This is a serious issue – politicalbetting.com

System

This is a serious issue – politicalbetting.com

I am not a republican and never have been but I do think that James O’Brien has a point here. This makes me feel very uneasy and I am concerned about the changes in the law on protests that the Tories have brought in.

Read the full story here

WhisperingOracle

First and FPT : Labour are going to start to lose a few votes to the LDs if they start to equivocate on these civil liberties issues, such as today with the repressive new laws. The Met claim that the protestors were going to lock-on to a horse-drawn and bayonets military parade with luggage tags is ludicrous, and exactly illustrative of the kind of abuses that always emerge with each bit of new authoritarian legislation.

If there's more where that came from, despite having a few Labour contacts and connections and broadly having some sympathy for Starmer, I may personally vote LD for the first time since the late New Labour period.

Sunil_Prasannan

Second like the Tories

Big_G_NorthWales

WhisperingOracle said:

First and FPT : Labour are going to start to lose a few votes to the LD if they start to equivocate on these civil liberties issues, such as today with the repressive new laws, and the ludicrous Met claim that the protestors were going to lock-on to a horse-drawn and bayonets military parade with luggage tags.

If there's more where that came from, despite having a few Labour contacts and connections and broadly having some sympathy for Starmer, personally I may vote LD for the first time since the late New Labour period.

This seems to confirm Starmer will not repeal the act

To be honest he is almost becoming indistinguishable from a conservative leader

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1655969587077234688?t=qug12tbT16cnmI8uk1YvkQ&s=19

Sandpit

FPT:
Met Commissoner explains the background to the arrest of protestors. There really were between a rock and a hard place.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/09/sir-mark-rowley-defends-coronation-met-policing-arrests/
(Much longer article, no paywall)

“Protesters posing as stewards planned to disrupt the Coronation by throwing bottles of white paint at the procession, Sir Mark Rowley has revealed.

“The Met Commissioner said his officers had worked around the clock to identify and arrest the criminal network that planned to attack the event and compromise the safety of those taking part.

“He said just hours before the Coronation took place, police had received intelligence that people intended to vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession and invade the route.

“If the disruption had not been stopped, Sir Mark said, it could have resulted in multiple serious injuries for those taking part in the mounted procession.

“In a strongly worded defence of the Met’s handling of the historic event, Sir Mark said: “By Friday evening, only twelve hours from the Coronation, we had become extremely concerned by a rapidly developing intelligence picture suggesting the Coronation could suffer.

“ “This included people intent on using rape alarms and loud hailers as part of their protest which would have caused distress to military horses.

“ “We also had intelligence that people intended to extensively vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession, and incur on to the route.” ”

DecrepiterJohnL

This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.

kle4

All part of a trend. Restricting protest, punish 'non-crime' hate speech etc. People creaming themselves in joy at being able to link to the royals was a bit of a distraction from the laws and rules being more of an issue than blaming it on Chazzy Sausage hands.

Even if specific protests or events might fall foul of reasonable measures, the presumption should be to allow and not interfere, making action the exception. Yet DecrepiterJohnL is right disruptive events do seem to be more common, and the public can get pretty sick of it - there's a reason the government won't find itself necessarily unpopular for being tougher on such things.

I don't really agree that Labour will lose votes ot the LDs if they equivocate on these issues as WhisperingOracle suggests. Logically perhaps it should, but civil liberties concerns are generally a long way down peoples' main concerns, and the public want the Tories out bad enough someone a little concerned by Starmer's words on such matters will easily convince themselves it'll be different one he gets in.

Funny to see BigG has joined the BigJohn view of Starmer though.

WhisperingOracle

Sandpit said:

FPT:
Met Commissoner explains the background to the arrest of protestors. There really were between a rock and a hard place.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/09/sir-mark-rowley-defends-coronation-met-policing-arrests/
(Much longer article, no paywall)

“Protesters posing as stewards planned to disrupt the Coronation by throwing bottles of white paint at the procession, Sir Mark Rowley has revealed.

“The Met Commissioner said his officers had worked around the clock to identify and arrest the criminal network that planned to attack the event and compromise the safety of those taking part.

“He said just hours before the Coronation took place, police had received intelligence that people intended to vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession and invade the route.

“If the disruption had not been stopped, Sir Mark said, it could have resulted in multiple serious injuries for those taking part in the mounted procession.

“In a strongly worded defence of the Met’s handling of the historic event, Sir Mark said: “By Friday evening, only twelve hours from the Coronation, we had become extremely concerned by a rapidly developing intelligence picture suggesting the Coronation could suffer.

“ “This included people intent on using rape alarms and loud hailers as part of their protest which would have caused distress to military horses.

“ “We also had intelligence that people intended to extensively vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession, and incur on to the route.” ”

Their rationale is utterly ludicrous and unconvincing. They were quoted on the BBC Six'o'clock news as saying that they were "concerned" that the protestors were about to use some luggage tags that were somewhere in their van to lock on to a huge military parade.

Comical rubbish, but also apparently typical of the apparently still, as-yet-to-be-reformed Met, and more importantly, deeply ominous and dangerous for our democratic state.

Malmesbury

Big_G_NorthWales said:

WhisperingOracle said:

First and FPT : Labour are going to start to lose a few votes to the LD if they start to equivocate on these civil liberties issues, such as today with the repressive new laws, and the ludicrous Met claim that the protestors were going to lock-on to a horse-drawn and bayonets military parade with luggage tags.

If there's more where that came from, despite having a few Labour contacts and connections and broadly having some sympathy for Starmer, personally I may vote LD for the first time since the late New Labour period.

This seems to confirm Starmer will not repeal the act

To be honest he is almost becoming indistinguishable from a conservative leader

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1655969587077234688?t=qug12tbT16cnmI8uk1YvkQ&s=19

Has Labour ever repealed a “security” piece of legislation?

New Labour tried to bring back detention without trial.

In one account of the negotiations that formed the beginning of the Coalition, the Labour representatives demanded that the LibDems sign up to the loony database stuff behind the iD card scheme.

Apparently they couldn’t understand how the LibDens could really believe that any limitation on government power was good thing.

EPG

That was the point of the laws, right? Nothing to see here. People said it would happen and it happened. Vote for someone who won't arrest you for disagreeing with them.

FF43

The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.

Big_G_NorthWales

kle4 said:

All part of a trend. Restricting protest, punish 'non-crime' hate speech etc. People creaming themselves in joy at being able to link to the royals was a bit of a distraction from the laws and rules being more of an issue than blaming it on Chazzy Sausage hands.

Even if specific protests or events might fall foul of reasonable measures, the presumption should be to allow and not interfere, making action the exception. Yet DecrepiterJohnL is right disruptive events do seem to be more common, and the public can get pretty sick of it - there's a reason the government won't find itself necessarily unpopular for being tougher on such things.

I don't really agree that Labour will lose votes ot the LDs if they equivocate on these issues as WhisperingOracle suggests. Logically perhaps it should, but civil liberties concerns are generally a long way down peoples' main concerns, and the public want the Tories out bad enough someone a little concerned by Starmer's words on such matters will easily convince themselves it'll be different one he gets in.

