Thursday 21 December 2017 – Car ploughs into pedestrians in Melbourne but is not thought to be terror-inspired

The car ploughed into pedestrians, mostly Christmas shoppers, at a busy junction on Flinders Street in Melbourne, Australia at about 4.30pm local time (5.30am GMT) today.  The driver of the white Suzuki Vitara  was arrested and taken to hospital, along with 18 people, several of whom are in a critical condition.  A second man was arrested who was said to be filming the incident and found to be carrying a bag of knives.  The second man was not in the car with the driver and so far is being described as not being connected with the driver.  Despite the action of the driver being described as a “deliberate act,” authorities are dismissing the driver as a man with known mental health issues with a history of offender for assault and are saying that the incident is not terror-related.

Melbourne was no doubt on alert for a terror attack, as have cities around the world in the run-up to Christmas.  A possible Christmas attack in the UK was thwarted earlier this week.  Melbourne itself suffered a similar incident, which was declared to not be a terrorist attack, in January when six people died on Bourke Street in the city after a man drove into pedestrians.  In September, a 15-year-old boy was detained after being seen driving erratically down Swanston Street, dressed in black combat gear.  Again this was dismissed as not being related to terror. Nevertheless, the city had since these incidents installed concrete blocks around the city, including on Flinders Street, in an attempt to thwart vehicle-based attacks.

At a press conference in Melbourne the acting police commissioner Shane Patton told reporters that the driver was a 32-year-old man.  He was arrested by an off-duty police officer – who sustained shoulder and hand injuries during the arrest.  This off-duty police sergeant was on the scene within 15 seconds of it happening and has been taken to hospital where his injuries are said to be non life-threatening.  The second man arrested was a 24-year-old man, and it is not known if he had any relationship with the driver or was involved. The obvious thought would be as he was carrying a bag of knives he may have been connected and intent on using the knives.  This would be similar to combined vehicle and knife attacks that have occurred elsewhere, including in London this year.  Mr Patton, however, seems confident at this point that they are not connected:

“The offender, in this incident, who we are alleging was driving the car, we have reviewed footage and at this stage we are satisfied that he was driving the car without anyone else present at all. He has been taken to hospital as a result of his injuries, as has the police officer. As a result of the attack, a large number of people were injured, some critically.”

The driver is an Australian citizen of Afghan origin.  He has a history of drug and mental health issues and was receiving treatment for his mental illness.  Mr Patton said that there is no evidence or intelligence at this point that the incident was terror-related: “He is still in custody, under arrest for these offences, for what we allege was a deliberate act. Obviously, at this time, the scene is being worked on by our major collision investigation unit.”

A statement released by Victoria police, Victoria being the southeastern state in which Melbourne is its largest city, said:  “Police have saturated the CBD area following an incident where a car has collided with a number of pedestrians on Flinders Street. The incident occurred when the vehicle struck a number of pedestrians in front of Flinders Street station just after 4.30pm. The driver of the vehicle and a second man have been arrested and are in police custody.”

The premier of Victoria in Australia, Daniel Andrews, said that 19 people – including the driver of the car – had been taken to hospital: “Fifteen are in a stable condition. Four are in a critical condition. The offender is one of those patients and is not in a critical condition, and indeed, the off-duty arresting officer […] did suffer some injuries.”  Australian prime minster Malcolm Turnbull, tweeted: “As our federal and state police and security agencies work together to secure the scene and investigate this shocking incident our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and the emergency and health workers who are treating them.” The leaser of the Australian opposition, Bill Shorten, tweeted: “Shocking scenes in Melbourne this afternoon. Credit to first responders who are doing us proud once again. Thinking of everyone caught up in this atrocity.”

The scene of the incident is one of the busiest intersections in the city.  Police have urged people to avoid the area and local businesses have been told to close.  The area is now a crime scene and people who have cars and belongings within the area are being told to leave them there.  Police are also calling for public information that may help their investigation: “Police are asking any witnesses to go to the Melbourne West police station at 313 Spencer Street, Melbourne, and all vehicular and pedestrian traffic to avoid the area.”

