As an ex-Met chief, I say: It’s not right to ban things just because you don’t like them

The “operational independence” enjoyed by the police does not come unfettered. Following interventions this week by the home secretary and the prime minister into the policing of marches in central London, I have heard one or two rather pompous references to it.

But it is right for serving police to be held to account by the Home Office – because that is its job.

On occasion – and in my own experience as the Met commissioner – the Home Office, and politicians in general, were not only capable of trying to exert influence, but of trying to exert undue influence. It should be incumbent on senior police officers to understand where the line is. It’s not an absolute, but we shouldn’t be overly pompous about it.

Nor will the commissioner be unduly unconcerned or discomfited by this week’s events involving Suella Braverman and her police chiefs. As well as the home secretary, Sir Mark Rowley is already accountable for his actions to the Mayor of London, the media, the public and, most importantly, the law.

What was unusual was that he was called in to see the prime minister, to then be told that the Met police chief would be held “accountable” for his decision not to prohibit the pro-Palestinian march on Armistice Day. It was even more extraordinary that this was all done in the public glare, rather than, as is customary, behind closed doors.

So I was pleased to see the follow-up statement made by the prime minister reaffirming his belief in freedom of expression, which I also took to be a vote of confidence in Sir Mark’s position. It’s one of our most treasured rights and, lest we forget, one for which our war heroes lost their lives.

I consider much about the previous Saturday protests to be offensive. I regret this march is happening this weekend, and wish the organisers would see sense and cancel. But in the absence of that, it should be allowed to go ahead – regardless of Saturday being Armistice Day, and even though I personally find it insensitive.

Parliament didn’t pass legislation to say that it’s against the law to offend Rishi Sunak or Suella Braverman. And despite the cancel culture in which we find ourselves, it is not right to ban things we don’t like.

I start from the position that it is for the Met commissioner to exercise authority within the boundaries set for him by parliament. From recollection, the legislature has said that, for a Met commissioner to apply to the home secretary to have a march banned, he has to be reasonably satisfied that there is a serious risk of disturbance and violence taking place. This is a high bar. I am quite sure he is basing his current judgment, that Saturday’s march be allowed to proceed, on information and intelligence. If the intelligence changes, then so will his position.

I believe all that Braverman could do to override this would be to come to a view that the police are not exercising their authority appropriately. But such a move would be volcanic, even for her. The way the home secretary has expressed herself lately – referring to “hate marches” –  some would say has been irresponsible.

Some of the things that I have seen at these demonstrations these past four weekends have been beyond offensive; I have huge sympathy for the offence taken by the Jewish community. But in each case, the police have taken a view, action taken and a judgment made to protect free speech, as advised within the law. Time and the law will tell if those judgments were right – but to undermine that principle would seem to me to be a foolhardy way of doing business.

Mistakes have certainly been made in the past. I abhor the police taking the knee, for instance. It leaves them open to allegations of favouritism, of picking one side over another – accusations that have been levelled at Sir Mark’s Met in having allowed certain slogans to be chanted or banners to be carried during the Palestine protests.

It is for the home secretary and others to hold him to account. Running the Met Police is not a job for a good-news junkie. But there is also an expectation in public life that senior people choose their words carefully and responsibly, and exercise their judgment. Braverman has expressed herself in a way I would not have expected from a home secretary, nor one that I have experienced before.

While no senior politician in their right mind would want to take on the Met commissioner’s responsibilities, there should be, at all times, a healthy tension maintained between the two.

It is not without precedent that politicians want the Met chief to do something operationally against his or her judgment. I recall the odd occasion when a politician has said something that seemed to go beyond merely holding me to account – but that is all in the nature of the dynamic. Unfortunately, lately, the debate seems to have gone beyond that. However, I’m sure the commissioner will manage the situation – the one on Whitehall as well as the one in Whitehall – with the utmost propriety.

If I know Sir Mark, he will be professionally concerned that our Remembrance weekend services proceed without interference or incident. He will be working hard to come up with a sensible solution – behind the scenes.

So let’s hope that this Saturday, there is no jeering during the two-minute silence, and no unseemly disturbance of the Remembrance Sunday commemorations.

Maybe I’m a hopeless optimist, but I think the vast majority of people want this weekend to go off without a hitch. And if it doesn’t, I have full confidence that my successors at the Met will do all within their power to minimise the disruption.

Sir Paul Stephenson was commissioner of the Metropolitan Police between 2009 and 2011