These Are The Six Reasons Civil Unrest Is Surging
I explore the six causes of civil unrest, fifteen ways the state can respond, the concerning psychology of police militarisation, and three ways to stay safe in a time of violence on the streets.
I Predict a Riot
Note - I was initially planning to publish a version of this article around two months ago, but got sidetracked into another project and into developing this into a longer practical guide to avoiding harm during civil unrest - which is still the eventual plan. But being overtaken by events, I thought it worth putting out this edited-down version now, mostly written before the events of August 2024, and written not specifically about the UK but regarding protest and disturbance under violent authoritarian regimes.
The current civil disturbance in the UK is not a protest. It is right-wing domestic terrorism instigated by the culture war created by nationalist profiteering 'politicians' such as Nigel Farage and racist agitators such as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. They should face repercussions along with their rioting pawns. However, abhorrence at their cause does not mean we should immediately throw away hard-won civil liberties and embrace the authoritarian state adoption of, for example, widespread AI-powered live facial recognition. As always there is a tension between safety and liberty.
These Are The Six Reasons Civil Unrest Is Surging
If you haven't experienced severe civil unrest yet, the chances are you will in the next 10 to 15 years. Two key drivers of civil unrest—Climate change and economic inequality—are both accelerating. Governments are responding with an increasingly authoritarian militarisation of police that is moving away from the traditional 'policing by consent'. But is that militarisation a valid response to the increased likelihood of civil unrest breaking out, or does it itself exacerbate the existing potential—and what should you do not to prepare?
In this article, I examine the six causes of civil unrest, and their outlook over the next decade, I contextualise the militarisation of police—especially in previously liberal Western democracies—examine the feedback loop of the arms race between regimes and protestors, extrapolate the future outlook as we approach the collapse in complexity from reaching the limits of growth, and offer some practical advice on preparing for the inevitable.
The Six Causes of Civil Unrest
Every riot might be sparked by its own combination of causes, but there are six common categories of causes that will lead to civil unrest and violence. If these factors improve, then your risk of being caught up in civil disturbance falls. If these factors increase, so is the likelihood of a riot.
The US Army field manual FM ( Field Manual) 3-19.15 Riot & Crowd Control Strategy & Tactics - says
"Demonstrations, public disorder, and riots happen for a number of reasons. Some of those reasons are economic hardships, social injustices, ethnic differences ( leading to oppression), objections to world organisations or certain governments, political grievances, terrorist acts, other man-made disasters, and natural disasters."
Of course, they are writing from a particular point of view. I'd simplify that into six causes. These may be overlapping, with aspects from more than one factor instigating violence. For example, unrest may arise from protest at ethnic oppression, which is of a different nature from violence instigated by racist motivations, but both may be fuelled by a background of economic inequality.
1. Economic Inequality
Economic inequality remains one of the most significant drivers of civil unrest. As the gap between the rich and the poor widens, frustration and discontent among disadvantaged populations grow, often leading to protests and riots. Historical examples vividly illustrate this trend. Rising inequality has been indicated as one of the reasons for the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. The Arab Spring (2010-2012) was significantly influenced by high unemployment rates, especially among young people, and widespread poverty despite elites' wealth (Gelvin, 2015). Similarly, the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011 highlighted issues of economic inequality and the influence of corporate money in politics (Pickerill & Krinsky, 2012).
Economic disparities create a sense of injustice and marginalisation among lower-income groups, who feel excluded from the benefits of economic growth. This perception of inequality leads to collective action, aiming to address these grievances.
These grievances can often be used by populists to manipulate people, meaning that where unrest erupts, it is sometimes the disadvantaged against the rich—think smashing Starbucks—but more often, thanks to scapegoating, we see two disadvantaged groups—say, working-class males and immigrants—pitted against each other.
The outlook for economic inequality is mixed. While some regions are making strides in reducing poverty and improving access to education and healthcare, the overall trend suggests that economic disparities will continue to widen as we approach the collapse in complexity, especially in the wake of economic disruptions caused by events like the COVID-19 pandemic.
2. Political Oppression and Corruption
Political repression and corruption are major catalysts for civil unrest. When governments fail to represent their citizens or engage in corrupt practices, public trust erodes, leading to protests. The 2019 protests in Hong Kong were sparked by a controversial extradition bill but were rooted in broader issues of political freedom and autonomy (Cheung, 2019). In Belarus, the 2020 protests erupted following contested presidential elections widely regarded as fraudulent (Wilson, 2020).
Political oppression and corruption diminish the legitimacy of government institutions, prompting citizens to demand transparency, accountability, and democratic reforms. These demands often manifest in large-scale protests and, occasionally, violent confrontations. The trend towards political oppression and corruption is concerning, with authoritarian regimes and democratic backsliding observed in various parts of the world.
Over the next 15 years, the struggle for political freedoms and anti-corruption efforts will likely continue, with technology playing a dual role in facilitating state surveillance and enabling grassroots mobilisation.
3. Social Justice Movements
Movements advocating for racial and social justice have been significant sources of civil unrest. These movements address systemic discrimination, police brutality, and broader social inequalities. The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, particularly after the killing of George Floyd in 2020, sparked global protests against police brutality and systemic racism (Taylor, 2020). In India, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in 2019-2020 focused on religious discrimination and minority rights (Chishti & Basant, 2020).
Racial and social justice movements seek to rectify long-standing inequities and injustices. These movements often gain momentum through high-profile incidents of violence or discrimination, leading to widespread protests that are usually peaceful but can sometimes turn violent. The fight for racial and social justice will continue as societies strive for greater equality and inclusion.
The outlook indicates that these movements will remain a potent force for change, driven by ongoing issues of discrimination and inequality.
4. Globalisation and Cultural Changes
Globalisation and rapid cultural changes can disrupt traditional societies and economies, leading to civil unrest. This includes reactions to economic displacement, cultural homogenisation, and the perceived loss of identity. Anti-globalisation protests, such as those during the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Seattle in 1999, highlighted opposition to free trade agreements and corporate globalisation (Smith, 2002). The Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) movement in France began in 2018 as a reaction to fuel taxes but evolved to address broader economic and social issues related to globalisation and government policies (Chrisafis, 2019).
