Thursday, 22 October 2009

Standing Up

Did anybody catch Dispatches on Channel 4 the other night Ready For A Riot where yet again G20 and public order tactics were discussed. One thing that caught my attention was how senior officers offered little support to those on the front line. It really was a case of you're by yourselves folks. They are really more worried about the public relations disaster of their own making. Was it not the planners who stated there would be a robust approach to "unlawful" protest?

Now I'm not saying they should condone behaviour that is indefensible - we all know where the line is, but I do like to look at other management styles. Arsene Wenger the Arsenal manager will defend his people to the hilt having the ability to see nothing, and the old Met Commissioner Sir John Stevens came out and supported the troops after the Countryside Alliance disorder. His comment "no one got cracked over the head for no reason" showed real leadership and despite criticism from others was the correct response. I don't think any police officers were convicted because their actions were in fact shown to be justified. They also looked worse than any G20 footage.

I do therefore feel for Sgt Tony Smellie who has been summonsed to appear in court. My view was that this officer would not be prosecuted for his officer safety master class outside the Bank of England. It's not just my opinion, senior officers where I work tend to agree that he'd acted lawfully in covering the backs of his officers. This incident because of the media storm is in the public interest and we have to endure a court hearing before this officer is cleared. It sets a dangerous precedent.

This blog supports Tony Smellie who is an outstanding officer and hopes the full facts are reported if his case goes to trial. This post is about being seen supporting the front line and not about his case in particular. We can discuss the legal bits n bobs about lawful force once he's found Not Guilty.


MTG said...

When any police officer conceals or removes personal identification numbers from a uniform prior to any confrontation with the public, it must be assumed that the intention is to thwart victims of premeditated violence and pervert the course of justice.

The dangerous precedent here is the risk of a UK justice system lending itself to assuring police of their absolution for violence against the public.

All the above factors will form a stew for this hearing and I wager against you on the outcome of this decision, SOC.

Dandelion said...

We all saw him hit that woman in the face! And we all know the track record of people in TSG. On the facts as we know them, you couldn't possibly think he'll be Not Guilty unless you were confident that the investigation will be crooked. The public won't stand for another whitewash.

Blue Eyes said...

Several issues here SOC. I did a post on this I would be interested to know what you think.

There is no way that police officers should be protected from having their actions tested in court.

Nobody can deny that PS Smellie used force on that woman. Court is the right place for it to be decided whether he used *lawful* force or not. That is the point of the legal system: to ensure that everyone has to adhere to the same standards.

I do agree that management should support staff. If the staff are doing something wrong it is the responsibility of management to sort out the problems not just say "you're on your own chaps". I think senior officers think themselves to be politicians not managers these days.

The point about the removal of identification is important. The excuse that there are only so many epaulettes to go around just gives the people who don't like the police ammunition to criticise and suggest that anyone who isn't wearing their shoulder numbers is deliberately concealing them.

Unfortunately the police do leave themselves wide open to all sorts of easily avoided criticism.

Stressed Out Cop said...

Blue Eyes

John Prescott .... but then we are not all equal.

Blue Eyes said...

I agree, Prescott should have been charged for that.

MTG said...

Dear Blueeyes
Re your comment "gives the people who don't like the police ammunition to criticise" is a repetition of several personal attacks directed at me, first appearing on your own blog.

Let me wearily inform you - once again, I am pro good policing. You fail to understand some part of that sentiment, so here it is Beano style. I SUPPORT GOOD POLICE AND CAMPAIGN ONLY AGAINST THE DISHONEST IN UNIFORM.

I politely caution you to cease your crusade to label me a police hater.

Stressed Out Cop said...

Blue Eyes

I didn't say Prescott should have been charged - only pointed out all things are not equal. If he was a police officer obviously he would have been. Comes down to in the public interest - I understand that justice needs to be seen to be done - but if he gets a NG might not please all.


Shoulder numbers and assumptions? That's like saying he had a extra shredded wheat for breakfast so must have been going out to batter somebody. It means nothing but he should have had them displayed.End of.


You know my views and I was wrong about officer 1 eh?

Anyway all this talking about the officer deflects from the main issues. Suits some no doubt.

Love and Peace - SOC

MarkUK said...

Let's wait for the case to be heard in court. Surely that's the right place?

Anonymous said...

