Why the best protest comms starts with listening

As someone who has previously worked for, and is still working with, the emergency services, I cannot help but focus on the recent protests across Europe, and fear for the potential scale up that may happen in the United Kingdom. Things certainly seem tense. 

Protesting is a privilege of democratic life, and policing it is one of the most delicate tasks a force faces. Getting the balance wrong in either direction,  the consequences can be vast, for public trust as much as public safety.

The conversation around a protest starts long before the first poster is raised. Organisers announce plans, supporters tag friends and advocates, and opponents voice their anger or their counter protest details. Mis/dis-information can spread like wildfire, and rumours about what is happening, or what the police intend to do, can raise tensions before anyone has even left their front door.

A lot of my time is spent strategising about how forces look for this information online, and, to give credit where it is due to communications teams, they almost always look in their overwhelming comments section first. Your audience is talking on socials and giving away the intelligence you need that you might miss while focusing on intels OSINT (open-source intelligence) tools.

Do not get me wrong, OSINT is extremely powerful, but so is the data you already own, and often miss, due to not resourcing the ability to read the information.

Below, I have popped some ways to use the tools you already have to gain maximum data for impactive intel gathering. 

Orlo Insights – listening comes first. Following public emotion, emerging themes and sudden shifts in mood and tensions helps forces understand the size, narrative and intent of an upcoming event. Most protests are lawful, but as we are seeing across Europe, numbers of individuals may intend disruption to both society and economy. Telling the two apart supports a response that is proportionate and respects the right to protest, whilst instilling confidence in bystanders.

Then comes engagement. Silence leaves room for speculation and confusion. Forces that communicate clearly and consistently online, explaining what to expect, setting out conditions and correcting false claims, show that policing is open and fair. That doesn’t mean just broadcasting, it means responding to questions and giving advice that is asked for. It is providing reassurance that you are there and listening. That credibility matters most when tensions rise, because people are far more likely to trust a force they have already heard from.

Judgement stays human. Technology helps teams keep pace with the volume, but decisions rest with officers and communications teams who understand their communities and the wider context. I am by no means blinded by believing that technology will solve operational policing problems, but I do believe it can significantly lift the burden in helping sieve significant detail into competent strategy.

Getting your information from the correct sources, efficiently and with rigour, is important in distributing instruction, safety advice and officers appropriately. With all that is in the air, and with inflamed community cohesion, starting to communicate consistently, well, and with transparency, will start to bridge the gap between public trust and confidence.