Whether terror-related or not the incident coming so close to Christmas will create havoc for the businesses and people of Melbourne.  Rose Stoupas, the owner of a business, Walker’s Doughnuts, near the scene of the incident told Guardian Australia: “It was mayhem, there were people flying everywhere and the police have ordered all businesses to close their stores. Lots of people were injured, I’m very shocked, the [car] is still there but pedestrians have been cleared mostly from the area … It’s a shitty, shitty day.”  Her husband, Jim Stoupas spoke in more detail, speaking to ABC:

“All you could hear was bang, bang, bang, bang. He seemed to be travelling at about 80-100km down Flinders Street in a westerly direction. The intersection was full of pedestrians and he ploughed through pedestrians. The only thing slowing him down was him hitting pedestrians. There was no braking, there was no slowing down. He went straight through the intersection. So whether it was targeted, or whether he’s had a heart attack, or was drunk, I don’t know. He probably hit about 15 to 20 pedestrians. The car stopped because of just, I think, the amount of pedestrians that it had hit. This is the busiest corner in Melbourne. This and Swanston Street corner are the two busiest corners in Melbourne. It was packed. Our store was packed. Pedestrians crossing the road were completely packed. It was solid with people. We were very, very busy in the whole area. All you could hear was the sound of the car hitting people [and] the screams.”

Other eyewitnesses agreed that the driver made no attempt to brake during the incident.  One eyewitness, named Sue, who was working at a restaurant nearby told the radio station 3AW: “We could hear this noise. As we looked left, we saw this white car, it just mowed everybody down. People are flying everywhere. We heard thump, thump. People are running everywhere.” The incident only seems to have come to an end when the car crashed into a tramp stop.

David, another eyewitness, this time speaking to ABC Radio, said: “I heard the engine rev and I heard the first thump and I turned around […] I just saw it [the vehicle] ploughing through pedestrians as everyone was crossing the road and then crashing into the tram stop.”

According to one eyewitness, Lachlan Read, the whole incident only lasted about 15 seconds. He told the Herald Sun: “He has gone straight through the red light at pace and it was bang, bang, bang. It was just one after the other.”  Meanwhile, Rossella Belardi – who was coming out of Flinders Street station at the time of the incident, told the BBC: “Many people were on the floor and smoke was coming out of the car. Police and the ambulance service were incredible. They came immediately out of nowhere.”

Sources & Further Reading:

• Flinders Street: two arrested after car crashes into pedestrians in Melbourne – The Guardian – Thursday 21 December 2017 – by Melissa Davey, Ben Doherty and Stuart MacFarlane
• Melbourne crash: Driver arrested after hitting pedestrians – BBC – Thursday 21 December 2017
• Melbourne car ramming: no evidence of terror link, say police – as it happened – The Guardian – Thursday 21 December 2017 – by Calla Wahlquist and Christopher Knaus
• ‘Chaos everywhere’: witnesses tell of horror on Flinders Street – The Guardian – Thursday 21 December 2017 – by Melissa Davey and Ben Doherty
• What we know so far about the Flinders Street incident – The Guardian – Thursday 21 December 2017 – by Calla Wahlquist

Friday 5 May 2017 – Donald Trump visits New York for first time as President and meets the Australian Prime Minister

Just hours after his success in the House yesterday, which narrowly passed his American Health Care Act, President Trump was back in New York for the first time since becoming President in January. Buyoed by his victory in the nation’s capital, he was perhaps taken by surprise by the hostile reception he received from hundreds of protesters who were waiting for him. NBC News reporter Stephanie Gosk, on the scene, described the crowd as not very large but that they “got very loud.” The crowd booed the President and chanted: “New York hates you.” President Trump only managed 36.5 per cent of the vote in New York State in last year’s election, compared to 59 for Hillary Clinton, and in Manhattan where Mr Trump has his home and offices in Trump Tower, where his wife Melania and youngest son Barron still live, he achieved only 10% of the vote with Mrs Clinton getting 87%.