Globalisation can lead to economic displacement, cultural homogenisation, and perceived threats to national identity. These disruptions can fuel discontent and lead to civil disturbances as affected groups resist changes they see as harmful to their way of life. The trend towards globalisation is likely to continue but with increasing resistance from those who feel left behind by rapid economic and cultural changes.
Cultural tensions are exploited by demagogies, nationalists and politicians looking to gain money, power and influence by scapegoating.
Outlook: Over the next 15 years, the tension between global integration and local identity will lead to more frequent and intense civil unrest.
5. Climate Change and Environmental Factors
Climate change is an emerging threat and the fastest-growing cause of civil disturbances. Environmental degradation, resource scarcity, and extreme weather events can exacerbate existing social tensions and trigger unrest. In Syria, prolonged droughts from 2006 to 2010, linked to climate change, contributed to rural-to-urban migration, economic hardship, and eventually the Syrian civil war (Kelley et al., 2015). The Extinction Rebellion movement, which began in 2018, focuses on climate action and has led to widespread protests in cities worldwide (BBC News, 2019).
Climate change impacts livelihoods, especially in vulnerable regions, by causing resource shortages, displacing populations, and increasing competition for dwindling resources. These conditions can create a fertile ground for civil disturbances as affected populations demand action and relief.
Unfortunately, the outlook for climate change is grim. Despite increasing awareness and international agreements, the pace of global warming and environmental degradation suggests that climate-related unrest could be more frequent and severe over the next 15 years.
6. Identity Politics and Ethnic Tensions
Identity politics and ethnic tensions are increasingly significant drivers of civil unrest, often exacerbated by political polarisation and the spread of misinformation. As societies become more diverse, traditionalists seek to keep them divided along ethnic, religious, and cultural lines, and the politics of identity can deepen rifts, leading to social fragmentation and conflict.
This dynamic is often fuelled by political leaders and groups who exploit identity-based grievances to mobilise support, sometimes at the expense of national unity. In extreme cases, this can lead to violence, as seen in the ethnic conflicts in Rwanda (1994) in Myanmar with the persecution of the Rohingya minority (Al Jazeera, 2017) and with the rise in islamophobia in the UK.
Polarisation intensifies these divisions, with partisan media and political rhetoric amplifying identity-based conflicts. In the United States, political polarisation has driven a sharp increase in identity-based politics, particularly along racial and ideological lines, contributing to events like the Charlottesville rally in 2017, which highlighted the resurgence of white nationalist groups (Belew, 2018). Similarly, in India, rising Hindu nationalism has fuelled tensions with the Muslim minority, leading to violent clashes and protests, such as those seen in Delhi in 2020 (Gettleman et al., 2020).
Misinformation and disinformation play a crucial role in this process, as false narratives and conspiracy theories often stoke fears and deepen divisions. While serving as tools for mobilisation, social media platforms also act as echo chambers where misinformation can spread rapidly, inflaming tensions. The far-right terrorism in August 2024 in the UK was sparked by misinformation about an attack, wrongly blaming Muslim illegal immigrants when the perpetrator was a Christian born in Wales.
The outlook for identity politics and ethnic tensions is concerning, primarily as political actors increasingly use these divisions to consolidate power. As misinformation continues to spread, often unchecked, the risk of identity-based violence and unrest is likely to grow. Over the next 15 years, the interplay between polarisation, identity politics, and misinformation could lead to more frequent and severe episodes of civil unrest, particularly in societies with deep-seated ethnic or religious divisions.
These Six Key causes should be seen as interconnected, not distinct factors. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) says that the impacts of climate change exacerbate rising social unrest driven by economic disparities. Rising food and fuel prices, influenced by climate change, strain economic systems and social stability. While we are hopefully moving past electing populist nationalists in the West, that may make them more dangerous as they seek to retain power and influence.
How should the state respond?
Undercover Police Station
The sight of the police station stopped me in my tracks. It took me a moment to even recognise it for what it was. I was thirteen, it was my first time in London, and I was experiencing culture shock. I loved navigating the underground by schematic map. We did a show (the Mousetrap) we ate very well - but my most formative memory isn't of Trafalgar Square, Big Ben, or the Crown Jewels—it's of a London police station near King's Cross Station, a supposed hotbed of crime in the nation's capital. The door opened right onto the street. There were bloody flower pots on the windowsills. I'm not even sure the windows had bulletproof glass.
I found this almost incomprehensible. My mental schema of a police station was a brutal concrete motte and bailey. The main building should be well back from the road behind tall reinforced walls. The barricaded entrance should have armoured guard towers and razor wire topping a 40-foot-high wire mesh to repel mortar bombs and other projectiles.
Growing up in Northern Ireland in the 1980s, to even get into a city-centre shop in Belfast, you had to go through a security checkpoint and get frisked on the way into the shop while your mum's handbag was searched for incendiary devices.
I'd known, of course, that the police on the Mainland weren't routinely armed. In Northern Ireland, you wouldn't see a police officer without a revolver: normally a Ruger Speed Six chambered for a .357 Magnum. (Incidentally, a gun I absolutely wasn't memorably introduced to by an unnamed friend whose policeman father kept one in the house in times of higher tension). But somehow, I hadn't made the conceptual leap that their stations would look like something out of a 1950s Enid Blyton book.
Frankly, the Met looked soft.
I imagine that now, in London, as in much of the West, the police more closely resemble the police of my childhood than that holiday experience. A meme recently doing the rounds represents how the police schema has changed through the medium of Lego.
There has been a shift from traditional policing by consent to a more militarised approach, especially in the US but also in other Western Democracies. This trend started with the creation of SWAT units in LA in the 1960s. This transformation is characterised by:
Increased use of military-grade equipment
Increased deployment of tactical units
Increased surveillance
Aggressive crowd control measures
The principles of policing by consent—relying on public trust and cooperation—are increasingly being undermined, raising concerns about civil liberties, authoritarianism and the rise of nationalism/fascism.
