A First-Hand Account of the Bristol Riots

In response to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, an extensive proposal that expands police powers in a vast array of areas, large scale protests gathered in Bristol on Sunday, 21st March. Most of the objections were to the imposition of limitations on protests. The bill would introduce enforced start and finish times (set and permitted in advance) and noise limits - with these applying to demonstrations regardless of size. 

As detailed by Lotuseaters.com, the bill also introduces tougher sentences for those who damage memorials, statues, gravestones, tougher sentences for youth offenders, expanding the criteria for the prosecution of a whole life order and for a discretionary life sentence, and increasing the sentence for sex offenders if the victim is a child under the age of 13. 

Lotuseaters.com have spoken with Seb Whitehouse, who was present for both the peaceful protests in the daytime and the violent riot in the evening. 

Seb Whitehouse was a professional wrestler for 8 years before turning his hand to local media and content creation. He has worked as a presenter and video editor for Bristol TV, has a weekly YouTube podcast on a wide range of topics, but has a special interest in sociopolitical discussions and research relating to the ongoing culture wars. He can be found on Instagram and on YouTube hosting The Seb Whitehouse Show.

First of all, tell me a bit about why you were at the Protests in Bristol? 

I’m probably one of the very few people in Bristol to have attended all the major protests of the last year. This isn’t because I’m some crazy activist. After all, many of these protests have been ideologically opposed to one another. Nor is it due to being part of the media. The main reason I attend is because, as the tensions in our society continue to bubble away and tear apart at the seams, chatting to people from across the divide is the only thing that helps me feel sane. 

In the last year, I’ve been to the Black Lives Matter march where the Colston statue was torn down, followed by the ‘Protect The War Memorial’ protest the week after (which was incorrectly dubbed ‘All Lives Matter’ in the media). Then, I attended another BLM protest, an anti-lockdown protest, the Sarah Everard vigil, and Sunday’s protests against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. 

The fascinating aspect of this last protest was, for the first time in a long time, there seemed to be some support from across the political spectrum. Those who I greatly respect on both sides of the gaping sociopolitical chasm seemed to have concerns about the severity of the bill. I also have concerns about the bill myself and so I have decided to attend.

Was there anything notably similar or different about the nature of this most recent protest when compared to the many others you have attended?

The majority of the protest was completely peaceful. It was similar to the BLM protests in regards to the signs and chants - lots of focus on capitalism, race, sexism, oppression and so on. I spoke to a few people who were extremely uninformed as to the details of the actual bill that was being passed. Every time this happens, I’m amazed. I’ve actually noticed that at many protests I’ve attended - people are often drastically uninformed as to the very issue they’re protesting. 

I’m reminded of a quote about Swedish academic Hans Rosling’s research: 

"After subjecting more than 10,000 people to knowledge-based questions about the state of the world, the late researcher Hans Rosling found that, on average, activists had a less accurate picture than the general public of the very issue to which their activism is devoted. In his book Factfulness he reports, “Almost every activist I have ever met, whether deliberately or, more likely, unknowingly, exaggerates the problem to which they have dedicated themselves.” Those with the most unrealistically dire and pessimistic view of any issue are those most likely to be motivated to do something about it. As Rosling points out, this makes activists the last people we should go to for an accurate understanding of the cause for which they are campaigning." 

That being said, for the majority of the day, I had no real criticism of the protest. I agree with the right to protest, I sympathised with the cause, and the atmosphere was peaceful. It was in the evening that events turned ugly and I spoke to many of those participating in the violence. They knew very little about what they were actually fighting for.

Can you tell me a bit more about the daytime protest you describe as peaceful?

Thousands of people congregated on College Green, which is a green space in the centre of Bristol situated between the Council House and the Cathedral. This is where protests and marches often begin in Bristol.

There was a festival vibe in the air, people smoking weed, playing the drums, and congregating. Bristol is a very left-wing bohemian city, so those undertones are always present there. The crowd really began to grow at around 2 pm and by the time the march began, there were thousands. It was the biggest protest I’ve seen in Bristol since the first BLM march last June. Huge crowds were stretching through the city centre in each direction as far as the eye can see. People were climbing on bus stops and buses. They were chanting that “Boris Johnson and Priti Patel are wankers” as well as an eclectic range of other derogatory slurs. Thousands of people turned up with hundreds of placards.

Although I could wholly sympathise with the cause of the protest, it was pretty disappointing to see that nearly everyone I spoke to didn't have much of a clue what they were talking about. The people holding placards saying 'KILL THE BILL' or signs about Boris Johnson and Priti Patel were completely stumped - literally almost speechless - when I asked about the actual details of the legislation they were protesting against. People paused and stammered. I wasn't asking for a thesis either - just maybe a 15-second overview to show that they understood what they were on about. They're the ones holding the sign! Surely they should be able to explain it better than me! If you can’t explain what you’re protesting then what are you actually doing? I got the impression a lot of people were just parroting things they heard their friends say or were just there for a jolly day out.