Angry Met I'm currently in need of level 2 refresher training. Im debating wether to due this as even though I love the work it envoles but genuinely feel that I'd been hung out to dry no matter what if I was involved in a Sgt. SMILIE type of incident. Apart from commander Broadhurst how many senior police officers have walked a mile in his shoes or put themselves in the front line with a sheild and NATO helmet on!!

Blue Eyes said...

SOC, sorry I mis-explained my position on John Prescott: I think he should have been charged. I completely disagree with the principle that what one person does in one place on one say is less of a criminal offence than the same thing done by someone else on a different day. Prescott was totally unprovoked, what defence did he have apart from being Deputy Prime Minister? If I did the same thing I would expect to be prosecuted.

My point is that PS Smellie can defend himself in court and all the relevant facts can be aired and tested. If as some suggest he is not given that opportunity people will just say there has been a cover up or a whitewash. That does neither "side" any good. As it stands at the moment the facts are not in the public domain and all we have is that clip which puts Mr Smellie in a very bad light. We have not heard from any other witnesses or from him to justify what he did. It may very well be that he can justify his actions. But if it doesn't go to court we will never know.

Metcountymounty said...

Firstly, Fisher admitted hitting PS Smellie BEFORE he back handed her. She had already been pushed away once, by the time she got a single baton strike to the legs she had come back THREE TIMES. How many times does someone need to be told to get back and go away before we are expected to use force in a public order situation?

That PSU was completely surrounded and he was one of three officers protecting the rear. You have to keep people back, especially in a hostile crowd because if you don't you have a bubble and no escape, force escalation then goes through the roof from one side or the other and people get SERIOUSLY injured, and not just a slap with a back hand or a baton.

The fact that she was a poisonous little munchkin is irrelevant, if we are only expected to use force on people of equal or greater size than us to be seen to be fair, then you can expect public order serials to be staffed with 4'11" tiny framed women in the future, just to cover all bases.

Demos are a tiny percentage of what public order teams deal with, are we supposed to have a politically correct public order team for demos and then a normally manned team for everything else?

That video was absolute text book officer safety manual and if he is convicted they will have to rewrite the whole thing as it doesn't just apply to demos, it applies to everything we do from house sieges and tactical hard stops on armed suspects through arresting Johnny-big-bollocks who had too much to drink on a Friday night.

In the mean time I don't think many Met officers will be willing to stand on that shield run line down at sunny Gravesend to renew their public order ticket.

Tom said...

I believe that any assumption of the police officers motives by omitting the appropriate identifiation from the uniform is misleading.

The test is that were his actions lawful and proportionate to the perceived threat at the time. I feel that the best place to test this will be in a court of law. Slavish reporting in papers with a political slant is not the same as that reported in court, where the evidence must be balanced and impartial.

I instinctively wish to support the officer, because unlike former and serving officers who comment on this site, I have not had the dubious honour of facing down a baying mob, nor being provoked by a foul mouthed yob/yobette.

Conversely, I am uncomfortable with the idea that the authorities can indulge in practices that would result in the punishment of the general public.

Perhaps after the trial, the senior managers might institute measures that are leadership based and not politically motivated or dependent on the next promotion.

Metcountymounty said...

For those who didn't see it here is the link to 4 On Demand -

having missed it because I was at work, I've just watched it and would like to point out two things from their conclusions. Firstly, the PSNI model of 'No Surprises' obviously wont work when you are trying to organise with anarchist and non hierarchical protest groups as they refuse to turn up to meetings and openly state that they don't speak for everyone who attends anyway.

Secondly they focused on lots of the tactics used by police and how they felt it was excessive but didn't show any of the attacks on Police lines before we kitted up and put containments in. Even after they were in, there were a few large attacks and lots of sporadic groups having a go - I lost count of the number of bottles that came at us. An interesting episode but I think too one sided against the Police perspective versus the risk (J18 and mayday style) and the actual violence used against Police that we responded to.

Stressed Out Cop said...


What's been said to the troops where you are support wise from above?

Blue Eyes said...

Interesting comments as ever from Mr MCM. I agree with the flaw in the argument about "No Surprises". That system requires 100% co-operation. Fine for community-organised marches, not so fine for political demonstrations, especially by those disparate groups who challenge the very existence of authority, the police, etc..

The Met in particular needs to be ready to respond to anything, so arguing that officers should not be trained to deal with petrol bombs because there haven't been any used in a few years is a nonsense argument.