Funny to see BigG has joined the BigJohn view of Starmer though.

Brexit

Tuition fees

Policing Act

Does make you wonder

Sandpit

DecrepiterJohnL said:

This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.

Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.

Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.

One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.

EPG

Sandpit said:

FPT:
Met Commissoner explains the background to the arrest of protestors. There really were between a rock and a hard place.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/09/sir-mark-rowley-defends-coronation-met-policing-arrests/
(Much longer article, no paywall)

“Protesters posing as stewards planned to disrupt the Coronation by throwing bottles of white paint at the procession, Sir Mark Rowley has revealed.

“The Met Commissioner said his officers had worked around the clock to identify and arrest the criminal network that planned to attack the event and compromise the safety of those taking part.

“He said just hours before the Coronation took place, police had received intelligence that people intended to vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession and invade the route.

“If the disruption had not been stopped, Sir Mark said, it could have resulted in multiple serious injuries for those taking part in the mounted procession.

“In a strongly worded defence of the Met’s handling of the historic event, Sir Mark said: “By Friday evening, only twelve hours from the Coronation, we had become extremely concerned by a rapidly developing intelligence picture suggesting the Coronation could suffer.

“ “This included people intent on using rape alarms and loud hailers as part of their protest which would have caused distress to military horses.

“ “We also had intelligence that people intended to extensively vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession, and incur on to the route.” ”

Believing the Met makes one a M(upp)et.

williamglenn

WhisperingOracle said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:
Met Commissoner explains the background to the arrest of protestors. There really were between a rock and a hard place.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/09/sir-mark-rowley-defends-coronation-met-policing-arrests/
(Much longer article, no paywall)

“Protesters posing as stewards planned to disrupt the Coronation by throwing bottles of white paint at the procession, Sir Mark Rowley has revealed.

“The Met Commissioner said his officers had worked around the clock to identify and arrest the criminal network that planned to attack the event and compromise the safety of those taking part.

“He said just hours before the Coronation took place, police had received intelligence that people intended to vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession and invade the route.

“If the disruption had not been stopped, Sir Mark said, it could have resulted in multiple serious injuries for those taking part in the mounted procession.

“In a strongly worded defence of the Met’s handling of the historic event, Sir Mark said: “By Friday evening, only twelve hours from the Coronation, we had become extremely concerned by a rapidly developing intelligence picture suggesting the Coronation could suffer.

“ “This included people intent on using rape alarms and loud hailers as part of their protest which would have caused distress to military horses.

“ “We also had intelligence that people intended to extensively vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession, and incur on to the route.” ”

Their rationale is utterly ludicrous. They were quoted on the BBC Six'o'clock news as saying that they were "concerned" that the protestors were about to use some luggage tags that were somewhere in their van to lock on to a huge military parade.

Comical rubbish, but also deeply ominous and dangerous for our democratic state.

It's neither ominous nor dangerous and isn't a threat to democracy. Nobody is stopping a party from standing on a platform of allowing more disruption at major events, but they might struggle to win votes.

Malmesbury

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.

Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.

Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.

One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.

Is there a right to disruptive protest?

Is there a right to disrupt disruptive protest?

Big_G_NorthWales

EPG said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:
Met Commissoner explains the background to the arrest of protestors. There really were between a rock and a hard place.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/09/sir-mark-rowley-defends-coronation-met-policing-arrests/
(Much longer article, no paywall)

“Protesters posing as stewards planned to disrupt the Coronation by throwing bottles of white paint at the procession, Sir Mark Rowley has revealed.

“The Met Commissioner said his officers had worked around the clock to identify and arrest the criminal network that planned to attack the event and compromise the safety of those taking part.

“He said just hours before the Coronation took place, police had received intelligence that people intended to vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession and invade the route.

“If the disruption had not been stopped, Sir Mark said, it could have resulted in multiple serious injuries for those taking part in the mounted procession.

“In a strongly worded defence of the Met’s handling of the historic event, Sir Mark said: “By Friday evening, only twelve hours from the Coronation, we had become extremely concerned by a rapidly developing intelligence picture suggesting the Coronation could suffer.

“ “This included people intent on using rape alarms and loud hailers as part of their protest which would have caused distress to military horses.

“ “We also had intelligence that people intended to extensively vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession, and incur on to the route.” ”

Believing the Met makes one a M(upp)et.

I would just say the other side of the coin is what if something dreadful had happened and action had not been taken to prevent it

The MET cannot win on this

WhisperingOracle

kle4 said:

All part of a trend. Restricting protest, punish 'non-crime' hate speech etc. People creaming themselves in joy at being able to link to the royals was a bit of a distraction from the laws and rules being more of an issue than blaming it on Chazzy Sausage hands.

Even if specific protests or events might fall foul of reasonable measures, the presumption should be to allow and not interfere, making action the exception. Yet DecrepiterJohnL is right disruptive events do seem to be more common, and the public can get pretty sick of it - there's a reason the government won't find itself necessarily unpopular for being tougher on such things.

I don't really agree that Labour will lose votes ot the LDs if they equivocate on these issues as WhisperingOracle suggests. Logically perhaps it should, but civil liberties concerns are generally a long way down peoples' main concerns, and the public want the Tories out bad enough someone a little concerned by Starmer's words on such matters will easily convince themselves it'll be different one he gets in.

Funny to see BigG has joined the BigJohn view of Starmer though.

Civil liberties are half of how the LD's gained so much ground under New Labour ; they've always gained most slightly on the left in the last 30 years, as I highlighted yesterday ; the coalition years, and the entire period of still being associated with the right, 2010-2019, conversely, coincided with the period of deep decline for them.

They're also in fact part of how Cameron won the 2010 election, with his "liberal conservatism", so, and obviously to a much lesser-extent, even the Tories may lose some votes to the LD's on these issues, if they're perceived to be the only party now standing up for these fundamental democratic rights.

bigjohnowls

On Topic SKS has said he wont reverse them

I'm not an SKS fan, not because SKS is not Jeremy Corbyn.

I'm not an SKS Labour fan because SKS is an apartheid-denying, Socialist hating, establishment-protecting, plege-breaking, democracy threatening, racist-pandering, union-failing, flag-shagging, member-bullying, hierarchy of racism supporting career charlatan and Tory fraud.

Put me down as a maybe!

squareroot2

FF43 said:

The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.

The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests
cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.

TheScreamingEagles

My first act as the country's first directly elected dictator will be to abolish the met.

Taz

DecrepiterJohnL said:

This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.

Absolutely and why should people going about their business be disrupted by these tools. Be they eco loons or anti vaxxers or whatever. The right to protest has not suddenly vanished overnight. It is more a type of protest. Personally I thought the laws they had were already adequate however I felt far more concerned at new labours anti terror measures and the stop and search aspect of it which saw journalists harassed and tourists forced to delete photos due to the intervention of overzealous plod or witless security staff.

I have no doubt the next labour govt will not repeal these laws, or substantively repeal,them.

Big_G_NorthWales

bigjohnowls said:

On Topic SKS has said he wont reverse them

I'm not an SKS fan, not because SKS is not Jeremy Corbyn.

