly enough? Does your training need to be improved in this respect?

Has it occurred to you that Met officers, some of whom worked 35 hours at a stretch and were then required to make instant decisions in the face of potential and actual violence at G20, might be sick and tired of being painted as virtual criminals?

Your call.