Kent police admit to receiving a warning, but still failed to act

They ignored a 999 call, but now have more questions to answer

In a HOPE not hate exclusive yesterday, I revealed that a member of the public had rung Kent police last Friday to forewarn them that hundreds of far-right activists were planning to invade Dover on the following day.   However, in the immediate aftermath of the incursion, the police stated that they had been caught off-guard by what was a “spontaneous” event.   

Today, Kent police have now admitted that they did indeed receive a call. 

“During that initial review, we found the force had received non-emergency information late on Friday evening that a protest could take place in the town the following day. This information was not fully assessed. If it was, it may have allowed the force to consider its resourcing.”

While we might quibble about the alleged timing (“late on Friday evening”) and their assessment of the situation (“non-emergency information”), there nevertheless seems to have been some internal doubt about their protocols, given that Kent police have now reported the incident to the “College of Policing to conduct a learning review to independently examine the processes involved.”

However, Kant police are adamant that, while they might have made a decision to strengthen their on-duty force, their approach would not have been fundamentally altered by having prior knowledge of the event.  

Their statement continues: “However, this information would not have prevented the lawful protest from taking place.”

I don’t think that you have to be a lawyer to question their claim that the actions of Patriot Platform were “lawful”.

It is my understanding that under Section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986, organisers must give written notice to the police at least six clear days before a public procession or protest march takes place. 

It is also the case that, under section 137 of the Highways Act, it is a criminal offense to intentionally block free passage on any public highway (including roads and pavements) without lawful authority or excuse. Given that this gang deliberately blocked the entrances to a busy port and prevented traffic from entering or leaving, there cannot be any doubt that this law was broken. 

While it is not an offence in the UK to wear a balaclava on a demonstration, the police had the authority to designate Dover as “mask-free zone”. Given the advance warning, this would have  empowered them under the Crime and Police Act to order the gang to remove their face coverings or risk arrest.

In a further oversight,  if the police had been on their toes and had taken the warning seriously, they might have been able to implement Regulation 100 of The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, when dozens of men were en route, jammed into the  backs of Bedford vans without seats or seatbelts. By this means the police would have been able to intercept the vehicles before they entered Dover and arrest the drivers.

Kent police need to own their mistakes and ensure that this is the last such failure.  Given that they were clearly unprepared for possible contingencies,  the Home Office should demand answers. 

One further question that relates to the Patriot Platform stunt in Dover has been raised by the Metro. Apparently one of their journalists spoke to a woman who claims to have tipped off Counter-Terrorism police about the “protest” plans as long ago as last Tuesday. While I have no way of verifying this information, the very suggestion that CT police, a unit which specialises in political extremism, could ignore such information, or at least fail to pass it on, is a major cause for concern. 

The events in Dover are evidence of  a clear police and intelligence failure.  It was fortunate that no one was hurt on this occasion but that was a matter of luck rather than sound policing. 

The most positive outcome would be an independent assessment of the best approach to policing the far-right in the future, not to aggravate the gangs but to contain their disruptive activities and to make sure that they follow the law – to the letter.