I'm not an SKS Labour fan because SKS is an apartheid-denying, Socialist hating, establishment-protecting, plege-breaking, democracy threatening, racist-pandering, union-failing, flag-shagging, member-bullying, hierarchy of racism supporting career charlatan and Tory fraud.

Put me down as a maybe!

Dont hold back @bigjohnowls !!!!!

WhisperingOracle

williamglenn said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:
Met Commissoner explains the background to the arrest of protestors. There really were between a rock and a hard place.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/09/sir-mark-rowley-defends-coronation-met-policing-arrests/
(Much longer article, no paywall)

“Protesters posing as stewards planned to disrupt the Coronation by throwing bottles of white paint at the procession, Sir Mark Rowley has revealed.

“The Met Commissioner said his officers had worked around the clock to identify and arrest the criminal network that planned to attack the event and compromise the safety of those taking part.

“He said just hours before the Coronation took place, police had received intelligence that people intended to vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession and invade the route.

“If the disruption had not been stopped, Sir Mark said, it could have resulted in multiple serious injuries for those taking part in the mounted procession.

“In a strongly worded defence of the Met’s handling of the historic event, Sir Mark said: “By Friday evening, only twelve hours from the Coronation, we had become extremely concerned by a rapidly developing intelligence picture suggesting the Coronation could suffer.

“ “This included people intent on using rape alarms and loud hailers as part of their protest which would have caused distress to military horses.

“ “We also had intelligence that people intended to extensively vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession, and incur on to the route.” ”

Their rationale is utterly ludicrous. They were quoted on the BBC Six'o'clock news as saying that they were "concerned" that the protestors were about to use some luggage tags that were somewhere in their van to lock on to a huge military parade.

Comical rubbish, but also deeply ominous and dangerous for our democratic state.

It's neither ominous nor dangerous and isn't a threat to democracy. Nobody is stopping a party from standing on a platform of allowing more disruption at major events, but they might struggle to win votes.

Why is it neither ominous nor dangerous ?

Extensions of powers are always abused, and so should only be considered in extremis, not for a few cheap headlines. Do you believe that the Met claim that one can "lock on" to a military parade with paper luggage tags is plausible ?

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

My first act as the country's first directly elected dictator will be to abolish the met.

If you'll abolish local council planning objections you'll get my vote.

DougSeal

bigjohnowls said:

On Topic SKS has said he wont reverse them

I'm not an SKS fan, not because SKS is not Jeremy Corbyn.

I'm not an SKS Labour fan because SKS is an apartheid-denying, Socialist hating, establishment-protecting, plege-breaking, democracy threatening, racist-pandering, union-failing, flag-shagging, member-bullying, hierarchy of racism supporting career charlatan and Tory fraud.

Put me down as a maybe!

He'll be gutted

Britain Elects
@BritainElects
·
17m
Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 47% (+3)
CON: 28% (-1)
LDEM: 9% (-2)

via
@DeltapollUK
, 05 - 09 May

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1655986340612415490?cxt=HHwWhIDRkbKzn_stAAAA

About that LD bounce...

TheScreamingEagles

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My first act as the country's first directly elected dictator will be to abolish the met.

If you'll abolish local council planning objections you'll get my vote.

Yup, turn every council into a unitary as well.

kle4

squareroot2 said:

FF43 said:

The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.

The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests
cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.

Governments don't simply give people what they want, that's why there's all sorts of rules that are a good idea but the public would not care about the detail of.

This government is going to be regarded with a lot of suspicion about its motivations, given other policies around voting, boats etc. It creates an atmosphere.

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My first act as the country's first directly elected dictator will be to abolish the met.

If you'll abolish local council planning objections you'll get my vote.

Yup, turn every council into a unitary as well.

Ok, now I'm serious about voting for you.

bigjohnowls

TheScreamingEagles said:

My first act as the country's first directly elected dictator will be to abolish the met.

Can your 2nd one be to abolish SKS please

Pretty Please

dixiedean

Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school.
The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all.
The children on the other hand.
Oh boy.
They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin.
The displays are all down now.

DougSeal

bigjohnowls said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My first act as the country's first directly elected dictator will be to abolish the met.

Can your 2nd one be to abolish SKS please

Pretty Please

You're unwell.

MoonRabbit

Does greed inflation have much impact on the underlying inflation rate?

Sandpit

Malmesbury said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.

Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.

Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.

One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.

Is there a right to disruptive protest?

Is there a right to disrupt disruptive protest?

Apparently yes.

Apparently no.

TheScreamingEagles

bigjohnowls said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My first act as the country's first directly elected dictator will be to abolish the met.

Can your 2nd one be to abolish SKS please

Pretty Please

No, I'd abolish the liar Jeremy Corbyn though.

squareroot2

kle4 said:

squareroot2 said:

FF43 said:

The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.

The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests
cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.

Governments don't simply give people what they want, that's why there's all sorts of rules that are a good idea but the public would not care about the detail of.

This government is going to be regarded with a lot of suspicion about its motivations, given other policies around voting, boats etc. It creates an atmosphere.

They would be better off looking into why diesel is so much more expensive than petrol. WVM wants to.know

dixiedean

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.

Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.

Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.

One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.

Is there a right to disruptive protest?

Is there a right to disrupt disruptive protest?

Apparently yes.

Apparently no.

The reaction of the Met this weekend would suggest you've got them the wrong way round.

slade

Having just returned from foreign parts I have had a chance to look in details at last weeks's local elections results. One that caught my eye was Liverpool Waterfront North. I don't know whether it has been mentioned before but the Labour candidate won with 91 votes ( that's votes received not majority). Apparently it is an area due for redevelopment - but is it right to base the franchise on future populations?

bigjohnowls

TheScreamingEagles said:

bigjohnowls said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My first act as the country's first directly elected dictator will be to abolish the met.

Can your 2nd one be to abolish SKS please

Pretty Please

No, I'd abolish the liar Jeremy Corbyn though.

Not my DE Dictator!!

Malmesbury

squareroot2 said:

kle4 said:

squareroot2 said:

FF43 said:

The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.

The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests
cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.

Governments don't simply give people what they want, that's why there's all sorts of rules that are a good idea but the public would not care about the detail of.

This government is going to be regarded with a lot of suspicion about its motivations, given other policies around voting, boats etc. It creates an atmosphere.

They would be better off looking into why diesel is so much more expensive than petrol. WVM wants to.know

Guess where a lot of diesel was imported from?

Given approaching end of ICE, investing in refining capacity is not fashionable.

Richard_Tyndall

Agree with OGH 100% on this.

As I have made clear, I am a pretty staunch monarchist and I think the way the police behaved was absolutely bloody awful. I am particularly angered now by seeing the head of the Met coming out and trying to justify the actions.

People have a right to protest and the police action was completely unacceptable.

Foxy

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.

Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.

Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.

One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.

Well, let's see how many prosecutions for possessing of paint, airhorns, handcuffs etc actually happen. My money is on none, and no evidence of these things being carried by protesters.

Either the Met is very gullible over their "intelligence" or they think we are that gullible.

SeaShantyIrish2

squareroot2 said:

FF43 said:

The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.

The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests
cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.

This is total bull shit re: "the General Public" and also "the Protesters".