Policing by Consent vs. Authoritarianism
"The Police are the public, and the public are the police",
Policing by consent started in London and was developed by Sir Robert Peel and his 'Bobbies' in the 1800s. In theory, it emphasises the idea that the police's power comes from the public's consent and that the police are civilians - members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties that are incumbent on every citizen (Reith, 1956). Nine principles of policing were issued to every officer in 1829 and the very first makes clear the distinction between the civil police and the military -
To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment. (Emphasis added)
The context for this shift was the recognition of the failures of using military force to handle civil disturbances, most notably illustrated by the Peterloo Massacre of 1819. A peaceful pro-democracy rally in Manchester was violently dispersed by cavalry charges from a drunken militia, resulting in numerous deaths and injuries.
At first, the government, perhaps with the still recent French revolution in mind, doubled down with the legislative "Six Acts" The acts were aimed at gagging radical publications, making large meetings illegal, and preventing armed insurrection.
The brutal response underscored the urgent need for a more humane and community-oriented approach to maintaining public order, leading to the adoption of policing by consent to foster trust and cooperation between law enforcement and the public.
Militarisation, Demilitarisation and Reforms
British Policing moved in two directions under Tony Blair. From 1997 to 2007, while he was Prime Minister, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) underwent demilitarisation as part of the peace process, while mainland police forces began adopting more authoritarian measures. These were building on the foundation of secret reforms made in the early 1980's1980s in response to the Miner's Strikes and Football hooliganism.
In Northern Ireland, the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 was a watershed moment that led to substantial changes in the policing landscape. The Patten Report, published in 1999, recommended a series of reforms to create a more community-oriented and accountable police service. In many ways, this took the RUC back to the original vision - when it was first created, it was designed to be two-thirds Protestant and one-third Catholic to reflect the community it represented - however, most Catholic officers recruiters were those who had been Irish Police officers, now fleeing the south, and Catholic membership never topped 20%.
The RUC became the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) in 2001. The PSNI was designed to be more inclusive and representative of the entire community. Its demilitarisation involved reducing the visible presence of armed police and military equipment and fostering greater trust and cooperation with the public.
The familiar armoured land rovers of my youth are now replaced mainly with police cars.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2551/3854188974_b3fd188562.jpg
Mainland UK: Authoritarian Measures
On the Mainland, the Blair government's approach to policing became increasingly authoritarian, particularly in response to rising concerns over terrorism and public disorder. The aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in the United States and the subsequent 7/7 bombings in London in 2005 prompted significant legislative changes aimed at enhancing national security. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Terrorism Act 2006 granted the police extensive powers, including:
The ability to detain suspects without charge for extended periods
Right to conduct stop-and-search operations without reasonable suspicion.
Right to impose control orders on individuals suspected of involvement in terrorist activities.
Implications of Militarised Policing
Should we be concerned? The use of military-grade equipment and tactics can escalate tensions and provoke violence rather than maintain peace and order. Studies have shown that the presence of militarised police at protests can increase the likelihood of violent confrontations (Mummolo, 2018). The aggressive appearance and actions of heavily armed police can create a sense of an occupying force rather than a community-oriented service, further alienating the public.
The Psychology of Militarisation in Policing
"Do not let yourselves drift into a paramilitary role and away from policing as you and I know it."
RUC delegate to the Police Federation Conference, May 1986
The shift towards the militarisation of police forces has significant psychological implications, influencing how officers perceive their role and interact with the community. This transformation, characterised by the adoption of military-grade weapons, tactics, and equipment, fundamentally alters the psychology of law enforcement, with profound consequences for public order and community relations.
Militarisation and the "Warrior" Mindset
The US military produces several handbooks, often detailed but almost incomprehensible unless you have a working knowledge of the terminology, acronyms and style of writing, including one on the "Warrior Mindset".
When police officers are equipped and armed like soldiers, they are more likely to adopt a "warrior" mindset. This psychological shift sees the community as potential threats or enemies, particularly protestors and marginalised groups. The presence of military-grade weapons and equipment, such as assault rifles, armoured vehicles, and tactical gear, can reinforce this adversarial stance. Research has shown that militarised police are more likely to use force and less likely to engage in community-oriented policing strategies.
Perception of Threat: Militarisation fosters a heightened perception of threat among police officers. Using military equipment can lead to an "us versus them" mentality, where officers view themselves as protectors against a hostile populace. This mindset is particularly dangerous during protests and civil disturbances, where the likelihood of confrontation is already high.
Authoritarian Approach: The psychological impact of militarisation also encourages a more authoritarian approach to law enforcement. Officers may prioritise control and suppression over dialogue and negotiation, seeing force as a primary tool for maintaining order. This can escalate situations unnecessarily, leading to increased violence and tension.
Policing by Consent and the "Guardian" Mindset
In contrast, policing by consent emphasises cooperation, community engagement, and mutual respect between the police and the public. This model is grounded in democratic policing, where the legitimacy of law enforcement derives from the consent of the governed rather than the use of force.
Community Integration: When police see themselves as part of the community, they are likelier to engage in behaviours that build trust and cooperation. This includes activities such as community policing, where officers work closely with local residents to identify and solve problems. The emphasis is on partnership and problem-solving rather than enforcement and control.
Reduced Use of Force: The psychology of policing by consent encourages officers to use force only as a last resort. The focus is on de-escalation and conflict resolution, recognising that maintaining public trust is crucial for effective law enforcement. Officers trained in this model are more likely to use communication and negotiation skills to manage public order situations.
Psychological Consequences of Militarisation
Stress and Aggression: The militarisation of police forces can increase stress and aggression among officers. Constant readiness for violent confrontation can lead to psychological stress, which may manifest as increased aggression and a higher likelihood of using force. This can have detrimental effects on both the officers' mental health and their interactions with the public.
Erosion of Public Trust: Militarisation can erode public trust in law enforcement. When communities see police officers using military tactics and equipment, it can create fear and resentment. This undermines the legitimacy of the police and makes it more difficult for officers to gain the community's cooperation.
