Random Blowe

Most people aren’t going to read the 107 pages of the report by Dennis O’Connor, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, into the policing of the G20 protests, which came out last week. Instead, they’ll rely on the press to provide the key facts – which, as always, is a mistake.

For in another example of the laziness of mainstream ‘churnalism’ in Britain, O’Connor’s interim report has been described, in the words of the Guardian, as “scathing”, whilst the Times said it contains “significant reforms”. It’s clear they hadn’t read the document, for it is neither scathing, nor groundbreaking, nor even particularly critical.

Managing public perception

What the report is most concerned with is managing public perception – or in O’Connor’s words, the need “to convey a policing perspective of events.” In this respect it betrays its origins as a review requested by Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, as a direct result of the increased public scrutiny and “the influence of ‘citizen journalists’ – members of the public who play an active role in collecting, analysing and distributing media themselves.” O’Connor admits that “technology has allowed for a more flexible and responsive protest community which is capable of advanced communication and immediate reaction to events on the ground.” In part, his recommendations are aimed at providing the police with ways to deal with this fundamental shift in the control of information.

The report reveals journalists and broadcasters themselves have offered suggestions about how they might be better spoon-fed police propaganda. This includes more police briefings at the scene of a protest to “provide information that is contextualised by what is happening on the ground” (in other words, spun to favour the police) and “making frontline officers experience available after an event”, presumably to show the dangers the ‘thin blue line’ faces from ‘violent’ protesters, rather than to show off the kind of fictitious injuries seen at last year’s Kingsnorth protest. The most alarming of these ideas is embedding journalists with frontline police, a practice that should have been thoroughly discredited with the experience of war correspondents in Iraq, where journalists were seen as a ‘force multiplier’. Embedding with the police would turn them into the same sort of tactical asset, remove any credibility a journalist may have as a neutral observer, make them a target of protesters (with justification, frankly) if a confrontation arose and hand police propagandists the power to hand pick sympathetic reporters or remove embedded credentials from anyone who failed to be sufficiently ‘on message’.

The problem the report fails to properly address, however, is that embedded journalists or on-the-spot briefings would probably have made little difference following the G20 protests. Indeed, O’Connor acknowledges that “initial coverage of the event was positive but by the 5th April was becoming more critical. This intensified following the emergence of images relating to the death of Ian Tomlinson,” whose death the report largely brushes over. It does recommend new guidance on information connected to deaths and serious injuries, but avoids the fact that deliberately misleading stories that came from the police about protesters and about Tomlinson’s death are themselves the subject of complaints by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. A press statement issued by the Metropolitan police immediately after Tomlinson died said “officers gave him an initial check and cleared his airway before moving him back behind the cordon line to a clear area outside the Royal Exchange Building where they gave him CPR. The officers took the decision to move him as during this time a number of missiles - believed to be bottles - were being thrown at them." Video evidence from protesters has shown this is simply untrue and yet it is a claim repeated again in the timeline of the review report in Appendix D – which mentions nothing about the earlier contact Tomlinson had with police officers or even the now infamous assault upon him.

Containment

On public order tactics themselves, that dreaded phrase “lessons to be learnt” appears prominently in the review’s summary, but those expecting a critique of the tactic of ‘kettling’ will be disappointed - the starting point is an acceptance that containment is acceptable but that:

• Protesters should be made aware of likely police action “in order to make informed decisions”
• There should be a release plan for vulnerable or distressed people, or those inadvertently caught up in the demonstrations
• Protesters should be given information as to the reasons for, duration of, and any exit routes from police containment
• Clear signposts should be provided for amenities
• Police should be made aware of UK press cards and should respect them

These ‘emerging’ recommendations add little to the House of Lords decision earlier this year in Austin & another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, which found (wrongly in my view) that police use of kettling does not infringe the right to liberty of individual members of a crowd whose freedom of movement is restricted by the containment, provided the tactic is resorted to in good faith, is used proportionately and is enforced for no longer than is reasonably necessary. The problem for O'Connor is that police clearly ignored the House of Lord judgement in planning their operation on 1 April and simply restating what should have happened but didn’t is far from groundbreaking.