Ideological echo-chamber tinnitus.

WhisperingOracle

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.

Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.

Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.

One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.

Well, let's see how many prosecutions for possessing of paint, airhorns, handcuffs etc actually happen. My money is on none, and no evidence of these things being carried by protesters.

Either the Met is very gullible over their "intelligence" or they think we are that gullible.

Quite so. It's looks to me obvious that there's very little or nothing in the way of concrete material, otherwise they wouldn't be desperately briefing the BBC, and possibly libelously, as I've already mentioned ad nauseaum, with staggering nonsense about some paper luggage tags they found in one of their vans.

The Met remains pretty much unreformed, fairly obviously.

Malmesbury

Richard_Tyndall said:

Agree with OGH 100% on this.

As I have made clear, I am a pretty staunch monarchist and I think the way the police behaved was absolutely bloody awful. I am particularly angered now by seeing the head of the Met coming out and trying to justify the actions.

People have a right to protest and the police action was completely unacceptable.

Given that the then Head of the Met, a few years back, said that accidentally shooting the wrong brown people was just one of those things… Why are you surprised, exactly?

turbotubbs

From the sound of what’s come out, six of the arrests were made in error.
It was always going to be tough. The reality is that Just Stop Oil, ER and before them Father 4 Justice have pioneered a new style of protest, and the authorities are trying to counter this.
I think the police fail when protesters impede other road users - whose rights are more important?
The other thing that niggles is that the police, and notoriously the Met, lie.

Richard_Tyndall

Malmesbury said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.

Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.

Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.

One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.

Is there a right to disruptive protest?

Is there a right to disrupt disruptive protest?

Wrong questions.

The only question that should matter in the context of the coronation is whether there is a right to protest until such times as that protest becomes disruptive? The police have clearly decided that right does not exist.

We are not supposed to go in for thought crimes in this country. Nor do we have a right to be protected from opinions and arguments we don't like. The establishment and their Conservative supporters on here are in danger of becoming the very thing they hate - Woke. Demanding to be protected from nasty ideas and masty people saying things they don't want to hear.

Malmesbury

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.

Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.

Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.

One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.

Well, let's see how many prosecutions for possessing of paint, airhorns, handcuffs etc actually happen. My money is on none, and no evidence of these things being carried by protesters.

Either the Met is very gullible over their "intelligence" or they think we are that gullible.

Given the past history of ACPOO running an illegal undercover unit, I would wager that evidence will be presented of possession of items up to and including multistage thermonuclear weapons.

Possessed by the police “infiltrators” of the various groups.

Remember the Fathers4Justice saga? Where police infiltrators tried to suggest a terrorist plot. And everyone ran a mile, collapsing the organisation?

Carnyx

dixiedean said:

Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school.
The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all.
The children on the other hand.
Oh boy.
They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin.
The displays are all down now.

How old are the children, please? And what main reason do they give?

DM_Andy

slade said:

Having just returned from foreign parts I have had a chance to look in details at last weeks's local elections results. One that caught my eye was Liverpool Waterfront North. I don't know whether it has been mentioned before but the Labour candidate won with 91 votes ( that's votes received not majority). Apparently it is an area due for redevelopment - but is it right to base the franchise on future populations?

The LGBCE is required to use the estimated figures for 5 years into the future, and Waterfront North is projected to have 4,085 electors then.

Carnyx

squareroot2 said:

FF43 said:

The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.

The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests
cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.

Bit difficult, unless you want lynch law.

Even the Met couldn't find anything to charge them with.

Sandpit

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.

Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.

Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.

One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.

Well, let's see how many prosecutions for possessing of paint, airhorns, handcuffs etc actually happen. My money is on none, and no evidence of these things being carried by protesters.

Either the Met is very gullible over their "intelligence" or they think we are that gullible.

I think they had to tread a really fine line.

As I suggested yesterday, it reminds me of the days when football ‘fans’ were rounded up in the morning of the match, and released once the match crowds had dispersed.

I’m pretty libertarian, have lived and do live in much more authoritian places, but unusually have sympathy for the police given the significance of the event.

Protests did go ahead along the route, watched carefully by police and with the TV cameras avoiding them.

What would the headlines have been, if someone had got close to the King on Saturday? What if a horse had been spooked, or police guns had to be fired? We should all be thankful, that the event passed off peacefully.

Foxy

Carnyx said:

squareroot2 said:

FF43 said:

The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.

The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests
cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.

Bit difficult, unless you want lynch law.

Even the Met couldn't find anything to charge them with.

Unusually good political cartoon from someone not Matt of the DT.

Malmesbury

turbotubbs said:

From the sound of what’s come out, six of the arrests were made in error.
It was always going to be tough. The reality is that Just Stop Oil, ER and before them Father 4 Justice have pioneered a new style of protest, and the authorities are trying to counter this.
I think the police fail when protesters impede other road users - whose rights are more important?
The other thing that niggles is that the police, and notoriously the Met, lie.

Fathers4Justice went for a fairly conventional “one bloke attaches himself to a landmark for a bit” style of protest. Rather than trying to shut down businesses.

Sandpit

dixiedean said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.

Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.

Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.

One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.

Is there a right to disruptive protest?

Is there a right to disrupt disruptive protest?

Apparently yes.

Apparently no.

The reaction of the Met this weekend would suggest you've got them the wrong way round.

You’re right for this weekend, but otherwise I’m right.

Motorists have been threatened, and in some cases prosecuted, for trying to stop protestors closing roads, as the police looked on and offered them tea and cake.

Sunil_Prasannan

Foxy said:

Carnyx said:

squareroot2 said:

FF43 said:

The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.

The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests
cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.

Bit difficult, unless you want lynch law.

Even the Met couldn't find anything to charge them with.

Unusually good political cartoon from someone not Matt of the DT.

Minority Report with Tom Cruise!

TimS

Why couldn’t they just confiscate any items that could be used for locking on?

turbotubbs

Malmesbury said:

turbotubbs said:

From the sound of what’s come out, six of the arrests were made in error.
It was always going to be tough. The reality is that Just Stop Oil, ER and before them Father 4 Justice have pioneered a new style of protest, and the authorities are trying to counter this.
I think the police fail when protesters impede other road users - whose rights are more important?
The other thing that niggles is that the police, and notoriously the Met, lie.

Fathers4Justice went for a fairly conventional “one bloke attaches himself to a landmark for a bit” style of protest. Rather than trying to shut down businesses.

I think it’s been an evolution, and they were close to the start. I accept that they were in the main less disruptive, and had a pretty strong cause - courts and society did and does favour mothers over fathers.

WhisperingOracle

TimS said:

Why couldn’t they just confiscate any items that could be used for locking on?

Careful of that baggage tag for your next flight to Lanzarote !

This in fact, could have been used to shut down an entire airport, and disrupt the Club-18-30 sexfest holidays of millions of honourable, decent, law-abiding, and straight-down-the-middle holidaymakers, with thoroughly mainstream and unobjectionable tastes.

malcolmg

Big_G_NorthWales said:

WhisperingOracle said:

First and FPT : Labour are going to start to lose a few votes to the LD if they start to equivocate on these civil liberties issues, such as today with the repressive new laws, and the ludicrous Met claim that the protestors were going to lock-on to a horse-drawn and bayonets military parade with luggage tags.

