During his oral evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on Policing and Protest (on Tuesday 9 December 2008), Vernon Coaker, Minister for Policing, Crime and Security said the following regarding the possible use of taser guns at protests:

'Q56 John Austin: Can I raise the issue of tasers and the announcement by the Home Secretary of additional funding to buy another 10,000 tasers for frontline officers? Could you tell us briefly why the Home Secretary has decided to increase the availability, given the very real human rights concerns about the use of tasers?

Mr Coaker: This has not been a rushed decision. We introduced tasers for authorised firearms officers in 2003. They were used by a very small number of police officers. Just over a year ago in September 2007, that was then extended and not just limited to authorised firearms officers but extended to officers who had training in a certain number of forces. I think it was ten additional forces. As a consequence of that extension to these officers, it was reviewed in terms of what the effectiveness of tasers had been, both in terms of police effectiveness but also in terms of what the consequences had been for medical or other issues that may have arisen. That was observed all the way through. The trial was successful. The police believed it was successful. The medical opinion we had back was that the taser had not caused any particular problems. As the Home Office we made the decision that in terms of helping to give the police an additional resource, to make it available to them under very strict controls and guidance, subject to the desire of the Chief Constables to use them in their particular area, it was a proportionate and appropriate extension of the equipment that could be made available to police officers on the front line to deal with very difficult situations. When they were used during the trial period, they often were not used in a huge number of cases in terms of being fired. They were drawn considerably more. What actually had the impact on the situation was the appearance of the red dot on the individual who was causing a problem. I do not know whether it is because people have seen lots of films and seen red dots appear - I do not mean this as a sarcastic remark - but the red dot had a significant impact. The taser helped resolve a situation which was dangerous for the police officer, dangerous for other members of the public and dangerous for that person the police were trying to deal with much more effectively than some of the equipment that either had been or is available to the police.

Q57 Lord Morris of Handsworth: Is there any monitoring about the longer term impacts? I accept what you say about the medical knowledge as it is today. What about three, four or five years down the line?

Mr Coaker: Our intention is to continue the medical monitoring of the use of tasers and also to continue monitoring with ACPO and others the use of the taser in an operational sense.

Q58 Lord Morris of Handsworth: Will your findings be published?

Mr Coaker: Yes.

Q59 John Austin: You have given an explanation of the Home Secretary's rationale for increasing deployment of tasers. The day after the Home Secretary made that announcement, the Metropolitan Police in their statement said that they did not plan to use more tasers because it could cause fear and damage public confidence. How would you respond to the Met's response?

Mr Coaker: My understanding is that that was a statement by the Metropolitan Police Authority, not the Metropolitan Police. I stand to be corrected but I think that is right.

Q60 John Austin: We should talk to Boris?

Mr Coaker: No. It is just a statement of fact. I think tasers are going to be used under very strict guidance. The officers will be trained. The reaction we have had, not just from police officers but generally from members of the public is that this, as an alternative to either CS spray or in worse situations firearms themselves, is a proportionate and reasonable response. I hope that the Metropolitan Police Authority reflects on what they say, talks to its police officers and sees that this is a proportionate, responsible way forward.

Q61 John Austin: Our inquiry at the moment is about the policing of protest. When we had ACPO and the Met here we did ask about the potential use of tasers in policing protests, possibly if there was a feeling that there was a risk of violence. We had a reply today from Sue Sim which the Committee has only just received, which talks about the deployment of specially trained units. She says in her letter, "The deployment of STUs is very clear and must be when officers or the public are facing or are likely to face serious violence. It is my personal view that I do not see any situation when STUs would be deployed to a protest. Indeed, the very nature of taser is such that it should not be deployed against large numbers of people and officers are trained to use other options when dealing with these situations." Would you therefore concur that the use of tasers is wholly inappropriate when dealing with protests?

Mr Coaker: I agree absolutely with what the Deputy Chief Constable has said in the letter to you. I cannot envisage a situation in which taser, which has a very short range anyway, irrespective of the moral argument around it, practically would be something that would be useful. I cannot see a situation in which it would be appropriate to use taser to control demonstration or protest.

Q62 John Austin: Where would the guidance on that come from? Would that come from the Home Office or would different police forces be able to interpret it differently?

Mr Coaker: The joint guidance with respect to that would be ACPO/Home Office. Ultimately we would be involved in that but in the end it would be ACPO guidance.'

You can find the full uncorrected transcript of this oral evidence at:  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/uc40-i/uc4002.htm

The announcement of Tasers to the Police is very recent. Have all this tasers been bought for the police? The article isn't clear. Isn't this pointless scaremongering?

It may well be scaremongering to make out that the police have got all these new tasers just to use on protestors. Protestors need to consider the possibility of them being used, but without getting panicked, and consider ways to counter them.
If you have seen tasers demonstrated on the telly (usually in news items announcing the fact that some police force or other now has them), you'll see that coppers need to have room, quite a bit of it, to be able to use them. Getting that much room in a crowd situation, and without risk of "shooting" one of their own, is going to be difficult.
I think protestors should discuss:
staying in groups at all times
If any coppers are seen with tasers, don't allow them room to manoevre but crowd them; hem them in. This will take some bottle and a bit of organising, but some protestors are always prepared to defend others.
Keep an eye on any one you know who is likely to lose it under police provocation, and make sure they aren't isolated and so can't be picked off by the filth.
If you have to "cause trouble", do it in a large group; be prepared to carry away any casualties; and remember, a taser has only one shot, and once used, the copper who used it is effectively disarmed. You'll then have time to either run away, or do what you think necessary to defend yourself and prevent or discourage him from re-arming.

These are just some suggestions, no doubt somebody out there will think I'm talking rubbish. But let's have a constructive discussion on this, not scaremongering.

Let's face it, some members of the fuzz have always liked to have a go at protestors. The fact that they've got a new piece of technology to do it with does not represent that big a change in their attitudes.