 

President Trump was back in New York to speak to the Australian Prime Minister on board a decommissioned aircraft carrier, the USS Intrepid, which is situated on the Hudson River, as part of the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea during World War Two. The protests forced the President to bypass Trump Tower completely. Among the placards criticising the President were ones with slogans such as: “Impeach the Freak,” Shame, Shame Shame,” and “This village doesn’t want it’s idiot back.”  The President earlier in the day had been celebrating at the White House his House of Representatives victory and had even postponed his visit to New York, keeping the Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull waiting. The Prime Minister had flown 10,000 miles to the meeting, only to be told it would be delayed by three hours. This was not only disrespectful but risked alienating Mr Turnbull who, in January when President Trump became President, had a difficult phone conversation with Mr Trump over an Obama administration pledge to accept 1,250 refugees held by Australia in the Pacific. President Trump does not wish to honour the agreement and when he became frustrated with Mr Turnbull he hung up on the Prime Minister.

Despite this, both men – publicly at least – said the right words. The President said that they “got along great,” and “we have a fantastic relationship.” He added, rather unconvincingly, “I love Australia, I always have.”  Of the refugee agreement he said that it had been “worked out for a long time” and said reporters exaggerated the phone call, saying: “We had a great call […] I mean, we’re not babies. Young at heart.” As for the Prime Minister, he said: “We can put the refugee deal behind you and move on.”

 

The USS Intrepid is now a museum. In 2009, Mr Trump used it in an episode of Celebrity Apprentice – landing on its deck in a helicopter. It was also while on board the Intrepid that Mr Trump made his famous remark during the election campaign that President Putin of Russia was a better leader than President Obama.  Yesterday’s event, as today’s Guardian newspaper explained, was to:

 

“commemorate the Battle of the Coral Sea, the engagement in May 1942 in which the US and Australian navies worked together to turn back a Japanese advance, a recognized turning point in the war. The dinner was attended by seven veterans of the battle, three Americans and four Australians all in their 90s.”

Donald Trump has had a difficult relationship with the people of New York and remains deeply unpopular there. Protesters yesterday marched towards the Intrepid, banging pots and pans and chanting pro-refugee chants such as “Say it loud, say it clear, immigrants are welcome here.” Many were waving banners and signs and passing vehicles sounded their horns in support of the protest to welcome the President to his home state. The protests continued into the night with Greenpeace USA jetting up and down the Hudson in inflatable boats displaying banners saying “Resist!” The previous night, according to the Guardian, a neon slogan was projected against the dock at which the Intrepid is moored saying: “The resistance will not stop.”  Many in New York are embarrassed by their President, an idea summed up a Queens’  resident Steve McCasland who was in the protest. He told reporters that: “He is an embarrassment to this city. We’re a city of compassionate people and he’s certainly not one of them.”

 

After his meeting with Mr Turnbull, the President left the city immediately, heading for his country home in Bedminster in New Jersey. Unsurprisingly, he is expected to spend the weekend playing golf at the Trump National Golf Course.

My article No.9 – Introduction of a modern police force into northern England in the 19th century

The need for an organised “lever of discpline” in the industrial districts of England came about because of industrialisation. (Storch: 61) Prior to the Industrial Revolution most of England was rural with the majority of people living in agricultural and feudal-based communities. While still living in such communities people were often bound to the land and to the lord who owned that land. The peasants had to meet reponsibilities and duties set down by the lord and their entire existence depended upon him.

This created absolute power and the people under that power would largely be unable to resist or defy it in any way. If they did, the lord was usually also the magistrate or Justice of the Peace and would have the power to dispense justice in his locality. Crime did, of course, exist prior to professional police forces but most crime was not perceived by the upper classes as subversive or dangerous to society:

“Provided that the ruler did his duty, the populace was prepared to defend him with enthusiasm. But if he did not, it rioted until he did. This mechanism was perfectly understood by both sides, and caused no political problems beyond a little occasional destruction of property … Since the riots were not directed against the social system, public order could remain surprisingly lax by modern standards.” (Hobsbawm, 1965: 116)

The most common riot would be the food riot, in which people would protest against rising prices, corrupt dealers or simply because they were hungry. However, E.P. Thompson says that those rioting would be doing so in the firm belief that they were defending traditional rights. In general the community would support the rioters’ actions. The crowd’s passionate belief that what they were doing was morally justified “was so strong that it overrode motives of fear or deference.” (Thompson, 1993: 188)  It would also sometimes be the case that the magistrates would support the rioters, perhaps issuing orders that stored wheat should be sent to market.