Negative Feedback Loop: The adversarial approach fostered by militarisation can create a negative feedback loop. Increased use of force and aggressive tactics can provoke public resistance and hostility, which justifies further militarisation. This cycle can escalate tensions and lead to more frequent and intense confrontations.
Twenty-First Century Techniques for Countering Riots, Protests, and Disturbances
Batons and Shields
Batons and shields are fundamental tools od riot police for crowd control and public order management. Batons are hand-held, club-like weapons used by police to subdue or deter individuals through physical force.
Shields, typically made from strong, lightweight materials like polycarbonate, are used to protect officers from projectiles and as a means to push back or contain crowds. The use of these tools has a long history in policing and is considered a standard aspect of riot control tactics.
As we have also memorably seen in the UK - Shields can effectively bounce projectiles back to protestors, creating self-inflicted harm withough direct police agression.
The primary advantage of using batons and shields is their effectiveness in controlling or dispersing crowds in close-quarters situations without resorting to lethal force.
Batons allow officers to apply force directly to specific individuals who may be acting aggressively, helping to neutralise threats and maintain order. Shields provide officers with essential protection from thrown objects, such as rocks or bottles, and can also be used to form barriers, which can help in guiding or containing groups of people.
However, the use of batons and shields also carries significant disadvantages. The physical force applied with batons can lead to serious injuries, including broken bones, head trauma, or other significant harm.
The use of batons is often seen as a last resort due to the potential for such injuries, and incidents of excessive force can lead to public outcry, legal challenges, and damage to the reputation of the police.
They can also cause escalation - shields may invite projectiles. While primarily defensive, they can be seen as an aggressive tactic, especially when used to push or corral protestors. The visual impact of officers in full riot gear, wielding batons and shields, can escalate tensions and contribute to an adversarial atmosphere between law enforcement and protestors.
The risks associated with the use of batons and shields include the potential for escalating violence, particularly if the tools are used indiscriminately or excessively. Injuries caused by batons can lead to legal repercussions for the police, as well as increased hostility from the public. There is also the risk of shields being used to excessively push back crowds, potentially causing injuries or provoking a stampede.
In the UK, their use is governed by strict guidelines that emphasise the need for proportionality and restraint, with officers trained to use these tools only when necessary to protect themselves or others and to maintain public order.
Mounted Police and Canine Units
Mounted police and canine units play critical roles in crowd control and public order management. Mounted police involve officers on horseback, while canine units involve trained dogs to assist in law enforcement operations.
Both tactics have long histories, with mounted police used for centuries and canine units becoming more prominent in the 20th century.
The use of mounted police offers several advantages in crowd control situations. Officers on horseback have a height advantage, which allows them to oversee large crowds and move through dense gatherings more effectively than officers on foot. The presence of mounted police can also have a psychological impact, as the imposing sight of horses can be intimidating and may help deter unruly behaviour. Additionally, horses can be used to create barriers or guide crowds in specific directions, aiding in the dispersal of gatherings.
Canine units provide another layer of control, with trained dogs being used for various purposes, including crowd management, detection of contraband, and apprehension of suspects. The presence of police dogs can have a strong deterrent effect, as the fear of being bitten may discourage aggressive or unlawful behaviour. Canine units are also highly effective in search operations, quickly locating individuals or substances in large or complex environments.
However, the use of horses in crowd control can lead to injuries for both protestors and the animals themselves, especially in chaotic or violent situations. The potential for trampling or accidental injuries is a concern, and the public perception of using horses in these roles can be harmful, particularly if force is used excessively.
Similarly, the use of police dogs can lead to severe injuries if the animals are not adequately controlled or if they are deployed inappropriately. The use of force by canine units is often scrutinised, with concerns about the proportionality and necessity of such tactics in managing crowds.
The risks associated with mounted police and canine units include the potential for escalating violence, particularly if their presence is perceived as overly aggressive or intimidating. Injuries to both the public and the animals involved are also significant risks, as is the potential for public backlash against the perceived militarisation of police forces.
Examples of mounted police and canine units being used effectively include their deployment during large public events, such as the Notting Hill Carnival in London, where they help manage crowds and maintain order. In some cases, the use of these units has been controversial, particularly when injuries or excessive force have been reported. The legal framework for using mounted police and canine units varies by country, with specific guidelines in place to ensure their use is proportionate and justified in maintaining public order.
Kettling
Kettling also referred to as containment or corralling, is a crowd control tactic employed by police forces to confine protesters within a restricted area. This technique involves surrounding the crowd from all sides, effectively controlling their movement and limiting their ability to disperse. The primary goal of kettling is to prevent the spread of protests to other areas, making it easier for authorities to manage and monitor the situation. By restricting the protesters' movements, the tactic can also lead to the eventual dispersal of the crowd as individuals become tired or demoralised.
However the tactic can escalate tensions among protesters, potentially leading to confrontations. It risks creating overcrowded conditions, which can result in health issues for those confined. Critics argue that kettling infringes on the freedom of movement and can sometimes trap individuals who are not involved in the trouble.
There are significant risks associated with the tactic, including potential human rights violations and the exacerbation of conflicts. Legal challenges have been raised against the use of kettling, although UK courts have upheld its legality.
Kettling has been notably used during high-profile events such as the G20 protests in London in 2009 and the student protests in 2010. Indicators of kettling being deployed include an increased police presence and the formation of police lines or cordons around the crowd. Despite its controversial nature, kettling remains a tool in the police's crowd control arsenal, although its use continues to be a subject of legal and ethical debate. UK courts have upheld the legality of kettling, but it remains controversial and has been scrutinised by the European Court of Human Rights.
Kinetic Impact Projectiles (KIPs): Rubber Bullets, Bean Bag Rounds,
Rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, and kinetic impact projectiles (KIPs) are theoretically 'non-lethal' or 'less-lethal' projectiles designed to incapacitate individuals by causing pain or injury without penetrating the skin. Typically fired from standard firearms or specialised launchers, these projectiles are used by police forces worldwide as a means of controlling aggressive behaviour and maintaining public order. While they are perceived as a less lethal option compared to live ammunition, they can kill and are controversial.
