Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

There are two versions of the Prince Charles and Camilla incident. One, the traditional one, is that in the way of Royals who will allow nothing to come between them and their duty, the pair set off  for the Royal Variety Performance in the ancient Rolls, a charming relic of a bygone era, took the easy route, ran into a high spirited  demo, were surrounded by baying students, had paint thrown at their car and a window broken, but kept calm throughout. They  pressed on through and arrived unfazed and smiling. They then made sure that everyone at the Palladium had a happy and memorable evening. 

The other version is that they were attacked by an angry mob, there was terror in their eyes and their accompanying Protection Officers were within seconds of drawing their guns and have been congratulated for their restraint by Sir Paul Stevenson.

This second version is seriously exagerated. Not only were the Royals not terrified (startled yes but who would not be), but can anyone imagine the consequences to the government, the police commissioner and the monarchy, if guns had be drawn and three students shot dead in  Regent Street?  It would have been curtains to the lot. If the monarchy did survive and it is the only element which might have, Prince Charles’s expectation to become King would not. As for Britain’s standing in the world as a free and open democracy? Wow.

One of the attractions of an hereditary monarchy is that there is a Royal Family all lined up with a pecking order to the Crown. If one goes down, another steps forward instantly to take over. They are, so to speak, two a penny. This is why they knowingly take risks and keep calm. They are much braver than we give them credit for. We should leave them to get on with it. They know what they are doing.

Something is not right in the crowd control culture of the Metropolitan Police. I sometimes think we have one force for everything in the capital, when in a modern world we need more than one. We do not, for example, expect a GPs to perform heart surgery.

There were clearly disgraceful scenes when troublemakers among the students became violent. There were other shocking scenes where students, tempers inflamed, ran amok tearing flags and daubing statues, not to mention smashing into the Treasury. A policeman was dragged from his horse and injured, quite seriously. Heavy missiles were thrown.

Against this one student was beaten so hard on the head by a police truncheon that he suffered bleeding on the brain, nearly died and was saved by the skill of neurosurgeons. Another disabled protester was twice dragged from his wheelchair, the second time when detached from the body of the protest, in a fashion that most will find shocking. Many other perfectly respectable and rather erudite students have appeared on the media to report unprovoked and random beatings.

From all this it is evident that there are faults on both sides, but the sides are not equal. The police are disciplined restrained and experienced. The protesters are not. They are new to this and they are very emotional. The believe their futures are threatened. Almost all are otherwise decent young people who are the future key players in the life of our country. We must ask why it all got out of hand?

The glib reply of trouble makers and thugs is not enough. Almost every time there is a protest now there are issues about the way it was policed. The Met seems to have lost its touch. The Home Secretary has work to do. She too has to  bring in some timely reforms.