Some of you may recall the last time a Chinese President visited this country, during the Blair Dynasty of the New Labour Era. The issue of the police treatment of protestors was much discussed.

I looked out these cuttings from the 1999 visit.

This, from ‘The Scotsman’ of 1st November 1999’, is especially interesting now that the Cameron Dynasty has taken over, but we are still clearly in the New Labour Era:

‘THE Tories last night seized on new evidence suggesting Foreign Office collaboration with Chinese security services to orchestrate the crackdown on human rights demonstrators during the visit of Jiang Zemin.

John Maples, the shadow Foreign Secretary, is to table a series of questions in the Commons asking how closely the Foreign Office worked with the Chinese and the police on deciding tactics to deal with protesters during last month's visit by the Chinese president.

Mr Maples said he believed that Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary, could have approved plans for the police to adopt a tough line on human rights and pro-Tibetan demonstrators.

He said the leading Chinese dissident, Wei Jingsheng, detained by police during demonstrations close to Buckingham Palace, had alleged that plainclothes Chinese security police had pointed out to British police various Chinese protesters in the crowd.

Yesterday, Foreign Office sources also confirmed that its security adviser in the protocol department, Barry Strevens, a former police Special Branch officer, had worked closely with the Chinese on policing arrangements during the visit.

That included Mr Strevens asking Cambridgeshire police, during President Jiang's visit to the university city, to block off a road with police vans after the Chinese complained that the agreed counter-demonstration plan was not being followed.

"There was very close planning here," Mr Maples said. "It looked to me very organised and very heavy-handed. I can't believe that the Foreign Office did this without ministers' encouragement." The Foreign Office confirmed in a written answer last Thursday that Chinese embassy officials took part in some meetings with the Foreign Office, the police and Buckingham Palace officials to plan for the visit. John Battle, the Foreign Office minister, told Ann Clwyd, the Labour MP for Cynon Valley, these liaison meetings were standard practice before state visits to enable all sides involved to discuss preparations.

But Mr Battle also said the Chinese had been told to expect public demonstrations and that the police would be given a free hand by the Government to decide on the most appropriate policies towards the protests. Foreign Office sources insisted last night that this cooperation was not out of the ordinary, and said that officials were obliged to inform the police of Chinese attitudes towards demonstrators.

"There would have been an outcry if something dreadful had happened and Foreign Office hadn't bothered to liaise with the police. These state visits don't organise themselves," one source said.

"But we also made clear to the Chinese that protests were inevitable and that the policing was a matter for the police. We told the Chinese they would have to put up with whatever happened, although it wasn't put as crudely as that." The senior official denied that Mr Strevens had been directly involved in policing the protests. His role in Cambridge was to provide "practical liaison on the arrangements" already agreed between the police and the Chinese delegation.

But the opposition remains convinced police attitudes were influenced by the clear message that the Chinese hated protests, and that the visit was of great political and economic importance to the Government.

Mr Maples said these suspicions were heightened by the admissions last week by Sir Paul Condon, the Metropolitan police commissioner, that his force's tactics may have been mistaken.

Mr Maples said he now would ask the Foreign Secretary to disclose how many similar meetings took place, and who attended them, to plan a similar state visit by the Hungarian premier recently.

He will also ask whether Chinese police acted as "spotters" for the Metropolitan police’

The ‘Guardian’ of 23rd November 199, noted:

‘During Mr Jiang's last engagement in Cambridge, local police - seen consulting Chinese security officials - moved three vans to block the sight of jeering, placard-waving pro-Tibet demonstrators who greeted him as he arrived outside the university library. But they made no attempt to block the larger number of pro-China supporters.’

The police then looked into the matter, and on 5th March 2000, the Daily Telegraph reported :

‘ROBIN COOK will come under fire this week as a Scotland Yard report blames the Foreign Office for ordering police to crack down on protesters during last autumn's state visit to Britain by the Chinese president.



The report on the affair, which follows protests from Scotland Yard about the Foreign Office's "political interference", will propose strict guidelines on how future state visits should be policed.



Senior officers have confirmed that the Foreign Secretary's officials leaned on the police to provide a heavy presence and specifically asked for demonstrators to be held back from President Jiang Zemin's convoy.



The motive, say senior Home Office insiders, was not to safeguard Mr Jiang's security, but to spare him being embarrassed by Britons protesting peacefully against his country's record on human rights, democracy and Tibet.



The report, which will be handed to Jack Straw, the Home Secretary this week, will call for future discussions between Mr Cook's officials and the police to be recorded in detailed minutes. It will also propose that guidelines on policing state visits should be openly published.



Public anger flared last October at the way the Metropolitan Police and the Cambridgeshire force acted to prevent demonstrators from being visible to Mr Jiang during his tour.



In London, police confiscated Tibetan flags, while permitting Chinese flags. Later, in Cambridge, police were accused of parking vans in front of demonstrators to hide China's critics.



At the time, Scotland Yard admitted having discussed security beforehand with the Foreign Office. But John Battle, the Foreign Office minister, denied that the police had been given "special instructions".



Later, after questions in Parliament, Mr Battle said that police had met Foreign Office and Chinese officials eight times before the visit when "the concern of the Chinese authorities about the possible impact of demonstrations was discussed".



