Individuals on both sides should be condemned for their actions in the Bristol riots

On the first night of disorder in Bristol, after a peaceful demonstration against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill turned violent, a police van was set on fire. The next day a theory spread on social media that it had been abandoned by the police deliberately as a trap, to encourage demonstrators to vandalise it, so that they could be arrested. Or something.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of conspiratorial thinking that swirls around events of this kind. So it is little wonder that the third night of clashes should be seen so differently from each side.

From the protesters’ side, the common view would seem to be that a peaceful protest against proposed legislation to give the police excessive powers to clamp down on protest was attacked by police using excessive force. The story is a circular parable of freedom versus brutality.

From the side of the police, the home secretary and the prime minister, a determined group of “thugs” used the pretext of a protest to attack police officers. The subtext is that greater police powers are needed – although the bill in fact was designed to give the police more powers against non-violent but disruptive protests such as the Extinction Rebellion blockades of two years ago.

It should be possible for a reasonable observer to recognise that there is truth and fault on both sides. The Independent argues that the powers in the bill are badly worded – especially the power to stop protests that cause “serious inconvenience” – and supports the right to protest against it. That right to protest should never have been taken away by the coronavirus rules, and we are relieved that it is now being restored.

Read more:

It would be better if people observed social distancing at demonstrations, but if they do not the risks of transmission outdoors are low and the right to free expression outweighs them. The police should not be intervening in peaceful demonstrations or vigils, and MPs were right belatedly to recognise this on Thursday, when they voted for new rules that specifically allow public gatherings for the purposes of protest.

However, the protest should be peaceful, and it is clear that there were people on both sides in Bristol on recent nights who were in the wrong and allowed themselves to be provoked into violence. Although the early demonstrations were peaceful, some of the protesters appear to have been looking for a fight with a sideline in arson and scaring police horses. Equally, as we report today, there is video evidence that some of the police used excessive and indiscriminate force. They must be investigated and held accountable.

The Independent is resolute in its defence of free speech and the right to protest, but the slogan “Kill the Bill” is contemptible, not least because it is such a bad pun. In our view, the Bristol protests were always likely to be counterproductive. There is much support among Conservative MPs for amending the bill as it goes through parliament, and this kind of incitement to violence, and actual violence, makes that task harder.