If there's more where that came from, despite having a few Labour contacts and connections and broadly having some sympathy for Starmer, personally I may vote LD for the first time since the late New Labour period.

This seems to confirm Starmer will not repeal the act

To be honest he is almost becoming indistinguishable from a conservative leader

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1655969587077234688?t=qug12tbT16cnmI8uk1YvkQ&s=19

Without any personality at all

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

bigjohnowls said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My first act as the country's first directly elected dictator will be to abolish the met.

Can your 2nd one be to abolish SKS please

Pretty Please

No, I'd abolish the liar Jeremy Corbyn though.

Unnecessary, he's already abolished everywhere but the hearts of twitter users.

malcolmg said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

WhisperingOracle said:

First and FPT : Labour are going to start to lose a few votes to the LD if they start to equivocate on these civil liberties issues, such as today with the repressive new laws, and the ludicrous Met claim that the protestors were going to lock-on to a horse-drawn and bayonets military parade with luggage tags.

If there's more where that came from, despite having a few Labour contacts and connections and broadly having some sympathy for Starmer, personally I may vote LD for the first time since the late New Labour period.

This seems to confirm Starmer will not repeal the act

To be honest he is almost becoming indistinguishable from a conservative leader

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1655969587077234688?t=qug12tbT16cnmI8uk1YvkQ&s=19

Without any personality at all

Ah, that explains his appeal to me.

TimS

WhisperingOracle said:

TimS said:

Why couldn’t they just confiscate any items that could be used for locking on?

Careful of that baggage tag for your next flight to Lanzarote !

This in fact, could have been used to shut down an entire airport, and disrupt the Club-18-30 sexfest holidays of millions of honourable, decent, law-abiding, and straight-down-the-middle holidaymakers, with thoroughly decent tastes.

The question being why not just confiscate, why the need to arrest people based on a suspicion of intent? Much more acceptable at a public event and nothing new.

FF43

squareroot2 said:

FF43 said:

The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.

The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests
cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.

If you give the police broad powers they will use them broadly.

Hence East Germany. Plus the other aspects this government is keen on.

Malmesbury

turbotubbs said:

Malmesbury said:

turbotubbs said:

From the sound of what’s come out, six of the arrests were made in error.
It was always going to be tough. The reality is that Just Stop Oil, ER and before them Father 4 Justice have pioneered a new style of protest, and the authorities are trying to counter this.
I think the police fail when protesters impede other road users - whose rights are more important?
The other thing that niggles is that the police, and notoriously the Met, lie.

Fathers4Justice went for a fairly conventional “one bloke attaches himself to a landmark for a bit” style of protest. Rather than trying to shut down businesses.

I think it’s been an evolution, and they were close to the start. I accept that they were in the main less disruptive, and had a pretty strong cause - courts and society did and does favour mothers over fathers.

It was interesting that one of the major planks of their campaign was for enforcement of existing court orders.

malcolmg

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.

Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.

Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.

One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.

Well, let's see how many prosecutions for possessing of paint, airhorns, handcuffs etc actually happen. My money is on none, and no evidence of these things being carried by protesters.

Either the Met is very gullible over their "intelligence" or they think we are that gullible.

I think they had to tread a really fine line.

As I suggested yesterday, it reminds me of the days when football ‘fans’ were rounded up in the morning of the match, and released once the match crowds had dispersed.

I’m pretty libertarian, have lived and do live in much more authoritian places, but unusually have sympathy for the police given the significance of the event.

Protests did go ahead along the route, watched carefully by police and with the TV cameras avoiding them.

What would the headlines have been, if someone had got close to the King on Saturday? What if a horse had been spooked, or police guns had to be fired? We should all be thankful, that the event passed off peacefully.

They were acting like the Gestapo, we are close to a police state , you can get arrested now just because the police think they know what you are thinking.

DougSeal

squareroot2 said:

FF43 said:

The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.

The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests
cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.

Loving the appeal to the people there as against the enemy “protesters”. The right to protest covers everyone.

kle4

DM_Andy said:

slade said:

Having just returned from foreign parts I have had a chance to look in details at last weeks's local elections results. One that caught my eye was Liverpool Waterfront North. I don't know whether it has been mentioned before but the Labour candidate won with 91 votes ( that's votes received not majority). Apparently it is an area due for redevelopment - but is it right to base the franchise on future populations?

The LGBCE is required to use the estimated figures for 5 years into the future, and Waterfront North is projected to have 4,085 electors then.

Another reason why development being held up in an area that will definitely be having it can have negative consequences, when wards drawn up in expectation of it end up very undersized.

Granted sometimes projects will simply fall through for other reasons.

They do monitor these things and if a council gets very out of variance in a few places they will shoot up the list for a re-review.

Taz

DougSeal said:

squareroot2 said:

FF43 said:

The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.

The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests
cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.

Loving the appeal to the people there as against the enemy “protesters”. The right to protest covers everyone.

How do people in this country no Longer get have the right to protest ?

WhisperingOracle

TimS said:

WhisperingOracle said:

TimS said:

Why couldn’t they just confiscate any items that could be used for locking on?

Careful of that baggage tag for your next flight to Lanzarote !

This in fact, could have been used to shut down an entire airport, and disrupt the Club-18-30 sexfest holidays of millions of honourable, decent, law-abiding, and straight-down-the-middle holidaymakers, with thoroughly decent tastes.

The question being why not just confiscate, why the need to arrest people based on a suspicion of intent? Much more acceptable at a public event and nothing new.

Really, I think, and fairly obviously, because it sounds like they've got nothing to confiscate. Now they've desperately combed through all their vans after the event, realising the stakes for their reputation, and have apparently found some paper tags.

Airport suitcase tags are clearly the major upcoming threat to the integrity of our society, and I commend the police for their bravery in pre-empting what could have been a very nasty protest.

malcolmg

Big_G_NorthWales said:

EPG said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:
Met Commissoner explains the background to the arrest of protestors. There really were between a rock and a hard place.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/09/sir-mark-rowley-defends-coronation-met-policing-arrests/
(Much longer article, no paywall)

“Protesters posing as stewards planned to disrupt the Coronation by throwing bottles of white paint at the procession, Sir Mark Rowley has revealed.

“The Met Commissioner said his officers had worked around the clock to identify and arrest the criminal network that planned to attack the event and compromise the safety of those taking part.

“He said just hours before the Coronation took place, police had received intelligence that people intended to vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession and invade the route.

“If the disruption had not been stopped, Sir Mark said, it could have resulted in multiple serious injuries for those taking part in the mounted procession.

“In a strongly worded defence of the Met’s handling of the historic event, Sir Mark said: “By Friday evening, only twelve hours from the Coronation, we had become extremely concerned by a rapidly developing intelligence picture suggesting the Coronation could suffer.

“ “This included people intent on using rape alarms and loud hailers as part of their protest which would have caused distress to military horses.

“ “We also had intelligence that people intended to extensively vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession, and incur on to the route.” ”

Believing the Met makes one a M(upp)et.