Equally, O’Connor makes little comment on the potential of the use of containment to turn a situation outside the Bank of England, initially described in the Bronze commander’s log as “rowdy but reasonably complaint”, into something more confrontational, other than to say that “lack of information and understanding of the rationale for the use of containment served to increase resentment and anxiety amongst protesters.” The report fails to ask whether there really was a rationale for kettling protesters and whether its use was proportionate to a situation where its use appeared to have been pre-planned.

The review has even less to say about the kettle that was imposed on the Climate Camp at Bishopsgate and is content to offer a deeply partisan narrative of events. There is nothing about the brutal police charge into peaceful protesters, many of whom were sitting down, other than an inadequate acknowledgement that “images of police officers using force, including distraction techniques, have the potential to undermine the public’s trust in police.” Again, hardly critical or ‘scathing’.

Manufacturing consent

Perhaps the most disingenuous part of the report is an attempt to manufacture ‘public consent’ for the use of containment, in preparation presumably for the final report later this year. Chapter 3 is devoted to the results of a questionable Mori poll that seems to have been devised solely to frame the overall debate, by showing that City businesses and residents were largely favourable of the police and that there is public support for kettling – as if the vagaries of public opinion have anything to do with the rights or wrongs of the police’s conduct on 1 April.

There seems little methodological value in asking a bunch of people that haven’t been subjected to long hours of enforced containment to give an informed opinion on whether kettling is acceptable in all or some circumstances to avoid “disruption to the general public’s day-to-day activities”, as 77% of respondents concluded. Might their opinions be different if they had themselves had faced mass collective imprisonment with no access to food, water or medical treatment? And anyway, what kind of protest doesn’t involve at least some disruption to everyday activities?

It is hardly a surprise, too, that a survey that poses the statement “public transport should be suspended to allow protests to take place” against “protesters should not be allowed to protest on roads that are used by public transport” might come up with a majority (22% against 44%) who would prefer what would effectively amount to a ban on street protest in London.

Most respondents also favoured protesters needing permission to protest and subjecting themselves to ‘self-kettling’ by “agreeing to their route with the police and sticking to it” Self-kettled protest is exactly what the police would prefer but many protesters became disillusioned with this kind of sterile ‘stroll through the streets’ after the massive anti-war demonstrations failed to have any impact on the government and have therefore switched tactics, recognising that the Public Order Act 1986 does not make a protest without prior notification unlawful – its organisers may be guilty of an offence, but participants are not.

However, rather than accommodating this new reality within what the review calls "the protest community", O'Connor seems intent on using a general public distaste for disruption as a pretext for anything other than a march from Embankment to Hyde Park leading to oppressive containment. The review recommends that “where police become aware that a protest is likely to take place, with no identifiable organisers, steps should be taken to inform both the public and potential protesters that the protest may result in additional disruption, restrictions may be placed on protesters and particular tactics (including containment) may be employed to reduce disruption and the threat of disorder.”

The message is clear – go on anything other than an dull approved protest, no matter how peaceable you may be or how much of a ‘carnival atmosphere’ you generate, at your own risk. And take some sandwiches and a bottle to urinate in because our assumption is that you are likely to cause disorder.

And this is supposedly a report that is scathingly critical of the police and offers signficant reforms?

Sick racist Nick Griffin says the EU should sink boats carrying illegal immigrants to prevent them entering Europe.

It’s not just that I’ve found myself unable to join in the apparent mass grief at news of the death of Michael Jackson. It’s also a familiar feeling that, yes, it’s a shame, but like Princess Di and Jade Goody, why is everyone overreacting with such abandon? To try and make sense of this, here are some random thoughts on what I think is going on

ONE: Jackson may have styled himself the ‘King of Pop’ but this is hardly aiming high. It’s like being the king of, I don’t know, biscuits or ice-cream. Pop music isn’t supposed to deep and meaningful – it’s supposed to be throwaway, disposable and fun. That’s the point of it. It’s doesn’t need to have great storytelling or poetry, you just have to be able to dance to it, to have some direct and immediate emotional response to it.