The primary advantage of these projectiles lies in their effectiveness at stopping aggressive individuals in close-range confrontations. They provide law enforcement with a non-lethal tool to manage potentially violent situations, which can be crucial in de-escalating conflicts without resorting to deadly force. However, the use of rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, and KIPs can lead to serious injuries or even death if misused, particularly when fired at close range or targeted at vulnerable areas of the body. This has made their deployment a subject of significant controversy, especially following incidents where individuals have suffered severe harm.
The risks associated with these projectiles include the potential for severe injury, escalation of violence, and the possibility of exacerbating tensions during confrontations. Indicators of their use include:
Police are equipped with firearms loaded with less-lethal ammunition.
The presence of specialised response units.
The deployment of these projectiles during protests or riots.
Rubber bullets and KIPs have been widely used in various high-profile incidents, such as the George Floyd protests in the United States in 2020 and the protests in Ferguson, Missouri. During these events, the use of these projectiles caused significant injuries, sparking widespread debate over their appropriateness in crowd control. In the UK, rubber bullets and KIPs are strictly regulated, with guidelines emphasising the need to minimise harm. Law enforcement officers receive training focusing on accuracy and restraint, aiming to prevent unnecessary injuries while maintaining public safety.
Tear Gas
Tear gas, also known as CS gas, is a chemical weapon widely used for riot control, causing severe irritation to the eyes and respiratory system. First deployed during World War I, it has since become a standard tool for dispersing large crowds quickly. Tear gas is valued for its effectiveness in rapidly clearing areas during protests or riots, and its ease of deployment makes it a go-to option for law enforcement agencies in managing public order.
However, the use of tear gas is not without significant drawbacks. One of the primary disadvantages is its indiscriminate nature—tear gas affects everyone in the vicinity, regardless of whether they are involved in the protest. This can lead to severe health issues, particularly for vulnerable individuals such as children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing respiratory conditions. It's deployment is often viewed as an excessive use of force, sparking controversy and criticism from human rights advocates.
Tear gas use can induce panic among crowds, leading to dangerous stampedes and further injuries. Indicators of tear gas deployment typically include police officers donning gas masks and the preparation or visible presence of tear gas canisters or grenades.
Tear gas has been employed in numerous global protests, such as the Yellow Vests protests in France and the Hong Kong protests, often leading to widespread condemnation and debates over its use.
In the UK, the use of tear gas is strictly regulated, with legislation requiring it to be deployed only in extreme circumstances, ensuring that its use is proportionate and justified.
Water Cannon:
Water cannons are high-pressure devices designed to disperse crowds by directing powerful jets of water at them. First developed in Germany in the 1930s, water cannons have become a staple of riot control tactics used by police forces around the world. These devices are particularly effective at dispersing large crowds quickly and can be adjusted to vary the pressure levels, allowing for some degree of control over their impact.
Despite their effectiveness, water cannons have several significant disadvantages. If directed at close range, the high-pressure water jets can cause serious injuries, including fractures, internal injuries, and even head trauma. Water cannons can lead to property damage, especially if the jets are aimed at buildings or vehicles. The tactic is often perceived as highly aggressive, contributing to its controversial reputation.
Water cannons have been used in various significant events, such as during the Troubles in Northern Ireland and, more recently, in anti-austerity protests across Europe. In mainland UK, the use of water cannons is heavily restricted, and their deployment has been the subject of considerable debate. Critics argue that their use should be limited due to the potential for harm and the aggressive nature of the tactic, while supporters see them as an effective tool for crowd control in extreme situations.
Boris Johnson famously bought a second-hand water cannon that he later found would be illegal to deploy.
Facial Recognition
Facial recognition technology is a sophisticated tool that uses software to identify individuals based on their facial features. This technology has rapidly evolved alongside advancements in artificial intelligence and surveillance systems, becoming increasingly prominent in law enforcement and public security efforts. Facial recognition enhances the ability to identify and track individuals within large crowds, making it a valuable asset for post-protest investigations and real-time monitoring during public events.
However, facial recognition technology does not come without disadvantages. Chief among these is the significant privacy concerns it raises, as the technology can monitor individuals without their consent, leading to potential misuse. Errors in identification can also occur, resulting in wrongful accusations or detentions. These issues make facial recognition highly controversial, particularly regarding its implications for civil liberties and the potential for government overreach.
The risks associated with facial recognition technology include privacy violations and the danger of wrongful identifications, which can lead to legal and social consequences for innocent individuals. Indicators of its use typically include an increased presence of CCTV cameras in public spaces and the deployment of drones equipped with surveillance capabilities.
Facial recognition has been extensively used in China for monitoring and controlling protests, and its deployment has been noted in the UK at events like the Notting Hill Carnival. The technology has faced significant scrutiny and legal challenges in the UK, with ongoing debates about its regulation and the balance between security and privacy. The new UK Labour Government has indicated plans to expand the use of live facial recognition technology in response to threats of far-right riots, further intensifying the debate over its ethical and legal implications.
Famously in authoritarian China, facial recognition software can be used to trace back where you have been for a week previously.
Barricades and Roadblocks
Barricades and roadblocks are physical barriers strategically deployed to control the movement of crowds and vehicles, playing a crucial role in crowd control tactics. These barriers, which have been utilised for centuries, serve as a means to restrict access to key areas, effectively containing protests and preventing the spread of unrest. Their presence is often a clear indicator of efforts to maintain public order during large-scale events or demonstrations.
The primary advantage of barricades and roadblocks lies in their effectiveness at controlling access to specific locations, thereby helping to protect critical infrastructure or prevent the escalation of unrest into wider areas. However, these barriers can be easily bypassed by determined protesters, particularly if they are not robustly enforced or if alternative routes are available. Moreover, the use of barricades and roadblocks can sometimes provoke confrontations, as they may be perceived as a physical manifestation of authority and control, leading to clashes between protesters and law enforcement.
The risks associated with barricades and roadblocks include the potential for physical confrontations and property damage, particularly if protesters attempt to dismantle or breach these barriers. Indicators of their deployment typically include the appearance of metal or concrete barriers in public spaces and the closure of roads and streets to control movement.
