SWOT analysis: managing protest

Joe Easterbrook, former City of London Police Inspector, now Building Security Manager for CIS Security has carried out a SWOT analysis on how to manage protest – looking Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.

It’s funny how life can bring you full circle…

With a warrant card, my role during City protests was always to safeguard the public, communicate with any affected buildings to minimise disruption, and occasionally, remind protesters that whilst a passionate demonstration is one thing, spray painting a building is something very different. Fast forward 12 months and I am now a security manager for one of those very same buildings which sometimes draws the attention of protesters. And while the uniform may have changed, the task is essentially the same and therefore, as challenging as ever.

So, what’s it like preparing for and managing protest activity in the Square Mile? Tricky!

Protests can be pre-planned (good), but they can also be spontaneous (not so good). It’s one of the more interesting security considerations, and is often about managing expectations, navigating legal frameworks, and working together to maintain building safety.

To try and understand the landscape better, I’ve completed a short SWOT analysis of my views.

Strengths

As clichéd as it sounds, one of the key strengths in managing protest activity in the City is the power of communication. As a police officer, I was always encouraged to steer clear of WhatsApp Groups to share information and intelligence, but as a security manager they’re critical. These groups allow people across different buildings and security companies to exchange real-time information on potential threats linked to protests.

Practically speaking, I’ve been fortunate to receive several ‘heads-ups’ from colleagues in other buildings, which have afforded me the time to adjust building posture/measures in a bid to offer some form of mitigation.

In addition, forums such as the City of London Crime Prevention Association play a vital role. Intelligence is shared by the police, emerging threats are discussed, and both pre- and post-meeting coffee afford the time to connect and talk through plans with fellow security professionals.

Ultimately, it’s partnerships that help us anticipate and understand protest activity better. Whilst I remain somewhat biased, the City of London Police are also key to this, not just in terms of enforcement, but their proactive engagement with building security teams.

Tools such as CityINTEL allow the police to brief on protest strategies, movements and tactics to help preparedness, often in real time. It’s a fine line between preventing incident(s) at protests and facilitating the peaceful right to do so.

Weaknesses

Of course, even with all the communication and collaboration, there are weaknesses.

One of the big challenges is the legal landscape around protest activity. Despite my background, and now as a security manager, I still find myself ‘googling’ pre-protest to ensure that I’m up to speed with any changes or relevant case law.

The key issue is understanding the difference between civil and aggravated trespass. I look at it like this – civil trespass refers to someone unlawfully entering a building with no intention of disrupting activities/operations, whilst aggravated trespass is causing that disruption, whether it be by obstruction or intimidation.

It becomes even trickier when you consider the threshold for police intervention, or even that for building owners. The law tends to favour peaceful protests, and many are aware of their rights. Hence, when faced with a well-organised group, whose activities are within such thresholds, it can be frustrating and often a delicate balance to maintain.

Opportunities

The best opportunities for dealing with protests lie in collaboration. The cost of additional security officers, for instance, is always a huge consideration. At some point increased security measures, whether it’s bringing in more officers, incorporating search regimes or introducing visitor protocols, becomes unsustainable.

No one wants to spend more money on security than is necessary, especially when the risk of escalation is low. But with the rising uncertainty of protests, the ambiguity of targets, and direct-action tactics, the reality is, sometimes it’s needed.

It’s not just about preventing protesters from gaining access to buildings. It’s about mitigating the long-term costs associated with disruption. This can lead to lost working hours, physical damage, or reputational harm.

Threats

While many protests remain peaceful, we’ve seen a shift toward more disruptive, and sometimes aggressive tactics. Some groups have moved more towards occupations, paint spraying, and damage to property.

The rise of direct-action affiliate groups means that we’re often dealing with highly organised and resourceful people. Coupled with the increasing use of technology, every protest now has the potential to become a social media spectacle.

Uploaded footage could be more damaging than the actual act(s) of protest. In response, we must adapt. The City of London Police and security managers must stay ahead, anticipating these changes, and respond proactively, together. Where possible, buildings/companies/clients should aim for a common approach.