Jackson’s music was particularly disposable: most of the tracks on the Thriller album became singles, three minutes of radio airplay, and worked best with the videos and the man’s greater talent for dance. But take a hard look, for example, at the lyrics for ‘Bad’:

The Word Is Out
You're Doin' Wrong
Gonna Lock You Up
Before Too Long,
Your Lyin' Eyes
Gonna Take You Right
So Listen Up
Don't Make A Fight,
Your Talk Is Cheap
You're Not A Man
You're Throwin' Stones
To Hide Your Hands

You're throwing stones to do what? What does that even mean? Actually, it really doesn’t matter, it’s no more or less meaningful than Blur’s Damon Albarn singing “when I feel heavy metal.” It’s pop music. But to claim that a series of entertaining, joyful songs makes Jackson a ‘music genuis’ is stretching things way too far.

TWO: “But”, as one of my friends on Facebook said, “Michael Jackson provided the soundtrack of my youth.” Personally, I think back on a whole range of different performers and songs that provided the musical background to my teenage years. Nevertheless, I do think this is a powerful reason why so many thirty and forty-somethings in particular have reacted with such mystifying passion at the news of Jackson’s death.

This is an age group, especially the over forties, that in the main has never heard of Bats for Lashes, White Lies, Gaslight Anthem or other ‘young people’s music’. They look back with increasing sadness and longing on their lost youth and have been responsible for the phenomenon that is the ‘Eighties Revival Tour’. If Jackson had died in ten years time, most may have got over the nostalgia and regret of middle age and maybe shown a greater sense of perspective. But right now…

Still, I doubt whether there will be the same fuss if Phil Oakey of the Human League suddenly shuffled off to the great nightclub in the sky, although I bet there will be for Madonna. Which brings me to…

THREE: Jackson’s death has been a gift to the media and explains its role in the furore that has followed, even that of supposedly serious sections like Newsnight, whose coverage was unbelievably excessive.

Jackson’s troubled life, the courtroom dramas, the unstable behaviour and the apparent uncomfortable relationship with his race provides great copy. The US media is gluttonous when it comes to this sort of thing, but in Britain, following week after grinding week of MPs expenses and the media’s inability (owing to reporting restrictions) to do justice to the Iranian elections, journalists suddenly had a story with hours of material that was ideal for print and broadcasting.

Given that Jackson had produced little of musical significance since the early 1990s, his death may have attracted far less coverage, certainly not the endless retrospectives and tributes, had it not been for the prurient interest in his lifestyle.

There are few musicians who can match Jackson for a level of celebrity that is unrelated to their music, the most obvious example being Madonna. Her marriages to Sean Penn and Guy Ritchie, the terrible films, the flirting with Kabbalah and the African adoption scandals, all pretty much eventually guarantee the same excessive treatment, although less so, as we can only hope, if she lives to a ripe old age.

So let’s be honest for a second. Jackson’s death is very sad for his immediate family and friends, but for everyone else, lurid expressions of grief are about as inappropriate as they were for the Princess of Wales.

And neither has Jackson’s passing really caused an explosion within the music world, as one of my friends claimed in an e-mail over the weekend. As explosions go, it’s a mild one, more like a bomb made of jam and feathers.

No, probably not. It's just that I have been reading David Aaronovitch's book " Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History" and I wanted to be one of the first to ask the question.

Aaronovitch's book isn't that good, by the way. It's reasonably well-written and the chapter on the conspiracies behind the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not bad, but in general the book says more about the author than it does about the subject it sets out to tackle. Like much of Aaronovitch's writing, it picks on some fairly easy targets (faked moon landings, 9/11) in order to sneer at anyone who refuses to accept an officially sanctioned version of events, a practice that Aaronovitch refined in his trenchant support for the US and Britain in the approach to the war in Iraq.