Scotland Yard even suspected that the demands being relayed to them had originally been dictated by Beijing. During the visit, a Chinese official gave warning that any anti-Jiang demonstrations would "undermine" Sino-British relations. One Home Office insider said yesterday: "The police have insisted that they are never put into this position again. The report reflects their concerns." Although the report will not confirm that the Foreign Office exerted improper pressure on the police, the recommendation that future discussions should be minuted will be seen as confirmation that the "official version" of events was not accepted by the police. Alison Reynolds, director of the Free Tibet Campaign, said she had been shocked by the handling of the visit. "People even had their bags searched for Tibetan flags. It was more reminiscent of China than of Britain." The Free Tibet Campaign is suing the Metropolitan Police. If the action goes ahead as planned, on May 3, Government officials may be questioned in court.



A Foreign Office official denied political interference. He said: "The discussions were no different to the planning meetings held before any state visit." The talks, he said, had been to decide logistics, such as routes and timing, and to ensure security and public safety. The official said Britain was obliged under diplomatic convention to protect "the dignity" of state visitors.’

On 4th May 2000, the ‘Independent’ reported :

‘SCOTLAND YARD admitted yesterday that its officers unlawfully removed banners and flags from demonstrators protesting against last year's state visit by the Chinese President.

The Metropolitan Police also agreed that it would be against the law to use their vans to screen President Jiang Zemin from the protesters, but argued that the tactic had been used to maintain public safety.

The two declarations were made by police in the High Court yesterday after legal action by the Free Tibet Campaign. The organisation claimed the Met had adopted a policy of removing flags from demonstrators lining The Mall, in central London, and of using police vans to block protesters.

An inquiry was carried out into the policing of the visit after widespread complaints that Scotland Yard and Cambridgeshire police had used heavy- handed tactics.

An internal Met investigation found that although the Foreign Office had pressed the police to prevent protesters from disrupting the President's five-day visit the Government had not used improper influence.

In an agreed statement the Met said at the High Court yesterday that "it was unlawful for individual officers to remove banners and flags from people solely on the basis that they were protesting against the Chinese regime on The Mall on 19 October 1999".

A carefully worded additional declaration stated that "it would be unlawful to position police vans in front of protesters if the reason for doing so was to suppress free speech".

But the Met denied vans were used to "mask" demonstrators outside Buckingham Palace and the Chinese embassy. The police contend that the presence of the vehicles was necessary to prevent "a breach of public order".

The police statements were made after the Free Tibet Campaign agreed not to seek permission to launch a judicial review against the Met for its actions. But Alison Reynolds, the campaign's director, insisted yesterday that the Met had followed a policy of removing anti-Chinese material.

Ms Reynolds pointed to the Met's internal review that acknowledged that the police had been told to search spectators for flags and banners "because of the threat to public order and the dignity of Jiang Zemin".

She said: "We took this court case because we believed the police action during the state visit was unacceptable and unlawful. The police have now admitted their methods of policing were illegal. This is a victory for the democratic right to peaceful protest in this country - something sadly lacking in Chinese-occupied Tibet." Assistant Commissioner Ian Johnston said the visit was "a tricky area for our colleagues to deal with and we didn't get it entirely right. We accept absolutely the blame for that." The internal Met report left officers in no doubt that the visit was sensitive. Michael Messenger, overall operational commander, told his officers: "It would be very embarrassing to the Royal Household, HM Government and particularly the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] if any demonstrator is allowed to confront the Chinese visitors or throw anything towards the visiting party."’

Compare and contrast this story from the ‘Daily Mail’ of 13th November 2003:

‘SCOTLAND Yard has laid down the law to the Americans over the security arrangements for the state visit of George Bush next week.

Senior officers say they will not go out of their way to spare the President ' embarrassment' from antiwar protesters during his three-day trip.

Armed members of the U.S. secret service, who will be accompanying Mr Bush, have been told to adhere to strict rules of engagement on when they can open fire - or risk being prosecuted.

Metropolitan Police chiefs say they will not be intimidated into bringing London to a standstill with unnecessary exclusion zones to protect Mr Bush and insist they, not the Americans, are in charge of security.

During a press briefing at New Scotland Yard yesterday, one of the Met's most senior officers went to extraordinary lengths to insist they had not come under any American pressure.

However, the Daily Mail has learned that there have been disagreements between senior British police and American officials over the level of restrictions on protesters and the number of agents in the President's secret service who are being allowed to carry guns.

Senior police sources describe Mr Bush's trip as 'a nightmare' and said the Americans wanted to turn London into a 'little Washington' by closing roads for miles around, hours before the motorcade passes.

But Deputy Assistant Commissioner Andy Trotter played down suggestions of a row, saying: 'There has been no pressure from anyone else about exclusion zones.

'Our main concern is to make sure that the visit is secure. 'As appropriate we will close roads to facilitate movement of the President's convoy. But we will keep this to a minimum.' Protesters will be barred from walking down Whitehall and into Parliament Square as police enforce the ' Sessional Orders' exclusion zone around Westminster which prohibits marches when Parliament is sitting.

The main demonstration, ending in Trafalgar Square, is due to take place next Thursday after Mr Bush has laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior in Westminster Abbey and held talks with Tony Blair in Downing Street.

It is planned that an effigy of the President will be dragged to the ground in Trafalgar Square in a 'rerun' of the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad near the end of the Iraq war.

Mr Trotter said 5,000 police officers will be involved in the security operation for Mr Bush's visit.

The cost is expected to run into millions.

Police say they will not be heavy-handed with demonstrators so long as they are peaceful and officers have no plans to remove banners as they did during the state visit of the Chinese President Jiang Zemin four years ago.

Mr Trotter said protesters would be allowed to get close to Mr Bush. 'There will be no intention from us to spare anyone's embarrassment and we have come under no pressure from anyone to do this,' he said.

London Mayor Ken Livingstone, an ardent critic of the war, insists that the demonstrators be given as much freedom as possible.’