Protesters climbing on war memorial ‘an affront to armed forces’, says No 10
Police said the behaviour of demonstrators in London was ‘unfortunate’ and ‘inflammatory in certain ways’ but that no laws had been broken.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Downing Street has described protesters climbing on a war memorial after a pro-Palestinian march as an “affront” and suggested police could be given new powers to “take action”.
The Metropolitan Police said the behaviour of the demonstrators in London was “unfortunate” and “inflammatory in certain ways” but that no laws had been broken.
Members of a breakaway group scaled the Royal Artillery Memorial at Hyde Park Corner on Wednesday night after a protest demanding a ceasefire outside Parliament, the force said.
We will look at what further measures are needed so that the police can have confidence in taking action on this
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “It’s an affront to our armed forces, it goes against our British values, it’s not acceptable.
“We will look at what further measures are needed so that the police can have confidence in taking action on this.
“We do believe there are extensive powers available to them but the public will have been shocked and I’m sure appalled by what they saw.”
It comes after Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said arresting protesters for scaling the memorial would have been illegal.
He described the move by demonstrators as “unfortunate” and “inflammatory in certain ways” but not against the law, as he was questioned about the force’s response to the event on Wednesday.
Police must be able to enforce the law impartially rather than “pandering to public opinion”, he told an Institute for Government (IfG) event on Thursday.
Asked about the police response, Sir Mark said: “What the officer didn’t do last night was make up a law that it’s illegal to do something and do an arrest which would have been illegal, clearly.”
He defended the actions of officers on the ground, describing them as “sensible” in the circumstances, adding: “The officers intervened, as officers often are doing, to try and de-escalate risk of conflict, even when there isn’t explicit power to do it.”
The commissioner suggested there were elements of current police powers which “do not work very well” and that the Met would be discussing these with Government.
But wider issues, like the balance between the right to protest and the impact it may have on others, were a matter for Parliament, he said.
Sir Mark refused to be drawn into whether sacked home secretary Suella Braverman had interfered with the police’s job by writing an op-ed in The Times suggesting officers “play favourites” with pro-Palestinian protesters.
He said he would not get into “the politics” of the issue but that officers were used to contention surrounding their work and “don’t worry unduly”.
But the police chief stressed the centuries-old principle of police being able to act impartially and without “pandering to public opinion”.
Referring to the 19th-century Peelian principles, he said: “The fifth one I think captures the issues of the day, to seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to the law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws.
“It’s interesting that that could have been written down 200 years ago and be so apposite today.”
These ... are deeply disrespectful actions. The war memorials recognise the sacrifice people have made for our freedom, and abusing, desecrating behaviour like this is deeply, deeply offensive
The IfG event was rescheduled after a last-minute meeting in Downing Street between Sir Mark and the Prime Minister over the response to a pro-Palestinian protest, which clashed with the original date.
It comes after Home Secretary James Cleverly, who was a Territorial Army officer in the Royal Artillery, said he would examine whether the police needed new powers.
“I’m not going to let my personal feelings cloud my judgment on this but it is clearly wrong, and the police have said that they recognise it is deeply disrespectful for people to climb on war memorials,” he told LBC.
On ITV’s Good Morning Britain, he added: “These – and the police have said this – are deeply disrespectful actions. The war memorials recognise the sacrifice people have made for our freedom, and abusing, desecrating behaviour like this is deeply, deeply offensive.
“I will look at what further measures need to be taken so the police can take action on this.”