I would want to be fully versed in the preceding events before come to a conclusion about PS Smellie and Mr Tomlinson.

The C4 programme did not show any of the footage of officers being hit with massive sticks etc. just the peaceful sitting down protests. The programme also did not explain the process of how officers go from normal kit to riot kit - they just let the viewer assume that all officers go around in riot kit all day when there is a protest.

My understanding is that that is not true. Perhaps MCM could expand?

Metcountymounty said...

SOC, we had a personal email to all the L2's who were on G20, Miranda and the Israeli embassy showing support and asking everyone to stick with it from a Cadre Supt, but apart from that we've had the square root of sod all. The only person who has said anything remotely supportive in the press is Commander Allison, but I know a couple of the instructors at Gravesend and they've just had nothing but grief from the bosses outside of their direct line management.

As usual, no one has the bollocks to put their head up and show support in case it comes back to bite them.

Metcountymounty said...

BE, there are 3 levels we get deployed at. First is normal uniform with public order kit at the ready on a carrier or staging base, 2nd is full kit with a fluorescent jacket and a beat helmet or flat cap, 3rd is full PSU kit with NATO helmet.

Depending on the intelligence levels, nearly all public order events are at the first level because nearly all pass without any incident. Expected public order such as G20 would be at the 2nd level so we don't appear too overtly ready to be quickly kitted up as there is a hope - no matter how veiled or pointless - that nothing will happen, but as and when it does it's not too much of an issue to grab headovers, NATO's and shields.

The 3rd level is usually high category football matches where disorder is pretty much certain or if there are teams being deployed into an existing incident.

On the day of G20 we were told normal uniform only at 0600, then at 0800 it was the 2nd level then we got fully kitted up around midday I think when the first containment line on Threadneedle was breached and the L2's started taking injuries. The next 14 hours were no fun in the slightest, and the 0230 finish was ridiculous.

Whilst I'm thinking about it, and this is to Dr Melv in particular, that was three kit changes in one shift, more than easy to forget to swap epaulettes over or have them pulled or knocked off. As it happens, hardly any actually did have no epaulettes as Sky found out when they went through ALL their footage to find more officers but couldn't.

The white Sgt tabs (as PS Smellie was wearing) and Orange Insp tabs that officers were wearing are rank insignia used to identify PSU commanders quickly when everyone is in identical uniform. This was issued uniform which all the PSU commanders were wearing, the colour tabs go OVER shoulder epaulettes that have numerals on.

There is a BIG difference in deliberately taking epaulettes off, and not putting them on or having rank slides covering them.

Blue Eyes said...

Thanks MCM.

Dandelion said...

I'm with MTG, but I'd be interested in MCM's views on why he thinks it is that the general law-abiding public are in some cases critical or even hostile to the police?

Dandelion said...

ps In all the commotion, I can see how it would indeed be very easy for a police officer to forget his obligations under the law. Silly old epaulette numbers, eh? Who needs em, especially when they make you more accountable...

It doesn't give me faith in the police to see such a cavalier attitude towards accountability, however unintentional the reason or motive for not wearing the number.

Tom said...

Some very thought provoking comments, which I must say has me reviewing the opinions I expressed earlier.

Unfortunately I am utterly dependent on the reporting of the media who will probably have their own agenda. Being given first hand information about police procedures used at the event is certainly an eye-opener. The idea that officers required staged kit changes is certain to mitigate the oversight by PS Smellie in wearing identification tabs.

The more I've read, the more sympathetic I am to the officers plight.

Accountable yes. Scapegoat, no.

Dandelion said...

Tom, how can you be sure it was an oversight? I don't think you can. Impartial reasoning suggests it's got to be at least as likely that it was deliberate.

And if it was an "oversight", doesn't that speak very worrying volumes about the attitude of police towards their own accountability?

Without proper police accountability, and without a proper commitment to accountability from every officer, the whole of policing is brought into disrepute and public confidence is undermined. Which undermines effective policing and unfairly maligns those in the police who genuinely seek to do a good job within the law.

Too many times police action or lack of action which helps them evade accountability is written off as an oversight, which really isn't good enough.

Metcountymounty said...