Barricades and roadblocks have been extensively used in various significant events, such as the 2017 G20 summit in Hamburg, where they were deployed to manage and contain widespread protests, and during the 2011 London riots, where they helped to control access to certain areas of the city. In the UK, police have the legal authority to set up roadblocks and barricades during public order situations under specific legislation, which is used to ensure public safety and maintain control during potentially volatile situations.
Negotiation and Mediation:
Negotiation and mediation are conflict resolution strategies that involve dialogue between law enforcement and protest organisers to de-escalate tensions and resolve conflicts peacefully. These approaches are deeply rooted in the principles of community policing, where building trust and open communication between the police and the community are prioritised. By engaging in negotiation and mediation, law enforcement seeks to address the protesters' concerns, prevent violence, and reach mutually acceptable solutions.
The advantages of negotiation and mediation are significant, as these methods can reduce the likelihood of violence, foster trust between police and communities, and create a cooperative atmosphere that benefits both parties. This approach is particularly effective in diffusing potentially volatile situations before they escalate into conflict. However, there are also disadvantages to this strategy. Some groups may perceive negotiation as a sign of weakness or a lack of resolve, which could embolden them or lead to further demands. Additionally, the process can be time-consuming and may not always lead to a resolution, particularly if the parties involved have deeply entrenched positions.
The risks associated with negotiation and mediation include the potential for escalation if an agreement cannot be reached or if communication breaks down. In such cases, tensions may rise, leading to a more confrontational situation. Indicators of negotiation and mediation efforts include the presence of liaison officers who facilitate communication between the police and protest leaders and the establishment of open channels of communication to discuss concerns and negotiate terms.
Negotiation and mediation have been successfully employed in various situations, such as during the 2013 anti-fracking protests in Balcombe, England, where dialogue between police and protesters helped to maintain peace and order. In the UK, negotiation and mediation are encouraged under the law as part of the police's duty to maintain public peace and order. This approach aligns with the broader goal of resolving conflicts through non-violent means, thereby minimising the need for force and fostering long-term trust between law enforcement and the public.
Psychological Operations (PsyOps) and Information Warfare
Psychological Operations (PsyOps) and Information Warfare involve the use of psychological tactics and information dissemination to influence the mindset and behaviour of protesters. These techniques can include spreading misinformation and propaganda or strategically using social media to sway public opinion, demoralise protestors, or create confusion and dissent within protest movements. PsyOps have historical roots in military strategy but have increasingly been adopted in civil contexts, particularly with the advent of digital and social media.
The primary advantage of PsyOps and Information Warfare is their ability to demoralise or mislead protestors, potentially reducing the intensity of protests or causing them to lose momentum. By influencing the narrative or sowing discord, authorities can weaken protestors' resolve or even cause divisions within their ranks, making it easier to manage or disperse crowds without confrontation.
However, these tactics come with significant disadvantages, particularly ethical concerns and potential misuse. The deliberate spread of misinformation can erode public trust in authorities and the media, leading to long-term damage to societal cohesion and democratic institutions. Additionally, these tactics can backfire, leading to greater resistance if protesters or the public become aware of manipulative efforts. Using PsyOps also raises questions about the boundaries of acceptable state behaviour in managing civil unrest, particularly in democratic societies.
Examples of PsyOps and Information Warfare include the strategic use of social media during protests in various countries, where both state and non-state actors have employed these tactics to shape public perception and influence the outcome of protests. The legality and ethics of these practices are often contentious, with little formal legislation specifically addressing the use of PsyOps in domestic contexts. However, the growing prevalence of these tactics in civil protest scenarios highlights the need for clear legal frameworks and ethical guidelines to prevent abuse and protect civil liberties.
Surveillance
Drones, CCTV, and aerial surveillance have become essential tools in modern crowd control and law enforcement. These technologies are used for real-time surveillance, crowd monitoring, and, in some cases, for dispersing crowds using non-lethal means like tear gas. The origin of these tools can be traced to military applications, but they have increasingly been adopted by law enforcement for managing civil unrest and public order.
The advantages of using drones and CCTV in crowd control include enhanced surveillance capabilities, providing law enforcement with a comprehensive view of protest activities from a safe distance. Drones are particularly valued for their low cost and the minimal risk they pose to human life, as they can be deployed in potentially dangerous situations without endangering officers. Additionally, these technologies allow for better crowd management and can help prevent violence by identifying and addressing potential flashpoints before they escalate.
However, privacy concerns are paramount, as the pervasive use of surveillance can infringe on individuals' rights to privacy and lead to the over-policing of public spaces. The use of drones and aerial surveillance also raises ethical concerns, as viewing people from a distance can dehumanise them in the eyes of operators, potentially leading to more aggressive tactics. The potential for abuse is high, particularly in authoritarian contexts where surveillance can be used to suppress dissent.
These technologies have been widely used in various contexts, notably against protesters in Hong Kong, where drones and extensive CCTV networks were employed to monitor and control protest activities. In the UK and other countries, the use of drones and CCTV is subject to regulations aimed at balancing security needs with privacy rights, although the rapid adoption of these technologies continues to outpace the development of comprehensive legal frameworks.
Other forms of surveillance can include, for example, monitoring train ticket sales for spikes that may be linked to organised or expected incidents.
Legal Repercussions and Preemptive Actions
Legal repercussions and preemptive actions are measures taken by authorities to deter or prevent protests before they occur. These actions can include the arrest of organisers, the imposition of restrictions on assembly, and the use of legal frameworks to limit the ability of groups to gather and demonstrate. The origin of these tactics lies in the broader strategy of maintaining public order by addressing potential threats before they escalate into unrest.
The primary advantage of legal repercussions and preemptive actions is their ability to prevent riots and deter violence. By targeting the leadership of protest movements or imposing restrictions on assembly, authorities can disrupt the organisation and planning of potentially disruptive events. This approach can be effective in maintaining public order and preventing the escalation of tensions into violent confrontations.
However, the disadvantages of these measures are significant, particularly regarding civil liberties. Preemptive legal actions can be seen as heavy-handed and an infringement on the fundamental rights to free speech and assembly. Such actions can also provoke further unrest, as individuals and groups may perceive them as unjust or oppressive, leading to greater resistance and potential violence.