Before the start of the Industrial Revolution, most food riots would be peaceful, simply aimed at securing a fair price for the wheat, even if this meant taking the wheat and selling it themselves before returning the money to the wheat’s owner. The concept that  a riot could be seen as morally right had no place in industrial England. Society was changing rapidly and the old ideas of the moral economy and the traditional rights and customs of the labouring classes quickly fell by the wayside. Magistrates became more hostile towards rioters, partly because the magistrates no longer lived within a society were those rights and customs had a significant role.

Disorder was controlled in many ways, including the “mobilisation of charity, conciliation where possible, and the exercise of selective terror where repression became necessary.” (Stevenson, 1993: 328) An example of a method of repression were the rural-based Swing riots of the 1830s, which were severely dealth with. The scale of repression used demonstrated the ruling classes growing concern over the actions and motives of the protestors.

Riots which did get of out control, or had been seen as threatening by the authorities, had always been dealt with using specials or the military – there was no organised police force to deal with them. However, the ad hoc forms of control generally sufficed. The use of the army created many problems, not least the resentment it bred among the population. It was also possible that troops would refuse to fire upon protesters. Many of the soldiers were drawn from the same class as the demonstrators, as would many of the professional police who were to follow.

The ruling class, as industrialisation progressed, becamse suspicious of the activities of the developing working class, especially what they were doing after working hours. They also realised that the army could not be used to protect them from whatever the working class might be doing. They feared secret societies and believed that the lower classes were attempting to destabilise society itself. The ruling class looked at revolution in France, and later throughout Europe, with fear that revolution was about to  happen in England.

This suspicion towards the working class rose from the separation that developed between the classes during the Industrial Revolution. The urban worker was not like the agricultural worker. He did not live and work within sight of his master’s home – or even on his land – anymore. Increasingly, the wealthy were not living in the towns themselves and near to their employees, but on the outskirts or in secluded mansions far away. New industrial wealth had the effect of separating the classes more than ever. (Bunyan, 1983: 63)

The ruling classes realised there was a problem with the policing system, but at first they only tried to reform the existing system.  These attempts at reform included increasing the number of capital offences, using the army or militia to control the mob, encouraging informers by offering rewards for information, and the formation of middle class protection societies. Despite these reforms the only part of the country with anything like an adequate police force at the start of the nineteenth century was the City of London which, under the magistrate Patrick Colquhoun, was pioneering the use of professional police in its docks – through which half the world’s trade passed. (Bunyan, 1983: 60)

Colquhoun realised that most crime in the docks was not by petty criminals but by people who worked there. These people were often paid in kind and not with money. Workers often preferred this method of payment as it allowed them to pilfer from the docks more than they could ever hope to buy with a fixed wage. The most significant effect of the River Police in London was to erode this system of payment in kind and create a money wage in the docks, thus ending a long-standing and traditional means of survival by the working class. This effect also shows that the implementation of the police in London’s docks was not impartial. “They were created to preserve for a colonial merchant and an industrial class the collective product of West Indian slavery and London wage labour.” (MacDonald, 1973: 61)

The ruling class feared that crime amongst the lower classes was some sort of organised threat to society. Despite this, most crime was performed by individuals and mostly against the propertied classes, “such as stealing from factories, pick-pocketing, assault and robbery.” (Bunyan, 1983: 61) In response, however, the authorities resorted to disproportionate violence, through the use of the army, militia and yeomanry – as the massacre at Peterloo vividly demonstrated.

The propertied classes naturally wanted protection for both themselves and their property. They saw crime as inextricably tied in with poverty, particularly amongst the urban poor. They began to realise that they could not keep turning to the strong tactics of the army and that they would need an independent and organised law enforcement body to tackle crime.