Dandelion, it is NOT, and never has been a requirement in law for a Police officer to wear epaulettes. It is a discipline matter, and only since the G20 anything but an extremely minor one. The legal obligations regarding identifying a police officer are that he/she should present their warrant card when possible (which in some circumstances it isn't such as public order or dealing with arrests) or to tell the person asking their shoulder or warrant number. And the reason most people - such as your good self - are so critical of the police is because most haven't got the slightest clue about how we are trained, what we deal with or what the legal requirements actually are, and they only have the complete nonsense of Dixon of Dock Green or The Bill as a reference. That is why historically epaulettes have never been an issue other than the extremely high cost of dozens of sets of individually embroidered ones, which ALL Police forces considered prior to G20 to be a completely disproportionate cost versus the gain of each officer having plenty of spares for all their outer garments. I've got no issue at all about wearing epaulettes, my issue is the extremely poor quality of them and how easy it is to knock off the metal numbers, especially as I could very concievably wear five seperate pairs at one time - shirt, armour, fleece, coat and hi vis. I would rather have them on everything but if you think for one second that I will stand for being accused of intentionally concealing my identity because I forgot to swap my two issued pairs of epaulettes from my shirt to my armour, to my coat, to my coveralls, to my high vis and then to my coveralls again whilst I'm dealing with a car crash, or an arrest, or when I'm in the middle of a public order incident, or they are on my public order or cycle or search kit instead of my beat uniform then you're very sadly mistaken. In public order the officers need to know who is on their serial (hence the big letters on their helmets) who the commanders are (hence the coloured slides that cover epaulettes) and what direct orders apply only to them (hence no radios and orders passed from the sgt directly) That is why we are only issued with a couple of pairs of epaulettes as it has never been a historical importance, instead of at least 20 pairs that I would personally need for all of the different outer garments and shirts I use for various roles. If you are remotely interested in WHY things happen the way they do, how about asking instead of making glaring assumptions or believing your own conjecture for once?

MTG said...

Loud guffaws are in order, MCM.

Quiet titters are insincere responses to the sound of digging from police in a hole.

Stressed Out Cop said...

I really think this shoulder numbers thing is pointless. This incident happened on day 2 a spontaneous police response to an impromptu gathering outside BOE. No large police numbers - No reason to conceal numbers for naughty motive. It is a non issue re the case - Inspectors don't have numbers do they? and the lack of numerals hasn't stoppped the officer being identified.

It is however agreed that this issue has struck a chord with MOP shown by comments on here - but be assured forms have been updated to be ticked by supv - to show that officers are now displaying correct numbers when coming on duty for aid.

MCM - Thanks for your insight as always.

Anonymous said...

Where I work we also have to wear velcro tabs with our name and rank on them. I rather like the idea, and so do our customers. It is also a talking point when people ask what the initials for the Special Constabulary stand for. I also introduce myself by name when the opportunity arises.

I did not know that the epaulettes were not a legal requirement. Thanks for the insight MCM.

However, not having them showing just leaves us open to the kind of criticism that others have levelled. That said you are right that they can fall off - one of mine got caught on a crime scene tape and was sent flying, very embarrassing! Still not quite sure how it managed to unbutton itself... If that can happen in slow time I dread to think how easy it would be when there are bottles and sticks raining down on you.

In practical terms with G20, has there been a problem identifying officers who are accused of doing things wrong?

The authorities know who PS Smellie is. The authorities know who the officers are in the Ian Tomlinson video. Are there some officers who have been seen doing something wrong but we don't know their names?

Dandelion said...

As a member of the public, MCM, over whom the police do have extra-ordinary powers, I do not consider it a requirement for me to know anything about how police are trained, just how they choose to conduct themselves. A system that works should be invisible to everyone but those who operate within it. It is not MOP's job to find a system of identifying officers while on duty, that is the job of the police, and clearly they're not doing it very well, to the detriment of everyone.

To say that it is just as likely that identifying numbers were omitted intentionally as not, is not to accuse anyone of anything. It's just a statement of fact.

It is disturbing to me that you (and presumably the powers that be) consider police accountability to be such a trifling matter. It isn't. Attitudes like yours are a big part of the reason why the public don't have confidence in you.

As for Smelly and the Ian Tomlinson officers, would they have been identifiable were it not for film footage provided by members of the public? Film footage that if they'd been able to I'm sure would have been prevented or seized by police, precisely to hinder the very accountability we are now seeing.