I spoke to about 50 people throughout the day and around five or six knew some details about the actual cause they were marching for. There was a group of girls near where I was walking - they must have been 18 or 20 - and they kept doing this “Boris Johnson's a wanker” chant and then giggling after saying it a few times like they were being naughty or something. The whole thing was a little bit cringeworthy at that point but, on the flip side, it was peaceful. It was mainly positive and at the end of the day, I believe in the right to protest if that's what you want to do. So, by all means, crack on. Do your thing. Marching through the streets for a cause you may or may not know or even care about is part of being a free person in a free society. Again, if you can't protest against changes in laws about protests, what can you protest about?

When did the atmosphere change as the day progressed into the evening?

I left the protest at around 4 pm, while it was still peaceful. I rushed back down at around 7 pm, when it began kicking off, so I could witness what was unfolding with my own eyes. 

When I arrived, there were around 500 people gathered around Bridewell police station in central Bristol. Many had managed to climb onto a large wall next to the entrance. They were hooded and in balaclavas to conceal their identities. They were repeatedly throwing rocks, bottles, missiles, fireworks and any other objects they could find at the entrance to the police station. The heavily reinforced glass at the entrance of the police station was slowly breaking more and more every time an object was launched at it. Every time there was a new crack, there was a huge cheer from the crowd. There was a feeling of genuine excitement and glee amongst the crowd as if they were part of something interesting and important. Personally, I found it a little bit cringeworthy and juvenile. They didn’t strike me as noble revolutionaries fighting for a cause. Instead, they mainly came across as young, angry, and drunk. There was a party-like atmosphere in the air, entwined with a sinister, violent edge.

Do you think there was much overlap between those who attended the earlier peaceful protests and the riot outside Bridewell police station?

I think most people who know anything about the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill would understand that campaigning for the right to peacefully protest by setting fire to police vans and smashing up police stations is ridiculously counter-productive. People who genuinely care about the bill would not cause riots. It was the most stupid decision they could possibly make in order to prove their point. It will have the exact opposite effect of the original cause of the protest. 

I spoke to people at both the peaceful protests and the violent protests. Some of them knew what they were talking about in regards to the bill, most of them did not. There may have been an overlap in the sense that many of those at the peaceful protest weren’t knowledgeable about the bill itself and so wouldn’t have realised that committing violence is the dumbest approach - on a tactical basis - to proving their point. 

So I don’t know to what extent there was an overlap but the numbers were very different - the first protest had many thousands of people, the violent protests were maybe 500-1000. So it was definitely a violent minority looking for trouble.

Some of the footage from the riot showed that some of the protestors were trying to prevent others from being violent. How widespread was this?

I didn’t see any of that at all. I did overhear people saying they didn’t agree with it, but were still standing around and watching regardless, which of course is completely fair enough - no one is obliged to put themselves in physical danger. Maybe I arrived too late in the evening, but I was there for around three hours and I didn’t see a single instance of anyone trying to physically or verbally persuade the protesters to do anything different. In fact, the only example of this that I encountered was when I personally accosted two guys screaming into the face of police officers blaming them for the death of Sarah Everard. You can see in my YouTube video that I thought it was so vile I had to challenge them on it. But apart from that, people were standing and watching, not intervening.

What was perhaps the worst instance of violence or destruction that you witnessed?

The worst case of violence and destruction I witnessed was undoubtedly the police van being set on fire. First, it was smashed up and had its doors torn off. Then it was set alight. It was quite the scene, the feeling of riot and anger in the air when the van went up in flames. People kept running back to it and throwing bins and other objects into the blaze. At one point, I was about twenty feet from it, filming the blaze, and could feel the heat very strongly on my face. I suddenly realised the rest of the crowd were twenty feet further behind and I was the only one standing that close. I retreated and shortly after there was an explosion! There were various scuffles between riot police and individuals where police batons were swung. But as an overall moment, the torching of the police van stands out.

What do you believe were the underlying motivations for those taking part - if they were not aware of the details of the bill?

I'm seeing some people stand up for the rioters, but not many. It could be an age thing to an extent. There were a lot of young people there. I was discussing with a friend yesterday how we would have been getting involved in that up to a certain age - maybe even as old as our early 20s, who knows, if the conditions were correct, and there was the right amount of booze and a boisterous atmosphere. Although I would say that when we were young, we used to sometimes engage in anti-social behaviour, it was always just that: mindless, without a goal, purely releasing energy and testosterone as a group of young men figuring themselves out. 

These kids seemed strongly motivated by ideas, opinions, ideologies - all of which were very recognisable to me in being plucked from the current social media zeitgeist. It was to do with Sarah Everard’s murder; it was to do with the ‘racist’ police and the ‘evil’ government. It had little to do with the nuances of the legislation itself. So even if we can make some excuses on behalf of some of them being young and dumb, there needs to be a conversation about the effect of bad ideas warping people’s minds, as technology and social media narratives continue to churn out ready-made zombie-like opinions. Plus the pressure cooker of lockdown, I guess.

What do you think of the reactions of wider society to the events in Bristol? Do they understand things in the same way as someone who was actually there?

I’ve been absolutely relieved to see that the majority of people are condemning the riots. It’s always painful when something clearly unpleasant, unreasonable, or unjust takes place and a narrative in wider society is whipped up into thinking that it was somehow justifiable. There are, of course, a few people saying that riots are an inevitable cause of people feeling disaffected. Maybe there’s some truth to this. Being there in person, however, means most of my personal sympathy is lost. Seeing those events unfold in front of you, it becomes much harder to be sympathetic.