Examples of legal repercussions and preemptive actions can be found in various countries, where laws allow for the detention of protest organisers, the imposition of curfews, or the prohibition of gatherings. These measures are often justified as necessary for public safety, but they remain highly controversial and are frequently challenged in courts, particularly in democratic societies where the right to protest is a protected civil liberty.
In the UK Kier Starmer has announced the use of criminal behaviour orders which will restrict people's movements before they attempt to take part in another demonstration.
Mobile Communication Jamming
Mobile communication jamming involves deliberately disrupting mobile phone networks to prevent coordination and communication among protesters. This tactic typically involves switching off mobile phone towers or using specialised equipment to block signals within a specific area of disturbance. The origin of mobile communication jamming can be traced to military and intelligence operations, but it has increasingly been employed in civil contexts to control large gatherings and prevent the spread of unrest.
The primary advantage of mobile communication jamming is its effectiveness in reducing organisation among rioters and protestors, making it more difficult for them to coordinate actions, share information, or mobilise large crowds quickly. This disruption can help law enforcement maintain control over potentially volatile situations by limiting the ability of protestors to adapt to changing circumstances or respond to police tactics in real-time.
Jamming mobile communications can also interfere with emergency services, hindering the ability of individuals to call for help or receive important alerts. Additionally, it can affect journalists trying to report on the events, leading to concerns about press freedom and the public's right to information. The use of mobile communication jamming is highly controversial, especially in democratic societies, where it is seen as an infringement on civil liberties and freedom of expression.
Examples of mobile communication jamming have been widely reported across the Middle East, particularly during periods of civil unrest where governments have sought to control the flow of information and prevent the organisation of protests. The legality of this tactic varies by country, with some governments enacting specific laws to allow for its use while others face criticism and legal challenges for its deployment.
Public Relations and Media Management:
This overlaps with but is separate from PsyOps. Public relations (PR) and media management are strategies used by authorities to control the narrative surrounding protests and influence public opinion. This involves managing how events are reported in the media, shaping the messages that are conveyed to the public, and, in some cases, limiting or manipulating the information that reaches the public. The origins of PR and media management lie in the broader fields of propaganda and communications, but they have become integral to modern crowd control and law enforcement strategies.
The main advantage of effective PR and media management is the ability to sway public opinion in favour of the authorities' position. By controlling the narrative, authorities can minimise sympathy for protestors, justify their actions, and maintain public support for law enforcement measures. This can be particularly important in managing the long-term reputational impact of protests and ensuring that the government retains legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
However, there are significant disadvantages to this approach, particularly ethical concerns about the manipulation of information. When media coverage is controlled or skewed, it can undermine public trust in the media and the authorities, especially if the public perceives that they are being misled. The issue is further compounded by the concentration of media ownership, particularly when much of the media is owned by right-wing billionaires who may have vested interests in the portrayal of protests. This raises questions about media independence and the potential for biased reporting.
Examples of PR and media management can be seen in how major protests are handled globally, with authorities often employing spokespersons, press releases, and strategic media briefings to shape the narrative. In some cases, media blackouts or restrictions on reporting have been used to control the flow of information. The legal framework around media management varies, with some countries having strong protections for press freedom, while others have laws that allow for tighter control of media coverage during times of unrest.
Strategies for Staying Safe During Civil Disturbances
Have Situational Awareness
The best place to be in a riot is - somewhere else. The first and most crucial step in staying safe during civil unrest is to stay informed about the current situation. This involves actively monitoring reliable news sources and social media for real-time updates. However, there is a duty to protect communities under threat and to peacefully protest against agitation.
While much of the media coverage has been of the far-right attacks in cities across the UK, there have been many counter-protests as well - 10,000 Anti-facist punks in Blackpool chased away fascist agitators, and anti-fascists in Bristol outnumbered the far-right terrorist.
Reputable news outlets like BBC, CNN, and local news channels provide accurate and timely information. Websites, radio, and television news channels are primary sources of such updates. Platforms such as X, Facebook, and Telegram can provide real-time updates; however, they are not in themselves unbiased. Follow local authorities, journalists, and community groups for the latest developments. Use relevant hashtags to track ongoing events and understand the current hotspots of unrest.
Have an Exit Plan
Always have an exit plan when near potential disturbance zones. This means knowing the nearest exits, safe locations, and alternative routes. Use mapping apps like Google Maps, Waze, and specialised protest-tracking apps that show real-time updates, road closures, and conflict zones. Pay attention to updates from local authorities regarding areas to avoid. This can include following police announcements and community alerts.
Identify and memorise key landmarks that can help you navigate if electronic maps are unavailable or if there is a loss of mobile signal. Establish a pre-determined meeting point with friends or family in case you get separated. Ensure that everyone in your group is aware of this location.
Carry Only Essential Items
Preparing a small emergency kit with essential items can significantly enhance your safety and preparedness during civil disturbances. Carrying ID can be crucial for proving your identity and avoiding detention. However, in authoritarian regimes, possessing ID can lead to an increased risk of targeting by authorities, especially if the protests are against the government. Weigh the risks based on your environment. Staying hydrated and maintaining energy levels is important. Carry water bottles and non-perishable snacks. Ensure your phone is fully charged and has emergency contacts pre-programmed. Consider carrying a portable charger. Think of a first aid kit. Include basic supplies like bandages, antiseptic wipes, pain relievers, and any personal medication. Coagulant powder is both more portable, less dangerous and more adaptable than a tourniquet . Carry some money in case digital payment methods are unavailable. This can be crucial if you need to make a quick purchase or pay for transportation.
Conclusion
Peaceful protest remains a powerful expression of societal grievances and a catalyst for change. Civil unrest can spill out from valid protest, but as we are seeing in the UK, it can also be orchestrated as domestic terrorism in the name of a culture war being directed for political and profitable ends.
We can also clearly see that globally, the underlying causes of civil unrest are generally likely to increase over the next 10 to 15 years, so the frequency of disturbances is likely to increase. If states react in authoritarian manners, this may exacerbate unrest in a cycle of escalation.