I would just say the other side of the coin is what if something dreadful had happened and action had not been taken to prevent it

The MET cannot win on this

they are too busy committing crimes themselves

Stark_Dawning

Foxy said:

Carnyx said:

squareroot2 said:

FF43 said:

The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.

The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests
cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.

Bit difficult, unless you want lynch law.

Even the Met couldn't find anything to charge them with.

Unusually good political cartoon from someone not Matt of the DT.

But I think that's right though:

The police may arrest, without a warrant, anyone they suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence (and they believe that an arrest is necessary).

So the offence need not have actually happened.

williamglenn

Richard_Tyndall said:

Malmesbury said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.

Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.

Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.

One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.

Is there a right to disruptive protest?

Is there a right to disrupt disruptive protest?

Wrong questions.

The only question that should matter in the context of the coronation is whether there is a right to protest until such times as that protest becomes disruptive? The police have clearly decided that right does not exist.

We are not supposed to go in for thought crimes in this country. Nor do we have a right to be protected from opinions and arguments we don't like. The establishment and their Conservative supporters on here are in danger of becoming the very thing they hate - Woke. Demanding to be protected from nasty ideas and masty people saying things they don't want to hear.

Protesting in that way is an act, not a thought.

Sandpit

DougSeal said:

squareroot2 said:

FF43 said:

The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.

The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests
cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.

Loving the appeal to the people there as against the enemy “protesters”. The right to protest covers everyone.

To protest yes. To disrupt no.

The police and security services had to tread that line, not an enviable task.

Damn, I’m defending the bloody Met again.

kle4

Stark_Dawning said:

Foxy said:

Carnyx said:

squareroot2 said:

FF43 said:

The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.

The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests
cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.

Bit difficult, unless you want lynch law.

Even the Met couldn't find anything to charge them with.

Unusually good political cartoon from someone not Matt of the DT.

But I think that's right though:

The police may arrest, without a warrant, anyone they suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence (and they believe that an arrest is necessary).

So the offence need not have actually happened.

Sure, but they should generally be wary of the risks of overly preventative arrest.

There's a reason if they see someone about to nick a bicycle it may be better for them to wait until the person picks up it, as it may be harder to prove intent to commit theft. I mean, aren't people technically guilty of burglary simply by walking into a place with intent to steal, ever mind if they actually manage it or even seriously try it, so long as it could be shown they intended to try it?

Foxy

TimS said:

WhisperingOracle said:

TimS said:

Why couldn’t they just confiscate any items that could be used for locking on?

Careful of that baggage tag for your next flight to Lanzarote !

This in fact, could have been used to shut down an entire airport, and disrupt the Club-18-30 sexfest holidays of millions of honourable, decent, law-abiding, and straight-down-the-middle holidaymakers, with thoroughly decent tastes.

The question being why not just confiscate, why the need to arrest people based on a suspicion of intent? Much more acceptable at a public event and nothing new.

Reminds me of the old "Sus" laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sus_law#:~:text=In England and Wales, the,of the Vagrancy Act 1824.

moonshine

No time at all for these protestors like Tatchell that think they have a god given right to disrupt a historic national event and embarrass the country on the world stage. Right to protest is fine but eff off and do it away from the route where you’re not wasting police time, or even better do it on another day. Well done the Met police and security services for delivering the event so well, while managing what must have been a substantial terrorist risk, made needlessly more difficult by these morons.

That Tatchell character was comparing himself on Saturday evening to MLK and civil rights protestors saying “it’s exactly the same thing”. Well it’s not mate is it.

Fairliered

squareroot2 said:

kle4 said:

squareroot2 said:

FF43 said:

The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.

The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests
cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.

Governments don't simply give people what they want, that's why there's all sorts of rules that are a good idea but the public would not care about the detail of.

This government is going to be regarded with a lot of suspicion about its motivations, given other policies around voting, boats etc. It creates an atmosphere.

They would be better off looking into why diesel is so much more expensive than petrol. WVM wants to.know

Filled up with diesel yesterday at Cot House Services near Dunoon. Diesel 131.9. Petrol 156.9. Local garage today was 156.9 for diesel and 148.9 for petrol. Profiteering?

stodge

Big_G_NorthWales said:

EPG said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:
Met Commissoner explains the background to the arrest of protestors. There really were between a rock and a hard place.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/09/sir-mark-rowley-defends-coronation-met-policing-arrests/
(Much longer article, no paywall)

“Protesters posing as stewards planned to disrupt the Coronation by throwing bottles of white paint at the procession, Sir Mark Rowley has revealed.

“The Met Commissioner said his officers had worked around the clock to identify and arrest the criminal network that planned to attack the event and compromise the safety of those taking part.

“He said just hours before the Coronation took place, police had received intelligence that people intended to vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession and invade the route.

“If the disruption had not been stopped, Sir Mark said, it could have resulted in multiple serious injuries for those taking part in the mounted procession.

“In a strongly worded defence of the Met’s handling of the historic event, Sir Mark said: “By Friday evening, only twelve hours from the Coronation, we had become extremely concerned by a rapidly developing intelligence picture suggesting the Coronation could suffer.

“ “This included people intent on using rape alarms and loud hailers as part of their protest which would have caused distress to military horses.

“ “We also had intelligence that people intended to extensively vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession, and incur on to the route.” ”

Believing the Met makes one a M(upp)et.

I would just say the other side of the coin is what if something dreadful had happened and action had not been taken to prevent it

The MET cannot win on this

I don't think (and I base this on thought not experience or knowledge) anyone intending any serious harm would wish to draw attention to themselves. Indeed, they would want to be as inconspicuous as possible.

By definition, it seems, a loud protest is just that. I suppose there's a risk of mob justice from the majority who apparently want anyone who protests about anything thrown in the stocks.

Heathener

It's deeply deeply sinister. We are turning into the kind of state I used to live under in the 'third world'.

Nigelb

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.

Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.

Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.

One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.

No, it wasn't.
They arrested the guy who spent the previous two or three months consulting with them on the peaceful protest his lot were organising.

Foxy

Big_G_NorthWales said:

WhisperingOracle said:

First and FPT : Labour are going to start to lose a few votes to the LD if they start to equivocate on these civil liberties issues, such as today with the repressive new laws, and the ludicrous Met claim that the protestors were going to lock-on to a horse-drawn and bayonets military parade with luggage tags.

If there's more where that came from, despite having a few Labour contacts and connections and broadly having some sympathy for Starmer, personally I may vote LD for the first time since the late New Labour period.

This seems to confirm Starmer will not repeal the act

To be honest he is almost becoming indistinguishable from a conservative leader

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1655969587077234688?t=qug12tbT16cnmI8uk1YvkQ&s=19

Well of course not.

Why would Labour not want to keep the ability to lock up citizens on the grounds that they look suspiciously like troublemakers?

WhisperingOracle

Stark_Dawning said:

Foxy said:

Carnyx said:

squareroot2 said:

FF43 said:

The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.

The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests
cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.

Bit difficult, unless you want lynch law.

Even the Met couldn't find anything to charge them with.

Unusually good political cartoon from someone not Matt of the DT.