In 1829 the Police Act set up London’s Metropolitan Force after proposals by the Home Secretary Robert Peel. Even one of England’s most famous soldiers, the Duke of Wellington, argued in favour of such a force. He was beginning to see that the army could not be used as an effective first line weapon against crime. Sir Charles Napier who had the responsibility for the army in the North of England during the Chartist period later said that “an organised body of police should be the first line of defence and the army the last.” (Bunyan, 1983: 62)

By the time of the formation of the Metropolitan Police the first phase of the Industrial Revolution was already coming to an end. Terrible depression was shortly to hit many urban districts in England. Conditions in urban towns and cities for the poor was already generating the impetus towards class consciousness. Previously unorganised and local movements of protests – such as early trade societies and Luddism – were to be overtaken by a newforce – Chartism. The danger of Chartism, as perceived by the ruling classes, was that it was organised nationally and that its demands, if met, would probably destroy society as they knew it.

By the mid 1830s Chartism was already so much of a problem that new Acts of Parliament were being rushed through, starting with the Municipal Corporations Act in 1835. This Act compelled the borough councils to appoint Watch Committees who would maintain local police forces. However, as the costs had to be met by the councils themselves, few responded. In 1839 the County Police Act “was rushed through Parliament as one means of combatting Chartism.” (Bunyan, 1983: 64). This allowed the counties to also form police forces – if they wished.

By 1856 the use of the Police Act had made the setting up of police forces obligatory. The ruling and propertied classes were also beginning to see the value of organised police forces. Another factor in giving the forces credibility with these classes was the ending of transportation of criminals of all descriptions. Once Australia became hostile to transportation alternative punishments had to be found in this country. It was realised that these prisoners would eventually be released and therefore a nation-wide police force was essential to control them. The Treasury also used the end of transportation, and the huge costs saved, as incentive to provincial areas to set up forces by offering them grants towards the initial costs.

Liverpool was one of the first Boroughs to set up a Watch Committee and organise a police force after the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835. The sense of moral outrage at the activities of sections of the community in the city is demonstrated by a Liverpool Watch Committe report in March 1836. It talks of keeping vigilance in watching for those who facilitate crime such as “keepers of brothels, and of public houses, taps, and beer-shops of a disorderly description.” (Holmes, 1836)

The separation of the classes which took place most dramatically during the first phase of the Industrial Revolution not only created the ruling class’s ignorance of the actions of the lower classes, but was also now creating “official morality” in the shape of the new police. (Storch: 61)

The working class suspected that a new professional force would simply be there to invade their privacy and spy on their everyday activities. This is borne out in Liverpool when John Holmes, writing the comments for the Watch Committee report cited above, said that “under the constant observation of a well-regulated Police, with a Magistracy determined to enforce the laws; their mode of life would become so dangerous, difficult, and determined that it may be fairly calculated the great majority of them would abandon it.” (Holmes, 1836) 

Holmes is talking specifically about receivers of stolen property. To catch such people, however, it would have to be necessary to have plain clothes police in every pub, outside every beer-shop and brothel, creating an atmosphere of permanent friction between the watchers and watched. An example of this over-zealous morality can be seen with the numbers of persons brought before the magistrates in Liverpool on a Monday morning after drinking all day Sunday, with Holmes talking of “disgusting scenes” desecrating the Sabbath. (Holmes, 1836)

Despite the enabling Acts of Parliament the financial incentives of the Government and the general concerns of the propertied classes, the spread of the new police forces was very slow. “Boroughs and counties were only gradually brought within the orbit of professional policing in the years between 1835 and 1856 and even in the late Victorian period many towns had pathetically small forces of professional constables.” (Stevenson, 1992: 329). Hostility between the police and the populace they were set up to control would ensure that for many decades to come. The establishment of a professionally organised police force would have many problems before it became accepted as the norm.

_________________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bunyan, T. (1983), The History and Practice of the Political Police in Britain, London.

Hobsbawm, E. J. (1965), Primitive Rebels, New York.

Holmes, J. (1836), “Report for the Watch Committee of Liverpool,” March.

MacDonald, I. (1973), a paper to the “Towards Racial Justice Conference”, in Bunyan, T. (1983), The History and Practice of the Political Police in Britain, London.

Stevenon, J. (1992), Popular Disturbances in England 1700-1832, second edition, London.

Storch, R. D., The Plague of the Blue Locusts.

Thompson, E. P. (1993), Customs in Common, London.