It is six weeks after the so-called 'Carnival Against Capitalism' in the City of London, but people are still talking about the experience.
In the ensuing days, we encountered a mass of contradictory views among senior clients on the significance or otherwise of what had happened. While few seemed to feel that the demonstration itself was likely to have done much damage to London's reputation as a financial centre, opinions polarised on what the authorities could or should have done, and on what they ought to do were there to be a repeat.
We thought it would be useful to peer beyond these anecdotal observations and to find out more about what an absolutely key group – the most senior management in the largest international investment banks and securities houses based in London – felt.
We commissioned some small-scale but high quality research into the views of the people leading these organisations. We reached chief executives, managing directors or directors from 60% of the top 25 investment banks (as ranked by Euromoney in its January 1999 'poll of polls').
The willingness of these people to talk to the researchers showed that the impact and handling of the event was a matter of genuine public interest and they were happy to contribute to the debate. The results are significant but perhaps not surprising.
Understandably, there was much more concern about the possibility of a repeat demonstration than there was about the original event. Eighty percent called for a firmer response from the authorities, should there be a repetition, whereas almost 50% believed the authorities reacted appropriately first time around.
This group is keen to support appropriate measures but, from a legal perspective, what measures are available? There is, in general, no right to hold a meeting or demonstration under English common law, although many of us would feel that the occasional event of this sort is a natural and positive expression of the democratic society we enjoy in the UK.
This is, no doubt, why the authorities seldom appeal to the statutory powers to control processions and meetings laid down in The Public Order Act 1986. Making a banning order, which requires the consent of the Secretary of State, would be a significant political decision. But some believe it would have been justified – witness the respondent to our survey who said: "I don't think it reflects badly on the City. It reflects badly on the government for not banning the demonstration."
That is a stronger version of a common sentiment in the views expressed to us, which boils down to the old adage that the problem is not the crisis itself, but how you manage it. On the whole, the banking community seemed prepared to take the existence of the event on the chin. The feeling was against 'draconian' measures by the authorities, but in favour of astute use of intelligence to ensure matters do not get to the point of being out of hand.
My own view is that entering into the primarily good-natured spirit of the occasion, which so many of us tried to do in June, was the right response at the time. If there is ever a repetition, we should probably do so again.
However, there is real scope for civic damage when events of this kind are hijacked by thugs. In which case, we need to give our full backing to the authorities in taking well-judged measures to find out what is planned by organised groups of demonstrators – to forestall action which threatens to escalate dangerously, and showing that they, rather than the protestors, are in control.
"Well-judged" is of course the key phrase here. One observation that caught my eye among the many unearthed in our research was: "They [the police] should look at alcohol restrictions and treat it like a football match."
This is surely right. It is a good thing, in our society, that people are allowed to demonstrate about issues which arguably impinge on us all. What they should not be allowed to do is cause gratuitous harm to others in the process.
Sadly, to achieve that probably requires a little more intervention by the authorities if there is ever a next time around.
Peter Scott is City managing partner at
Eversheds.