Evidence that there was a massive conspiracy to manipulate intelligence in order to engineer a war against Saddam Hussein, which so-called 'muscular liberals' like Aaronovitch once wrote off as the ideas of fantasists, now looks increasingly compelling. We shall see whether the government's shambolic Iraq Inquiry is any more informative than the investigations carried out by Butler or Hutton. But because Aaronovitch appraoches history not as a way of understanding the past but as a way of reinforcing his prejudices, and also because he actually isn't that well read, he is prepared to lump together those who believe that Elvis is alive with those who ask serious questions, for example, about the complexities behind the assassination of John F Kennedy.

Governments do conspire in secret. Sometimes, like the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s, we find out. Often hundreds of people keep a secret safe for years - it was not until 1972 that the secret that British intelligence broke the German Enigma machines during the Second World War was finally revealed. To imply therefore that every inquiring mind is a 'conspiracy nut' is unfair and sloppy, but it is, I'm afraid, 'classic' Aaronovitch. I would recommend the amusing "How to write a David Aaronovitch column" for a breakdown of the technique.

NB: my letter to the Times attacking Aaronovitch's description of Jean Charles de Menezes as the "53rd victim of 7/7" can be found here.

Police footage of Emily Apple and Val Swain being arrested by surveillance officers after asking for their badge numbers at the Kingsnorth climate camp last year.

The mobile phone video taken by a bystander and passed to local radio station Trent FM

This makes me laugh and laugh, every time I watch it:

POSTSCRIPT

If you oppose the continued existence of the Guantanamo detention camp, then there is another reason not to buy your overpriced coffee at Stabucks.

Starbucks have an outlet at the Guantanamo base - providing lattes and espressos to thirsty waterboarders, guards, and other Guantanamo staff.

See this from the National Guantanamo Coalition.

Photos from Saturday's United Campaign Against Police Violence protest, which with around 500 people didn't quite manage to kettle Scotland Yard.

The MPs expenses scandal rumbles on, but things seem strangely quiet on this front back home in Newham in east London, where I live.

Which is very strange. For how is it remotely possible that one of Newham’s three Labour MPs, Lyn Brown, claimed £15,889 in second home allowances in 2007-2008, whilst the other two claimed absolutely nothing?

Fifteen grand. A massive contrast with many other east London MPs. Those representing Walthamstow, Hackney North & Stoke Newington, Hackney South & Shoreditch, Bethnal Green & Bow, Barking, Greenwich & Woolwich, Chingford & Woodford Green and Ilford North all claimed nothing for second homes.

So what's so different about the constituency of West Ham? Does Lyn Brown not like it here?

Indeed, how can a second home allowance possibly be justified for an MP representing a constituency in Oystercard zone 3, just 8 miles from Westminster, when the Labour MPs for Hove (53 miles from Westminster) and Reading West (44 miles from Westminster) managed to make it into Parliament regularly and yet, like Lyn Brown's parliamentary colleagues in Newham, also claimed precisely nothing in second home allowances?

There has been nothing about this in the local rag, the Newham Recorder. Why the silence?

Others who must be named and shamed: Harry Cohen (Leyton & Wanstead) - £23,083 and Mike Gapes (Ilford South) - £22,291. As close to the maximum as they could get.

And they wonder why people are angry...

MPs expenses for 2007-2008 are available online on the BBC News website.

One of my favourite websites is Wikileaks. This is the site that released the BNP's membership list and is a source of some fascinating secret material.

Now it has released Unite Against Fascism's email contacts list - which, for the lack of security that this represents, may cause some serious recriminations within UAF.