The mess we had not so long ago with police officers trying to stop or seize MOPs film or photography was damaging to public confidence precisely because it looked like they were misusing the law incompetently at best, and suspiciously at worst. To avoid accountability.

Accountability is the single most important issue hindering effective policing. The sooner the police themselves realise that, and take or call for action, the better.

Dandelion said...

ps Someone who's taken the trouble to find out that they're not legally obliged to wear their number, and who clearly thinks identification is a trivial point anyway, makes me wonder about their integrity.

A system where officers know they can go without, and it be brushed off as unintentional, is ripe for abuse.

Anonymous said...

Oxygen thieves every last one. Should have been at work on that day, or looking for work. Nice Blog by the way, sorry about Dr Melvin, he doesn't fancy me any more so he is over here!

Metcountymounty said...

As I said Dandelion, you haven't got a clue about how we are trained or what we are trained in. They are covered by regs which we all know and as I pointed out, the reason it has never been an issue prior to G20 is because of the lack of legal requirement and tactical reasons during a public order situation. Get yourself clued up a bit and we might take you and your criticism seriously. At the moment you're no different than the people who shout "shoot them in the leg" after a firearms incident or "how many does it take?!?" whilst watching a violent person being arrested by more than one officer.

Tom said...


Sorry, when I look at your first comment under MTG, I am at a loss to understand the facts upon which you rely on the TSG track record, and their apparent misconduct.

Clearly, you have experience at being turned out, and leaving seemingly vital kit, -when bleary eyed shivering- in the cold. As you ASS-U-ME (work it out), that members of a uniformed service deliberately abandon kit with the intent to avoid identification, use of a Lanyard, or perhaps the benefits of a gas mask. I cannot see what you are trying to achieve?

I have on a number of occasions thought your comments interesting, and poignent. All I ask is that perhaps you might re-consider your views in the light of expert evidence and informed opinion. Or am I wrong to think like that?

Anonymous said...

As ever, do not feed the trolls...or weeds......?!

Stressed Out Cop said...


The great Nightjack once commented here .. and now the legend that is IG

I'm honoured .. soc

MTG said...

A very cordial good evening to yourself, Inspector Gadget.

Your new publisher..oops, should I have said that?...informs me that your blog has nosedived but I will be back as soon as next year's fee has been agreed with her.

Anonymous said...

Dr Melvin T Gray (MTG) - As ever you grace the internet with inane crap and witterings. You are, and forever will be, an complete bell end!

SOC - Please just ban his IP and return this to a stress free blog!

Anonymous said...

Why does everyone bash the TSG? Like its fore runner the SPG it was effective in fighting crime and policing demonstrations. It only gets deployed when it gets to serious for other units and when i mentioned to a collegue that I was going to apply he relayed the following story. At the Isralei demo/march whenhe was fearing his level two serial was going to get overun he never felt so releaved as when a serial of TSG left their carriers in full PPE to releave them!! Police and society in general need units like the TSG and other specalisms that do the jobs other arn't willing to do!!

Dandelion said...

MCM You don't seem to have understood my point. How police are trained is utterly irrelevant. The point is that there is a system which allows for/makes it easy for police officers to be unidentifiable by the public while on duty, and for this to be readily excused for all the reasons you mention. This system is ripe for abuse, and that is what I'm objecting to.

I do understand how under pressure, a stupid old number would be the least of one's concerns, but that belies a systemic disregard for the notion of accountability. And surely you can see how this would be very worrying for the public.

I suppose I should not be surprised by the strength of feeling amonst police officers *against* accountability, but I really do think this attitude is counter-productive. In any case, it makes my point for me.

As for TSG, Tom, either you are ill-informed, or you are being disingenuous.

Metcountymounty said...

Dandelion, can you tell me ONE other organisation or line of work where individuals are held more personally accountable than police officers?? Literally everything we do is subject to micro managed directives, scrutiny and double and triple checks, one mistake no matter how minor could be a job ender. We have so many different organisations acting as oversight committees that they often contradict each other leaving us in limbo in the middle to face the ill-directed criticism from people like you. So much of what we do - and more importantly what we don't do - is lead from a fear of how it looks that we have become virtually unable to do our jobs effectively. We are the blame hound of the criminal justice system, the main reasons the public think we are so shite at our jobs aren't actually anything to do with us, everyone thinks they are an expert and are well placed to voice what they think is a valid opinion but most haven't got a clue.