But I think that's right though:

The police may arrest, without a warrant, anyone they suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence (and they believe that an arrest is necessary).

So the offence need not have actually happened.

And yet they have seem to have presented no evidence whatsoever of an offence being about to be committed.

What they are doing, though, is using a dangerously wide new law to defend their action, have apparently desperately conjured up some laughable nonsense about luggage tags to support this application of the new law, and now even the major opposition party, led by a human rights lawyer, is saying nothing about it, for fear of being used in the election as a "north london do-gooding lawyer".

Heathener

moonshine said:

No time at all for these protestors like Tatchell that think they have a god given right to disrupt a historic national event and embarrass the country on the world stage. Right to protest is fine but eff off and do it away from the route

Until the time comes when it's the other way around.

But I don't expect a current tory supporter at the moment to understand decency, human rights, free speech, democracy.

Remember these words during your long, long, years in the wilderness.

Sandpit

kle4 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Foxy said:

Carnyx said:

squareroot2 said:

FF43 said:

The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.

The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests
cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.

Bit difficult, unless you want lynch law.

Even the Met couldn't find anything to charge them with.

Unusually good political cartoon from someone not Matt of the DT.

But I think that's right though:

The police may arrest, without a warrant, anyone they suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence (and they believe that an arrest is necessary).

So the offence need not have actually happened.

Sure, but they should generally be wary of the risks of overly preventative arrest.

There's a reason if they see someone about to nick a bicycle it may be better for them to wait until the person picks up it, as it may be harder to prove intent to commit theft. I mean, aren't people technically guilty of burglary simply by walking into a place with intent to steal, ever mind if they actually manage it or even seriously try it, so long as it could be shown they intended to try it?

If there’s hundreds of millions of people watching the bicycle for a couple of hours, then sometimes picking them up beforehand might work better. They don’t need to prove in court the intention to nick the bicycle, they just need to keep them away from it for a couple of hours, then let them go to enjoy their day.

Stark_Dawning

kle4 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Foxy said:

Carnyx said:

squareroot2 said:

FF43 said:

The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.

The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests
cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.

Bit difficult, unless you want lynch law.

Even the Met couldn't find anything to charge them with.

Unusually good political cartoon from someone not Matt of the DT.

But I think that's right though:

The police may arrest, without a warrant, anyone they suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence (and they believe that an arrest is necessary).

So the offence need not have actually happened.

Sure, but they should generally be wary of the risks of overly preventative arrest.

There's a reason if they see someone about to nick a bicycle it may be better for them to wait until the person picks up it, as it may be harder to prove intent to commit theft. I mean, aren't people technically guilty of burglary simply by walking into a place with intent to steal, ever mind if they actually manage it or even seriously try it, so long as it could be shown they intended to try it?

I was mainly pointing out their powers of arrest are pretty broad. They merely have to suspect that you're going to do something naughty to nick you. So with the luggage straps or whatever, how can you prove that Mr Plod genuinely didn't think you were planning to use them to tie yourself to a horse? You can't.

turbotubbs

Heathener said:

It's deeply deeply sinister. We are turning into the kind of state I used to live under in the 'third world'.

Global south, please. Keep up.

moonshine

.

Heathener said:

moonshine said:

No time at all for these protestors like Tatchell that think they have a god given right to disrupt a historic national event and embarrass the country on the world stage. Right to protest is fine but eff off and do it away from the route

Until the time comes when it's the other way around.

But I don't expect a current tory supporter at the moment to understand decency, human rights, free speech, democracy.

Remember these words during your long, long, years in the wilderness.

You’re a preening drama queen. It’s nothing like living in an authoritarian country, Ive done that before. You just love a bit of hyperbole. And why do you insist I’m a Tory supporter when I’m a paid member of a different party.

Sunil_Prasannan

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.

Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.

Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.

One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.

Well, let's see how many prosecutions for possessing of paint, airhorns, handcuffs etc actually happen. My money is on none, and no evidence of these things being carried by protesters.

Either the Met is very gullible over their "intelligence" or they think we are that gullible.

I think they had to tread a really fine line.

As I suggested yesterday, it reminds me of the days when football ‘fans’ were rounded up in the morning of the match, and released once the match crowds had dispersed.

I’m pretty libertarian, have lived and do live in much more authoritian places, but unusually have sympathy for the police given the significance of the event.

Protests did go ahead along the route, watched carefully by police and with the TV cameras avoiding them.

What would the headlines have been, if someone had got close to the King on Saturday? What if a horse had been spooked, or police guns had to be fired? We should all be thankful, that the event passed off peacefully.

What if we remained a republic in 1660

TimS

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

WhisperingOracle said:

First and FPT : Labour are going to start to lose a few votes to the LD if they start to equivocate on these civil liberties issues, such as today with the repressive new laws, and the ludicrous Met claim that the protestors were going to lock-on to a horse-drawn and bayonets military parade with luggage tags.

If there's more where that came from, despite having a few Labour contacts and connections and broadly having some sympathy for Starmer, personally I may vote LD for the first time since the late New Labour period.

This seems to confirm Starmer will not repeal the act

To be honest he is almost becoming indistinguishable from a conservative leader

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1655969587077234688?t=qug12tbT16cnmI8uk1YvkQ&s=19

Well of course not.

Why would Labour not want to keep the ability to lock up citizens on the grounds that they look suspiciously like troublemakers?

This happened last time: for the first few years I assumed Blair was just playing to the swing voters on law and order and didn’t actually support authoritarian restrictions on civil liberties. Then it started to dawn on me that perhaps he did actually quite like it.

All the more reason the LDs need to keep the pressure on.

Foxy

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

EPG said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:
Met Commissoner explains the background to the arrest of protestors. There really were between a rock and a hard place.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/09/sir-mark-rowley-defends-coronation-met-policing-arrests/
(Much longer article, no paywall)

“Protesters posing as stewards planned to disrupt the Coronation by throwing bottles of white paint at the procession, Sir Mark Rowley has revealed.

“The Met Commissioner said his officers had worked around the clock to identify and arrest the criminal network that planned to attack the event and compromise the safety of those taking part.

“He said just hours before the Coronation took place, police had received intelligence that people intended to vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession and invade the route.

“If the disruption had not been stopped, Sir Mark said, it could have resulted in multiple serious injuries for those taking part in the mounted procession.

“In a strongly worded defence of the Met’s handling of the historic event, Sir Mark said: “By Friday evening, only twelve hours from the Coronation, we had become extremely concerned by a rapidly developing intelligence picture suggesting the Coronation could suffer.

“ “This included people intent on using rape alarms and loud hailers as part of their protest which would have caused distress to military horses.

“ “We also had intelligence that people intended to extensively vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession, and incur on to the route.” ”

Believing the Met makes one a M(upp)et.

I would just say the other side of the coin is what if something dreadful had happened and action had not been taken to prevent it

The MET cannot win on this

I don't think (and I base this on thought not experience or knowledge) anyone intending any serious harm would wish to draw attention to themselves. Indeed, they would want to be as inconspicuous as possible.

By definition, it seems, a loud protest is just that. I suppose there's a risk of mob justice from the majority who apparently want anyone who protests about anything thrown in the stocks.