More helpfully, in April Wikileaks published a document from the CIA's Open Source Center that translated a 186 page secret Israeli Ministry of Defense database, which showed the full extent of illegal Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank. According to Haaretz, "an analysis of the data reveals that, in the vast majority of the settlements - about 75 percent - construction, sometimes on a large scale, has been carried out without the appropriate permits or contrary to the permits that were issued,", and "the database also shows that, in more than 30 settlements, extensive construction of buildings and infrastructure (roads, schools, synagogues, yeshivas and even police stations) has been carried out on private lands belonging to Palestinian West Bank residents."

Take a look: a PDF of the document is available here.

The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center for CNN. Or more precisely, if they attend white evangelical protestant churches.

People unaffiliated with any religious group were least likely to back torture. Bless 'em.

This could be an easy opportunity to mock white evangelicals, but isn't this just more evidence that right-wing Christians are more... well, right wing, with a morally flexible interpretation of loving thy neighbour?

I'm not sure that after eight years of a Bush presiudency, this survey is telling us anything new.

Great to see Debbie yesterday, who has been out in India since last year, at a meeting of the Buwan Kothi International Trust.

She brought back photos taken by some of the children at the Gilly Mundy Memorial Community School, who had been taught by her to use digital cameras and then asked to take pictures of their home, family or community. The results are fascinating - and I've turned then into a video clip:

I think Gilly would really have loved the idea behind this...

Paul Mason, the economics editor of BBC Newsnight who wrote the brilliant 'Live Working or Die Fighting', is launching the paperback edition of 'Meltdown: The End of the Age of Greed' at 7pm at Stratford Circus, Theatre Square, London E15 on Thursday 7 May.

The event is organised by Newham Bookshop and tickets are a fiver.

Meltdown tells the story of the financial crisis that destroyed the West's investment banks, brought the global economy to its knees, and undermined three decades of neoliberal orthodoxy. Covering the credit crunch and its aftershocks from the economic front line, Mason explores the roots of the US and UK's financial hubris, documenting the real world causes and consequences from the Ford Factory, to Wall Street, to the City of London.

In response to the immense challenge now facing the existing economic system, he outlines an era of hyper-regulated capitalism that could emerge from the wreckage.

Support Newham's only independent bookshop and pop along. Tickets are on sale at Stratford Circus or are available on the night.

I wanted to reproduce the following from the brilliant and lovely Mark Thomas, in response to the decision by the supposedly ethical and fluffy Innocent Drinks [makers of expensive smoothies] to take a £30 million investment from Coca Cola:

Hi Richard,

I just wanted to drop you a note regarding your new found partnership with Coca Cola. An acquaintance mailed you earlier today and passed your response on to me. There are some fundamental factual inaccuracies and ignorance in your reply. You wrote:

"As a business, Coke are definitely not perfect (although it is worth saying that independent judicial enquiries at the time found that the Columbia (sic) allegations to be unfounded, the same with India water although I am nervous about saying these things as it makes it sound like I am here to represent Coke, which I am not). But they do show a relatively good track record in learning and making good on the things
they get things wrong. And the people we've met have been decent, ordinary folk."

The allegations against Coca Cola in Colombia are simple: trade unionists working for the company have been intimidated and murdered, in one case Isidro Segundo Gil was killed inside the plant, virtually under the Coca Cola logo, to this day Coca Cola have not had any independent investigation into the allegation that managers of the bottling plants in Colombia colluded with or directed the para military death squads. The murders happened over 12 years ago.

Your response states that "independent judicial enquiries at the time found that the Colombia allegations to be unfounded," What independent judicial enquiries are you referring to? The Colombian judicial system has managed to investigate, prosecute and convict about 1% of the trade unionist murders, out of thousands. So any investigations conducted in Columbia are hardly independent and barely qualify as enquiries.

Or do you refer to the USA court case? Here the Alien Tort Claims Act is being used to try and get the Colombian bottlers and the parent company in the dock. But it can't be that one as initially the case was found to be inadmissible (though it is being appealed), so this is obviously not the 'independent judicial enquiries' that you refer to, is it?

So what 'independent judicial enquiries" are you referring to?

