The Protest that Never Was: How the Met Banned Tractors Overnight

Image - Julia Koblitz

‍

At 16:59 on Tuesday the 25^{th of} November, budget eve, those farmers involved in the protest for the following day were likely preparing for an early start with their tractors. However, at 17:00 they were informed via a Met Police statement that pre-approved plans were now to be changed. The rally could take place, but the impact would be muted as their tractors were deemed too disruptive to be allowed down Whitehall. Why did the met police suddenly change approved protest plans? Was someone afraid that the news would be caught by someone other than the government?

‍

The farmers protest was intended to draw attention to their opposition to any inheritance tax changes that would affect them in the budget. The Met Police initially agreed to allow them to bring their tractors and drive down Whitehall with them in the hours preceding the budget. However, they decided to ban tractors because they would allegedly cause ‘serious disruption’ and would therefore be violating section 34 of the Public Order Act 2023. The question remains, how can something that was previously discussed, reviewed, and approved, suddenly become too disruptive?

‍

The recent tightening of the parameters of lawful protest in the Public Order Act 2023 have left the police with flexibility when it comes to restricting or shutting down protests altogether. I raised this question in my previous article titled ‘Policing Protest: Rights Under Siege?’. The famers driving their tractors down Whitehall one by one would have likely been no more disruptive than slightly slowing the traffic. The Met police clearly must have agreed with this, as they approved the protest to go ahead in collaboration with the organisers until the eleventh hour.

‍

Perhaps there was concern that this protest would garner too much attention. After all, it was occurring in an area that was swarming with media due to the budget and therefore would have gained substantial media attention. We cannot be sure of who made this decision or why, however, it raises questions about why it is acceptable for the Met Police to change their mind without having to justify it in anything more than a statement.

‍

Despite the changes, the farmers persisted. Emboldened perhaps by this last-minute change and eager to prove that they cannot be restricted or side-lined, their tractors still made an appearance. They conducted their protest and parked their tractors by Trafalgar Square in defiance of the ban. Many were arrested under the Public Order Act for breaching the conditions of the protest. The media coverage of this was drowned out by pre-budget analysis and the subsequent leaking of the budget by the Office of Budget Responsibility.

‍

It is clear that the farmers protest was affected by the restrictions on their tractors. Protest is inherently disruptive, otherwise it is essentially pointless. The tractors were part of the protest and were approved. What changed? Who decided that they did not want attention on the farmers?

‍

The Met Police relies on the Public Order Act 2023 to defend their actions. But, however legally defensible these actions are, morally and socially they are seen as a system attempting to supress the views of farmers. The law has shrunk the space for protesters to rely on their right to protest and instead allows the police to be flexible and make decisions to restrict protests by using the phrase ‘serious disruption.’ Being able to make such decisions, on such short notice, with minimal explanation, truly beggars belief. The police have a responsibility to the public, yes, but they also have one to the farmers. They have a responsibility to allow them to be heard.

‍

The public must continue to question and pushback against restrictions on their right to protest. To ignore situations such as this is to turn a blind eye to questions that need to be answered.