This is why people are losing respect for the police...

[Colonel_Klinck]

No they weren't. Don't make things up. It's already been mentioned multiple times why they were arrested.

The group that had agreed with police in advance where they were going and were then stopped and arrested were just going with placards.

 

[Hagar]

Why should the public coming and bringing their families on a day out be berated by megaphone and obscured by placards.

 

[StriderX]

Why should the public coming and bringing their families on a day out be berated by megaphone and obscured by placards.

So? Freedom does not come before people's feelings.

 

[Dis86]

Why were they not charged if they were found "equipped" commit their crime ?

What they were equipped with is the key point.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Why should the public coming and bringing their families on a day out be berated by megaphone and obscured by placards.

So freedom of speech only when it might not obscure the view of others? You know they could just move up or down the road.

If you want to protest the monarchy then the coronation seems the ultimate time to make your point.

 

[Caracus2k]

Why were they not charged if they were found "equipped" commit their crime ?

One of the reasons for arresting someone is to prevent an offence or breach of the peace (BOP) happening in the first place.

There doesn't always need to be a charge as a result of an arrest and you can't be 'charged' with a BOP anyway. You can only be placed before the magistrates court who can 'bind over' the person to try and prevent a future BOP.

Very few arrests for BOP result in someone being placed in front of the magistrates court.

Usually the person is detained for a few hours until the prospect of the BOP is averted and then they are released.

Here's the reasons why police can use their powers to arrest... you may notice that 'to charge someone' isn't one of the reasons!

(5)The reasons are—

(a)to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);

(b)correspondingly as regards the person's address;

(c)to prevent the person in question—

(i)causing physical injury to himself or any other person;

(ii)suffering physical injury;

(iii)causing loss of or damage to property;

(iv)committing an offence against public decency (subject to subsection (6)); or

(v)causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;

(d)to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;

(e)to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;

(f)to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.

I have highlighted some of the conditions that may have been more relevant to this weekends policing activity.

Again ignorance is a common issue when lay people comment on the police/ law procedure.

 

[Minusorange]

One of the reasons for arresting someone is to prevent an offence or breach of the peace (BOP) happening in the first place.

There doesn't always need to be a charge as a result of an arrest and you can't be 'charged' with a BOP anyway. You can only be placed before the magistrates court who can 'bind over' the person to try and prevent a future BOP.

Very few arrests for BOP result in someone being placed in front of the magistrates court.

Usually the person is detained for a few hours until the prospect of the BOP is averted and then they are released.

Here's the reasons why police can use their powers to arrest... you may notice that 'to charge someone' isn't one of the reasons!



I have highlighted some of the conditions that may have been more relevant to this weekends policing activity.

Again ignorance is a common issue when lay people comment on the police/ law procedure.

Tell me, who were the protestors going to hurt ? What property were they going to damage ? What highway were they going to obstruct ?

The excuses keep changing, they were apparently arrested for being "equipped" to do "something", but now you've highlighted a bunch of reasons that aren't relevant to their arrest, if they had equipment to commit a crime, then it should be clear cut to charge them for that crime instead of just detaining for 16 hours

Commander Karen Findlay defended her officers' response, saying they had a duty to intervene "when protest becomes criminal and may cause serious disruption".

They were arrested before they even began their protest let alone it becoming criminal or causing disruption

Scotland Yard said those arrested had been held on suspicion of affray, public order offences, breach of the peace and conspiracy to cause a public nuisance around the Coronation

But nobody was charged, I wonder why

The Met said it had confiscated "lock-on devices" which protesters can use to secure themselves to things like railings.
It has now become illegal to prepare to lock-on following changes to the law passed this week.

So they had criminal equipment, but weren't charged ? It wasn't enough to take away the devices to stop them, but to detain them as well, yet still, no charges despite being caught red handed

And before you say "but public order/breach of the peace offences aren't chargable"

The locking-on offence will carry a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both.

The maximum penalty for the offence of going equipped to lock-on will be an unlimited fine.​

Yet they didn't even get a fine

 

[Tony Edwards]

I do love the turn around by the right wingers here to suddenly be supporters of both the police and the law.

 

[Minusorange]

I do love the turn around by the right wingers here to suddenly be supporters of both the police and the law.

The police don't even need suspicion anymore

Extending stop and search powers for police to search for and seize objects (such as lock-on devices) that may be used in the commission of a protest related offence​

This measure will enable the police to proactively tackle highly disruptive protesters intent on committing an offence by searching for and seizing items which are made, adapted or intended to be used in connection with protest related offences (including those listed above).


The bill provides for both a suspicion-led power, amending section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and a suspicion-less power. Suspicion-led stop and search is where a police officer reasonably suspects that a person is carrying an object that is made or intended for use in connection with a protest related offence.


When the suspicion-less stop and search power has been authorised it will allow a constable to conduct a stop and search without the need for suspicion. The power can be used when a police officer of or above the rank of Inspector gives an authorisation for its use in a specified locality for a specified period.


The suspicion-less stop and search power uses a similar framework to that found within section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to ensure consistency in terms of police powers and safeguards.

And these clowns will support it

 

[Malevolence]

I do love the turn around by the right wingers here to suddenly be supporters of both the police and the law.

Do everyone a favour, change the ******* record.

 

[Dis86]

I do love the turn around by the right wingers here to suddenly be supporters of both the police and the law.

How would that be a turnaround? Do you literally have no clue about the words you use?

 

[Caracus2k]

Tell me, who were the protestors going to hurt ? What property were they going to damage ? What highway were they going to obstruct ?