You do not mention the fact that the Coca Cola Company tried to silence the Colombian trade unionists who brought the case against them in the USA. Coke offered to settle out of court to the tune of about $13 million on condition that they give up their jobs working in the Coke bottling plants and that the trade unionists never ever criticise Coke nor any other company that work with Coke in the future. Had the trade unionists signed and taken the $13 million they would break the terms of the settlement and be liable to court action if they criticised you Richard.

Neither do you mention the trade union busting of the company bottlers. The cases of Coke plant managers falsifying evidence against trade unionists, accusing them of terrorism. resulting in innocent men wrongly imprisoned for 6 months before the charges against them being dismissed.

You do not mention the fact that over some 15 years the company bottlers have gone from about 80% of the work force being in permanent employment with 20% casual labour to the situation we now find, where 20% of the work force is permanent and 80% casualised with no rights to even join a trade union.

Richard, I have spent some time in Colombia interviewing and taking testimony from people who witnessed Isidro Segundo Gil's murder to the delivery men who are not allowed to join a union. I am happy for you to have all of these interviews and for you to review them and see for yourself. I can even put you in touch with the people themselves , so if you wish you can visit Colombia and talk to them face to face, I think you would find them decent ordinary folk.

And so onto India, there are many stories here but let us stay with the stories about the Company opening plants (in a water intensive industry) in water sensitive areas with with little or no regard for the communities who find their water compromised and depleted. Once again you say independent judicial enquiries have found claims unfounded. Once again I ask what independent judicial enquiries?

Firstly there are four plants where Cokes operations have put the local community water in danger, in Kerala, near Jaipur and two in Uttra Pradesh. Two of these four plants have been shut down after protests and legal challenges. Coke were forced to close these plants.

The two remaining plants are near Jaipur and near Varanasi, neither plants have had judicial enquiries that found any claims of water depletion unfounded. So I am at a loss as to what judicial enquiries you refer to.

Happily for you Richard I have spent time in India too, and am happy for you to have access to all the interviews I have conducted with local people from all four of the plants, so you can hear for yourself what the allegations are.

Richard, you fail to mention the allegations that are raised against the company in Turkey regarding union busting or in El Salvador regarding Coke's sugar being produced with the help of child labour. Neither do you refer to the allegations of union busting in Ireland or the court findings against the company in Mexico, where they were found to be in breech of anti-monopoly law and intimidated some of the poorest shop owners.

So I am happy to send you a copy of my book which details some of these things BUT more importantly I offer to make my research and interviews on all of these issues available for you to come and peruse , so you might be able to make a more balanced comment on your partnership with the company. I do not understand how you can make comments that Coke have a "relatively good track record in learning and making good on the things they get things wrong" without considering these points.

Yours, Mark Thomas

Additional response:

Dear Richard, just seen another reply you have made to an enquiry about Smoothie and Coke, you quote the ILO report made in 2008 - referring to 'direct' employees. You say "everything suggests that conditions of work and rights applicable to direct employees [in Columbia (sic)] are duly respected." The key here is that over 15 years the ratio of direct employment to casual labour has been reversed, from 80% of the workforce that was 'direct' labour and 20% that was casualised, to the present day where 20% of the work force is direct labour and 80% is casualised. Casual labour have no rights to join a trade union. None whatsoever, I met and talked to plenty of people who testified that this is the case.

So your quote is selective and deceptive that is being used to promote a vision of the company that is simply not true. once again I am happy for you to come and see the interviews and bring your own translator if you wish to go through what these men and women say about working for the company.

Looking forward to hearing from you. Mark Thomas

Yesterday evening, supporters of 'Friends of Queens Market' held a picket of Newham Council's Development Control Committee, who were finally making a decision on planning permission on the destruction of the market in Upton Park by the developers St Modwens.

By the way, St Modwens are so in touch with the local community that they couldn't even get the right sodding post code for the market on a celebratory press release.

Unsurprising, the councillors voted according to the wishes of Mayor Sir Robin Wales (he who must be obeyed), with only the Green Street West Respect councillor Abdul Sheikh voting against.