From the plebeian revolts in ancient Rome to modern-day protests worldwide, the dynamics of civil disturbances have evolved, reflecting broader political, social, and technological changes. The increasing militarisation of the police poses significant risks to civil liberties and democratic values, while protestors continue to innovate in their tactics to resist and evade suppression. Fascists are authoritarian in their reaction where they are in power and terrorist in their violence where they are not.
The psychology of militarisation in policing fundamentally alters the relationship between law enforcement and the community. While militarised tactics may provide short-term solutions for controlling public disorder, they come at the cost of long-term trust and cooperation. Policing by consent offers a more sustainable and effective approach, fostering a sense of community partnership and mutual respect. Understanding these psychological dynamics is crucial for developing policing strategies that enhance public safety while maintaining democratic principles and human rights.
But the only long-term strategy is to address the root causes - countering nationalist polarisation with community integration, reducing economic inequality and reversing climate change. That will do more to prevent blood on the streets than increasing authoritarian surveillance and the militarisation of the police.
References
IPCC. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch
World Bank. (2023). Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org
IMF. (2022). Social Unrest is Rising, Adding to Risks for Global Economy. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/05/20/social-unrest-is-rising-adding-to-risks-for-global-economy
HM Government. (2012). Definition of policing by consent. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/policing-by-consent/definition-of-policing-by-consent
Poole, R. (2006). Peterloo: The English Uprising. Oxford University Press.
Read, D. (2018). Peterloo: The Massacre and Its Background. Manchester University Press.
Philp, M. (1989). Reform and Resistance in the Age of Revolution. Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, E. P. (1963). The Making of the English Working Class. Vintage Books.
Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland. (1999). A new beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland. The report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland. Retrieved from https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/police/patten/patten99.pdf
Baker, D. (2020). Policing the Crisis: Policing by Consent or by Coercion? Crime, Law and Social Change, 73(3), 201-217. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10611-020-09909-1
Balko, R. (2013). Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces. PublicAffairs.
BBC News. (2019). Extinction Rebellion: What do they want, and is their activism working? Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48607989
Cary, M., & Scullard, H. H. (1975). A History of Rome Down to the Reign of Constantine. Macmillan.
Cheung, H. (2019). How Hong Kong Protestors are Using Lasers. BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49167850
Chishti, M., & Basant, R. (2020). Citizenship, Democracy and Protest: The CAA in India. Journal of South Asian Development, 15(1), 1-13. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0973174120903642
Chrisafis, A. (2019). The French Yellow Vest Movement Explained. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/20/the-french-yellow-vest-movement-explained
Creemers, R. (2016). Cyber China: Upgrading Propaganda, Public Opinion Work and Social Management for the Twenty-First Century. Journal of Contemporary China, 26(103), 85-100. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10670564.2016.1206281
Al Jazeera. (2017). Myanmar's Rohingya Crisis Explained. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/08/myanmar-rohingya-crisis-explained-170831065142812.html
Belew, K. (2018). Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America. Harvard University Press.
Gettleman, J., Raj, S., & Yasir, S. (2020). 'We're No Longer Safe': India's Muslims Fear for Their Future. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/world/asia/india-muslims-citizenship-law.html
Mozur, P. (2018). A Genocide Incited on Facebook, With Posts From Myanmar's Military. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html
Gelvin, J. L. (2015). The Arab Uprisings: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press.
Gorringe, H., Stott, C., & Rosie, M. (2012). Protest, Policing and Media in the Age of Austerity: Performing and Responding to the Public Gaze. Routledge.
Human Rights Watch. (2021). Protesting Safely: A Guide. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/01/12/protesting-safely-guide
Kraska, P. B. (2001). Militarising the American Criminal Justice System: The Changing Roles of the Armed Forces and the Police. Northeastern University Press.
Mummolo, J. (2018). Militarization Fails to Enhance Police Safety or Reduce Crime but May Harm Police Reputation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9181-9186. Retrieved from https://www.pnas.org/content/115/37/9181
Neocleous, M. (2014). War Power, Police Power. Edinburgh University Press.
Baker, A. (2014, September 7). The rise of the SWAT team in American policing. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/us/the-rise-of-the-swat-team-in-american-policing.html
Pickerill, J., & Krinsky, J. (2012). Why Does Occupy Matter? Social Movement Studies, 11(3-4), 279-287. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14742837.2012.709857
Reicher, S., & Stott, C. (2011). Mad Mobs and Englishmen? Myths and Realities of the 2011 Riots. Constable & Robinson.
Smith, J. (2002). Globalizing Resistance: The Battle of Seattle and the Future of Social Movements. Mobilisation: An International Quarterly, 7(1), 1-19. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.17813/maiq.7.1.h822745386m24353
Taylor, K.-Y. (2020). Race for Profit: How Banks and the Real Estate Industry Undermined Black Homeownership. University of North Carolina Press.
Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. Yale University Press.
Vitale, A. S. (2017). The End of Policing. Verso Books.
Wilson, A. (2020). Belarus: The Last European Dictatorship. Yale University Press.
Tu, A. (2000). Riot control agents: Issues in toxicology, safety & health. CRC Press.
della Porta, D. (2006). Policing protest: The control of mass demonstrations in Western democracies. University of Minnesota Press.
Waddington, D. (2017). The use of force in public order policing: Lessons from research. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 11(1), 69-79. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pax003
Stott, C. (2011). Public order policing in the 21st century. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 5(4), 283-286. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/par039
The Guardian. (n.d.). Protest and policing. Retrieved June 2, 2024, from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/protest-and-policing
BBC News. (n.d.). Real-time updates on protests and police responses. Retrieved June 2, 2024, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c2y9wny6pwpt/protests
The Public Order Act 1986. (UK).
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. (UK).
Sky News. (2024, August 3). New police unit to be set up to tackle violent disorder across UK in wake of riots after Southport stabbings. https://news.sky.com/story/new-police-unit-to-be-set-up-to-tackle-violent-disorder-across-uk-in-wake-of-riots-after-southport-stabbings-13188845