NewsBreakingOnline

Cameron’s insistence that cuts will go ahead amid top officers’ fury over criticism set him on collision course with police David Cameron is on a collision course with the police after the government used an emergency Commons debate on the English riots to issue a point-by-point dissection of the police’s “insufficient” tactics during the week. The prime minister praised the bravery of the police but said they had made a major miscalculation when violence first erupted in Tottenham on Saturday night after a demonstration over the shooting of Mark Duggan. Cameron said: “Police chiefs have been frank with me about why this happened. Initially the police treated the situation too much as a public order issue – rather than essentially one of crime. The truth is that the police have been facing a new and unique challenge with different people doing the same thing – basically looting – in different places all at the same time.” But a few hours later the home secretary, who opened the lengthy Commons debate on the riots on Thursday, warned that the failure of the police to contain violence in the early part of the week jeopardised a core British tradition. “Policing by consent is the British way,” Theresa May told MPs. “But the police only retain the confidence of the wider community if they are seen to take clear and robust action in the face of open criminality. On Monday night it was clear that simply there were not enough officers on duty.” May identified a series of mistakes. These included failing to put enough officers on the streets of London until Tuesday night, leading to the police losing control of some areas; appearing reluctant to be “sufficiently robust” in breaking up groups; containing suspects in a “specified area”, rather than arresting them, thereby allowing them to commit criminal damage and steal; failing to do enough to harness and share intelligence gleaned from social networking services such as BlackBerry Messenger. The government also refused to reconsider plans to cut £2bn from police funding over the next four years – despite calls from Boris Johnson, the Police Federation and Labour. Senior police officers quickly made clear their anger with ministers. “David Cameron blamed the police for not having a crystal ball and not anticipating the most serious set of circumstances ever seen,” one senior police source said. “The confidence of the police leadership in the government is at an all-time low. Cameron dumps on the police when it suits him, to deflect blame from himself.” The Met defended itself in response to the criticisms. Deputy assistant commissioner Steven Kavanagh said in response to criticisms of the policing on Monday night: “It certainly stretched us. It is clear we did not have the numbers on duty to deal with that despite having mobilised the same number of officers as the total staff of West Midlands police. Our officers did the very best that they could, they did it bravely and they put themselves in danger to do what they could for the safety of London. They showed discipline and professionalism, which should never be seen as a sign of weakness.” The tensions flared after Cameron delighted the Tory right with a series of hardline measures to avoid a repeat of the “most appalling scenes” in English cities: • Police will be given discretion to remove face masks from people on the street “under any circumstances where there is reasonable suspicion that they are related to criminal activity”. • No “phoney human rights concerns” about publishing CCTV images of suspects involved in rioting would be allowed to “get in the way of bringing these criminals to justice”. • Rioters could face eviction from social housing as rules on benefits are tightened. At the moment tenants can be evicted if they riot in their locality. This will be widened to include other areas. • The government would work with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be possible to stop people communicating via social websites to plan disorder, violence or criminality. • Police should be allowed to examine “all available technologies”, the prime minister said after the Tory MP Andrea Leadson asked for rioters to be sprayed with indelible chemical dye. • May will work with Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, to produce a cross-government action programme on gangs. This would be a “national priority”. May would report to parliament in October amid evidence that gangs co-ordinated some of the attacks on the police and some of the looting. • The army could be used for guarding duties if there were a repeat of such widespread riots in order to free up police to deal with violence. • Any homeowner or business person whose property was damaged could seek compensation under the Riot Damages Act even if they were uninsured. The home secretary said: “I know that [MPs], like members of the public, are concerned about the speed and quality of the police response. That response has changed over the course of the last five days and has been different in different parts of the country. We need to appraise it honestly, bluntly and learn the lessons where things have gone wrong.” The country’s most senior police officers were furious at the criticism of their operational tactics on the ground. As well as May’s comments about the Met, it is understood Cameron made open criticism of Greater Manchester police during a Cobra meetingon Thursday, suggesting their decision to withdraw officers who were faced with 1000-strong gangs in Salford on Monday needed to be examined to see if lessons could be learned. Chief Constable Peter Fahy had already made clear publicly that the rioters in Salford were very different to those elsewhere in the city or the rest of the country, as they were largely made up of organised crime gangs seeking payback after major operations against them by the police and that his officers withdrew in order to regroup and tackle the gang again. But senior officers have been surprised also by May seemingly offering them support – commenting on the police’s bravery and commitment in private and in public. Some sources see this as more positive than what they say is Cameron’s “political posturing.” Paul McKeever, president of the Police Federation, said Cameron’s stance on police cuts was indefensible. “He is like a scientist who has a pet theory which has been completely debunked by exposure to reality. But he refuses to face that. The 16000 officers who have been on the streets in London are the number he wants to cut – that is the reality.” But Cameron was adamant that the cuts, which he said would amount to 6% in cash terms, would go ahead. Introducing efficiencies would ensure no fall in the number of frontline officers. He said: “Over the next four years we are looking for cash reductions in policing budgets. Once you take into account the fact there is a precept, that helps fund the police, [the actual cash reduction of 6% over the next four years] is totally achievable without any reductions in visible policing. A growing number of police chiefs are making that point. “Today we still have 7,000 trained police officers in back office jobs. Part of our programme of police reform is about freeing up police for frontline duties. That is why I can make this very clear pledge to the house. At the end of this process of making sure our police budgets are affordable we will still be able to surge as many police on to the streets as we have in recent days in London, in Wolverhampton, in Manchester. I do think it is important people understand that.” Nick Clegg endorsed the prime minister’s stance on police cuts. But there were signs of tensions within the coalition as Liberal Democrat sources indicated they felt uncomfortable with the prime minister’s decision to revive his pre-election theme of “broken society”. The Lib Dems are also uncomfortable about plans to introduce elected police commissioners, though they recognise this is in the coalition agreement. Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, accused ministers of unsettling the police by declining to say whether the extra police costs over the last week would be funded from the reserve or from existing police budgets. It is understood that the costs will be funded from the reserve, though the Treasury and Home Office are squabbling which of their reserves will be hit hardest. UK riots Conservatives Liberal-Conservative coalition Police Nicholas Watt Sandra Laville Vikram Dodd guardian.co.uk