Would you ever consider walking into a resus or triage centre and challenging the medics about name badges because they are in the position of controlling life and death? How can they possibly be held accountable if they can't be identified by any old pleb??? Or how about challenging the fire brigade or paramedics at an incident where they are directing things but you can't see a glaring identifying number or name badge?

Just because you think that there is no accountability doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means that you don't know what you are talking about.

That is why I suggested you find out or ask what it is we are trained to do, what we actually do and more importantly WHY we do things a certain way. You seem to approach everything from the cynical position of everyone trying to pull a fast one or worse. Having read some if your comments on other posts on SOCs blog you have an awful lot of blame and criticism for the police and police officers personally that actually aren't anything to do with them. You assume FAR too much.

Anonymous said...

I was in hospital the other day seeing my gran and saw a nurse who wasn't wearing a name badge. I think she was there to kill everyone.

MTG said...

Dear Dandelion,

Excuse the presumptions of an old fashioned man but I had hoped that after your many efforts, at least one police officer would feel obliged to take a step forward in defending you against ungentlemanly conduct. It must fall to me to apologise for male arrogance here and acknowledge the grace and eloquence with which you articulate several excellent points.

It matters not a jot to a rude bigot, how often those same points are well reworked and politely restated.

Metcountymounty is neither manly, civil, gracious - nor anything like a gentleman. He is a bully in uniform who would not hesitate to strike a female daring to disagree with his point of view.
Dr M T Gray

Blue Eyes said...

What a logical line of reasoning! MCM disagrees with Dandelion, MCM is a public order PC, therefore MCM will beat up anyone who disagrees with him. LOL!

The problem is that some people will never accept any line of reasoning given by a police officer because they assume that all police officers are out to beat the crap out of everyone for their own fun. Until that assumption is laid to rest there is no point in discussing the actual points.

MCM has explained very coherently why a lack of epaulettes is not the end of the world - because it is not the only means by which an officer can be identified. He has explained that until G20 it was not seen by the public or the organisation to be a major issue and that the discussion of the G20 events has led to a change in policy so as to ensure that in future shoulder number discipline will be more rigorously upheld. What more can he say?

Metcountymounty said...

And there's the Straw Man!! And you wonder why you keep getting banned from blogs Melv? So we're not allowed to argue unjustified and blatantly biased criticism without being personally insulted? FACT - Dandelion doesn't have a clue about Policing, she even said so herself. If anyone was to level criticism at any other profession without having the slightest clue about how they work they would be told in no uncertain terms to get lost. Why do people who know nothing about policing think they are remotely qualified or justified in criticisng police officers without knowing or asking WHY something has happened?Because it affects them? Most jobs affect most people some way or another, it doesn't mean they or their criticisms would be taken seriously. All I'm saying ask or educate yourself about the topic before insulting people or making glaringly biased assumptions about it.

Dandelion said...

I said no such thing, MCM. I said that knowledge of police training was irrelevant to the point I was making, not that I had no knowledge of it.

The points I am making about police accountability are, as it happens, informed by my own experience, and by the experiences of other MOPS who have been mistreated by police and told to whistle for any sort of justice or accountability. The systems and organisations which claim to uphold police accountability time and time again serve to protect the police from being held accountable. I've seen it with my own eyes.

An organisation where employees are properly accountable? Well where do I begin? Any organisation you care to mention would be more accountable than the police. But as a starting point, try the GMC, the Health Service Ombudsman, the Legal Services Commission, The Law Society (as was). I could go on. The IPCC is corrupt and toothless, and the DPS colludes with police misconduct. Time and time again. It's got to change.

And actually, MCM, my right to a view on policing stems from the fact that police officers have extra-ordinary powers. Denying me a view because you don't think I know enough about it (you're wrong as it happens, but why change the habit of a lifetime) would be like saying I'm not entitled to vote unless I've passed an exam in democracy and politics. It seems to me MCM it is YOU who doesn't understand how policing works!

Anonymous said...

Are you Jenny Jones?

Lavrentyuk said...

Well the trial is over and Sgt Smellie found NOT to have used unlawful violence.

No doubt he will have a discipline hearing for not wearing his collar numbers, but that is a relatively minor matter and NOT law.

Perhaps we could get some of the moaners together and task them with policing the next protest.
Good job, Sgt.