The excuses keep changing, they were apparently arrested for being "equipped" to do "something", but now you've highlighted a bunch of reasons that aren't relevant to their arrest, if they had equipment to commit a crime, then it should be clear cut to charge them for that crime instead of just detaining for 16 hours

Some of the earlier posts related to intelligence that protestors may use rape alarms to startle horses to cause them to bolt. The risks to public safety associated to such actions in a packed event like the coronations should be clear.

If the actions of the protestors was to be no more than to hold up a sign saying something like 'not my king' and that sign was of a similar size to thoose coming to celebrate the coronation then in thoose circumstances I would agree that an arrest would be far less justifiable. I suspect the Met Police were on orders from higher up to clamp down on even these sorts of protests and just run the risk of some pay puts down the line.

The majority if the media reporting seems to center on the 'night safety team' arrests however and I have already expressed my thoughts about thr veracity of any claims made by such 'volunteers' who also, coincidentally, happen to be members of 'direct action' protest groups like XR.

Unfortunately there's a common (misheld) belief that a 'right to protest' over rides the plethora of laws that affect public spaces like public order offences and obstruction of the highway.

The Met Police (rightly in my view) clearly indicated, in advance, that policing of this event would be robust.

But of course paid up activists still attened knowing they can put police in the invidious situation where they can either take proactive action in advance or risk a much greater public opinion disaster in letting the likes of XR / 'just stop pil' etc stage some massive, potentially very dangerous, action.

 

[Minusorange]

Some of the earlier posts related to intelligence that protestors may use rape alarms to startle horses to cause them to bolt. The risks to public safety associated to such actions in a packed event like the coronations should be clear.

If the actions of the protestors was to be no more than to hold up a sign saying something like 'not my king' and that sign was of a similar size to thoose coming to celebrate the coronation then in thoose circumstances I would agree that an arrest would be far less justifiable. I suspect the Met Police were on orders from higher up to clamp down on even these sorts of protests and just run the risk of some pay puts down the line.

The majority if the media reporting seems to center on the 'night safety team' arrests however and I have already expressed my thoughts about thr veracity of any claims made by such 'volunteers' who also, coincidentally, happen to be members of 'direct action' protest groups like XR.

Unfortunately there's a common (misheld) belief that a 'right to protest' over rides the plethora of laws that affect public spaces like public order offences and obstruction of the highway.

The Met Police (rightly in my view) clearly indicated, in advance, that policing of this event would be robust.

But of course paid up activists still attened knowing they can put police in the invidious situation where they can either take proactive action in advance or risk a much greater public opinion disaster in letting the likes of XR / 'just stop pil' etc stage some massive, potentially very dangerous, action.

The Met changed their own story, originally it was rape alarms were going to be "thrown at horses" they deleted that and then reworded it to "used to startle horses", they were also ratio'd and fact checked proven to be liars

The Met Police (rightly in my view) clearly indicated, in advance, that policing of this event would be robust.

But of course paid up activists still attened knowing they can put police in the invidious situation where they can either take proactive action in advance or risk a much greater public opinion disaster in letting the likes of XR / 'just stop pil' etc stage some massive, potentially very dangerous, action.

Yet none of them have been charged for any offence despite being caught supposedly red handed by the police for crimes that are punishable with prison or at least a fine

 

[dowie]

The group that had agreed with police in advance where they were going and were then stopped and arrested were just going with placards.

See this reply:

No they weren't. Don't make things up. It's already been mentioned multiple times why they were arrested.

 

[dowie]

Protesting isn't an offence, that's the issue

Good job they weren't arrested for protesting then. I'm sure they'll find it easy enough to protest tomorrow or the next day etc. Of course right before a major global event there are security concerns and rather more policing presence, things like "going equipped" with "locking on devices" are a worry and obvs the police will deal with that sort of thing.

I guess they'll know for future reference, or they could apply some common sense in the first place.

 

[Minusorange]

Good job they weren't arrested for protesting then.

Where's the proof they weren't there to protest ?

 

[dowie]

Where's the proof they weren't there to protest ?

They clearly were there to protest. WTF are you smoking?

Like ChatGPT I'll ask you to think through step by step...

Pointing out that they weren't arrested for protesting is *not* a claim that they weren't there to protest... pls engage brain.

 

[Tony Edwards]

Do everyone a favour, change the ******* record.

Its funny how certain people go on about free speech and echo chambers yet at the same time try to shut people down.

How about you change the record?

 

[Minusorange]

They clearly were there to protest. WTF are you smoking?

Like ChatGPT I'll ask you to think through step by step...

Pointing out that they weren't arrested for protesting is *not* a claim that they weren't there to protest... pls engage brain.

Well if they were there to protest, then they shouldn't have been arrested, they were arrested for something other than protesting, so where's the proof they weren't there to solely protest ?

It's rhetorical by the way, because there is no proof, the proof of that is that they were released without being charged

So they were arrested for protesting

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

See this reply:

The arrests were said to have been made despite a series of meetings and agreements between Republic and Scotland Yard over the demonstration, which was to take place at the point where Whitehall meets the Mall.

Police accused of ‘alarming’ attack on protest rights after anti-monarchist leader arrested

Graham Smith, head of Republic, among those detained on coronation route with environmentalists and women’s safety campaigners also held

www.theguardian.com

In a separate incident, there was a dispute after police arrested three people on Saturday morning and seized a number of rape alarms. The police cited intelligence that there were plans to disrupt the procession with the alarms, but the local Westminster Council expressed concern that trained volunteers for a night safety scheme had been detained.

"We are deeply concerned by reports of our Night Stars volunteers being arrested overnight," local councillor Aicha Less said, adding the volunteers were being offered support.

"We are working with the Metropolitan Police to establish exactly what happened."

Anti-monarchists criticise arrests at King Charles' coronation

Police arrested the leader of Republic and 51 others in central London, saying their duty to prevent disruption outweighed the right to protest.

www.reuters.com