Now the proposal goes to Boris Johnson, whilst there remains a possibility of a judicial review of the council's failure to conduct a proper Equalities Impact Assessment (Friends of Queens Market are working with the legal team at Friends of the Earth on this).

PHOTOS OF THE PICKET:

I came across this Independent article from seven years ago and had a déjà vu moment - this feels like it could have been written a month ago, - compare Assistant Commissioner Michael Todd's promise to be "a bit in-your-face" with Commander Simon O'Brien's pledge to be "up to it and up for it":

Mayfair prepares to bear the brunt of annual anti-globalisation clashes
By Jason Bennetto and Steve Boggan

Independent, 1 May 2002

Rubble-filled skips, scaffold poles and café tables were being cleared from the streets of one of London's most affluent districts last night as police prepared for the annual May Day clashes.

Scotland Yard has drafted in about 5,000 officers to police a range of anti-capitalist demonstrations throughout the capital. Police intelligence has identified three likely flashpoints later today, which include a trade union organised march to Trafalgar Square and protests in the Mayfair area and busy Oxford Street.

Several businesses, including fur shops, jewellers, and luxury car show-rooms, boarded up their windows in central London yesterday amid fears that the violence seen at previous May Day anti-capitalist demonstrations would be repeated today.

Throughout the night, teams of council workers have been removing objects that could be used as missiles – such as rubble and bricks from building work, tables and chairs – and securing scaffolding.

Assistant Commissioner Michael Todd, the Metropolitan Police officer in charge of overseeing the policing of the day's protests, warned yesterday that there was new intelligence suggesting violent demonstrators may attempt to hijack a traditional trade union march in which up to 10,000 people are expected to take part.

Mr Todd said he was surprised that the trade union and labour movement organisers, who include the TUC, had allowed an anti-capitalist umbrella group, Globalise Resistance, to join the march from Clerkenwell Green to Trafalgar Square this afternoon.

"There are concerns that some people may try to subvert the demonstration," he said. "We have identified some known troublemakers and think they may try and get involved in some form of violence."

Mr Todd said his officers would be "interventionist" and if necessary "a bit in-your-face". "We will be tolerant of people's right to protest, but we will not put up with criminality."

He also warned that there were suggestions that organisers have asked demonstrators to make "individual protests" in Mayfair, which he said smacked of guerrilla tactics.

One May Day website says the central London district is "one of the most opulent and cloistered areas in the capital, full of luxury pads, exclusive shops, fancy hotels and national embassies". Teenagers are being urged to "bunk off" school and join the event, which the site says will happen "everywhere at once" to stay ahead of the police.

Scotland Yard are keen to ensure that demonstrators do not run riot as they did in the 2000 May Day protests in Parliament Square and Whitehall when a number of statues, including that of Winston Churchill, were defaced and a branch of McDonald's restaurant was wrecked.

Today's protests start with a mass cycle ride at 7.30am into the centre of London, which is expected to bring rush-hour traffic to a standstill. Later in the day, there will be demonstrations outside the American embassy in Grosvenor Square and a fur shop.

Organisers have advised protesters via the internet and posters to avoid forming large groups for fear of a repeat of last year when police corralled them into a small area of Oxford Circus and arrested 65 people.

As well as Mayfair, Oxford Street is once again expected to be a focal point for protesters, with plans for a mass football match.

Westminster City Council has written to residents and shopkeepers in the area warning them to take precautions. The authority estimates that the loss to business and likely damage to property is likely to cost between £10m and £20m.

But Guy Taylor, a campaigner for Globalise Resistance, said he was confident that the event the organisation is associated with this year – the TUC march – will pass without incident. "We are very well organised and stewarded and everyone is looking forward to a peaceful and successful march and rally," he said.

Privately, however, the organisers are concerned about the potential for problems once the official rally disperses at about 5pm, when some protesters are expected to make their way to the more unorthodox anarchist events in and around Mayfair.