Yes, if I wanted to disrupt the event by throwing paint or worse then I would have dressed in Union Jack's from head to toe, not a yellow shirt and carrying placard.

Nigelb

Big_G_NorthWales said:

EPG said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:
Met Commissoner explains the background to the arrest of protestors. There really were between a rock and a hard place.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/09/sir-mark-rowley-defends-coronation-met-policing-arrests/
(Much longer article, no paywall)

“Protesters posing as stewards planned to disrupt the Coronation by throwing bottles of white paint at the procession, Sir Mark Rowley has revealed.

“The Met Commissioner said his officers had worked around the clock to identify and arrest the criminal network that planned to attack the event and compromise the safety of those taking part.

“He said just hours before the Coronation took place, police had received intelligence that people intended to vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession and invade the route.

“If the disruption had not been stopped, Sir Mark said, it could have resulted in multiple serious injuries for those taking part in the mounted procession.

“In a strongly worded defence of the Met’s handling of the historic event, Sir Mark said: “By Friday evening, only twelve hours from the Coronation, we had become extremely concerned by a rapidly developing intelligence picture suggesting the Coronation could suffer.

“ “This included people intent on using rape alarms and loud hailers as part of their protest which would have caused distress to military horses.

“ “We also had intelligence that people intended to extensively vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession, and incur on to the route.” ”

Believing the Met makes one a M(upp)et.

I would just say the other side of the coin is what if something dreadful had happened and action had not been taken to prevent it

The MET cannot win on this

Bollocks.
That's just giving them carte blanche to arrest on a whim.

If something dreadful had happened, it would have had nothing to do with the individuals they ended up wrongfully arresting.

kle4

turbotubbs said:

Heathener said:

It's deeply deeply sinister. We are turning into the kind of state I used to live under in the 'third world'.

Global south, please. Keep up.

Global majority, keep up.

Because all of them are the same.

kle4

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.

Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.

Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.

One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.

Well, let's see how many prosecutions for possessing of paint, airhorns, handcuffs etc actually happen. My money is on none, and no evidence of these things being carried by protesters.

Either the Met is very gullible over their "intelligence" or they think we are that gullible.

I think they had to tread a really fine line.

As I suggested yesterday, it reminds me of the days when football ‘fans’ were rounded up in the morning of the match, and released once the match crowds had dispersed.

I’m pretty libertarian, have lived and do live in much more authoritian places, but unusually have sympathy for the police given the significance of the event.

Protests did go ahead along the route, watched carefully by police and with the TV cameras avoiding them.

What would the headlines have been, if someone had got close to the King on Saturday? What if a horse had been spooked, or police guns had to be fired? We should all be thankful, that the event passed off peacefully.

What if we remained a republic in 1660

Might still be one today if Cromwell have lived another 10 years. Who knows, maybe even a democratic one.

turbotubbs

Heathener said:

moonshine said:

No time at all for these protestors like Tatchell that think they have a god given right to disrupt a historic national event and embarrass the country on the world stage. Right to protest is fine but eff off and do it away from the route

Until the time comes when it's the other way around.

But I don't expect a current tory supporter at the moment to understand decency, human rights, free speech, democracy.

Remember these words during your long, long, years in the wilderness.

I think that’s rather a nasty post. You like to say how bad others here are - you might reflect a little on the language of that middle sentence.

Toriesn the main are decent folk like everybody else. They have different views on how best to do things, but to imply as you do that they do not understand decency, human rights, free speech and democracy is just rubbish.

Stark_Dawning

Who on here has actually been arrested themselves? I have!

stodge

Big_G_NorthWales said:

WhisperingOracle said:

First and FPT : Labour are going to start to lose a few votes to the LD if they start to equivocate on these civil liberties issues, such as today with the repressive new laws, and the ludicrous Met claim that the protestors were going to lock-on to a horse-drawn and bayonets military parade with luggage tags.

If there's more where that came from, despite having a few Labour contacts and connections and broadly having some sympathy for Starmer, personally I may vote LD for the first time since the late New Labour period.

This seems to confirm Starmer will not repeal the act

To be honest he is almost becoming indistinguishable from a conservative leader

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1655969587077234688?t=qug12tbT16cnmI8uk1YvkQ&s=19

Given a coalition between the Liberal Democrats and Labour is a "hypothetical question" comments like this will render it even more hypothetical. I really and sincerely hope Davey won't sacrifice the repeal of authoritarian nonsense like this for the ministerial limo (to be fair, he's been there and done that).

Repealing both this and the Voter ID bill should be the first of a very long list of demands for confidence and supply which Starmer will refuse because he knows the broken Conservatives won't want a second election and will abstain on a Labour King's Speech.

turbotubbs

kle4 said:

turbotubbs said:

Heathener said:

It's deeply deeply sinister. We are turning into the kind of state I used to live under in the 'third world'.

Global south, please. Keep up.

Global majority, keep up.

Because all of them are the same.

Damn, out of date already… That’s me told!

williamglenn

Meanwhile in a civilised country like Germany, protesters against new coal mines get hospitalised:

https://www.euronews.com/2023/01/15/german-police-mop-up-anti-coal-mine-activists-amid-reports-of-violence

Activists accused officers of using 'pure violence', including striking people on the head. Police also said they were attacked.

German police said on Sunday they had almost finished removing climate activists from a German village that will be destroyed to make way for a coal mine expansion.

In an operation that began on Wednesday, hundreds of officers and riot police cleared around 300 activists from the western German hamlet of Lützerath.

The clear-out was initially supposed to last for weeks, but the police said on Sunday that only two of them remained in the village, holed up in an underground structure.

"There are no more activists in the Lützerath region," they said.

Protests focused on the extension of an open pit mine, which will lead to the disappearance of Lützerath, in the Rhine basin, between Düsseldorf and Cologne.

Several demonstrators accused police on Sunday of "violently" repressing their rally the day before, which degenerated into clashes that injured dozens of police and demonstrators.

A spokeswoman for Indigo Drau, who organised the demo, accused the police of “pure violence” during a press conference. She said officers had beaten activists “without restraint”, including hitting them in the head.

Dozens of injuries, some serious, were reported among the ranks of the protesters. Twenty were hospitalised, according to a nurse from the activist group, Birte Schramm.

Nigelb

MoonRabbit said:

Does greed inflation have much impact on the underlying inflation rate?

Lax regulation.

Heathener

I see that Labour have their largest lead with Deltapoll since March. 19%.

As I've been saying, they will win a landslide. The tories are stuck in the 20's and the combined Lab-Lib vote is solid in the mid-50's.

The result of that with tactical voting and Scotland is a Labour landslide.

And remember, Omnisis who last had Labour on a 21% national poll lead also correctly forecast a 9% lead at the locals.

Bet accordingly.

kle4

I'm all for being wary of stepping on to a slippery slope, but I do think jumping to Gestapo, North Korea, or authoritarian third world states so swiftly can be counter productive, as the general public, who like mildly authoritarian acts, go 'Come on, it's not that big a deal'. There are 'good' countries where the same or worse happens, and whilst that's not a reason to do the same, it shows there is a larger range between good and bad states at these things.