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

[dowie]

Well if they were there to protest, then they shouldn't have been arrested,

Again, think step by step, engage brain pls.

If Brian was there to protest then he shouldn't have been arrested for throwing a brick through a window.

This is generally fine:

 

[dowie]

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

See the reply referred to previously and think a bit more.

 

[Minusorange]

Again, think step by step, engage brain pls.

If Brian was there to protest then he shouldn't have been arrested for throwing a brick through a window.

This is generally fine:

So what you're saying is

They were arrested for protesting in an area not designated for protesting, or at least, planning to protest in an area not designated for protesting, despite there being no law that sets out where an area is designated for protesting

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

See the reply referred to previously and think a bit more.

So people weren't arrested after working with the police? And just because some weren't arrested (in that photo) doesn't mean others weren't for planning to do exactly the same thing.

Think a bit more.

 

[dowie]

So what you're saying is

They were arrested for protesting in an area not designated for protesting, or at least, planning to protest in an area not designated for protesting, despite there being no law that sets out where an area is designated for protesting

No, that's not something I've said.

Some protestors were arrested for going equipped with devices that could be used for locking on.

 

[dowie]

So people weren't arrested after working with the police? And just because some weren't arrested (in that photo) doesn't mean others weren't for planning to do exactly the same thing.

Think a bit more.

Have you got any examples of those arrests? (Specifically, people who were arrested simply for that reason?)

 

[Caracus2k]

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

There's no inconsistency between those statements so I don't know what point you think you are making...

The act of throwing such items at houses could be to startle them.

That doesn't say that the Met lied.

Reading comprehension an issue for yourself?

Yes of course military horses can be and are trained to be more resilient to sudden noises and sudden movements but this isn't a panacea.

Police horses are also similarly trained but can be spooked by coloured road markings and fireworks

A police horse found wandering streets in east London after becoming startled by a firework is back carrying out duties for the mounted branch.

It had apparently thrown off a police rider when a firework went off nearby.

Lost police horse startled by firework back at work

www.standard.co.uk

And I don't think it's been suggested that some of the people arrested weren't acting under a supposed night safety team.

In fact that role is suggested to be key to the action undertaken! By placing the police in an invidious position. A 'volunteer' for said night team, who also coincidentally happens to have previous experience as a 'direct action' protestors for the likes of XR can use their apparent role as a excellent cover.

The police either knowlingly fail to act (and run the risk of a major public incident) or arrest them and wait for the pre scripted faux outrage about them being arrested from people lacking the critical thinking skills to see what's going on!


And again its not as if the police just suddenly made this all up the day before the coronation... heres an article mentioning the issue from the 23rd of April...

Government taking coronation security threats 'very seriously' after reports rape alarms will be thrown at horses

Deputy prime minister Oliver Dowden has responded to reports in a Sunday newspaper that activists would cause disruption to the ceremony.

news.sky.com

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

I refer you to my previous posts which have already explained to you that an arrest in and of itself can achieve a legal aim and doesn't have to be undertaken with a view to always leading to prosecution, which after all requires a far higher level of belief than an arrest does....

So again your arguments consistently come from a point of not actually appearing to know what the laws says and what powers police have.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Have you got any examples of those arrests? (Specifically, people who were arrested simply for that reason?)

Its in the Guardian link. Republic were planning to protest, they had placards, they had coordinated with police in advance and were arrested on the day and their placards removed.

You and others can dress this up anyway you want. Free speech is allowing people to make their views known even if you don't agree with them, especially when you don't agree with them.

 

[dowie]

Its in the Guardian link. Republic were planning to protest, they had placards, they had coordinated with police in advance and were arrested on the day and their placards removed.

You and others can dress this up anyway you want. Free speech is allowing people to make their views known even if you don't agree with them, especially when you don't agree with them.

So no, you don't actually have an example and you're in fact referring to the people arrested for going equipped. The point you were playing dumb about earlier.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

So no, you don't actually have an example and you're in fact referring to the people arrested for going equipped. The point you were playing dumb about earlier.

Equipped with placards

 

[dowie]

Equipped with placards

Nope, it's odd to revert to that claim when you're apparently unable to provide an example of it actually occurring. It's not that hard to follow but, as pointed out already, this is generally fine:

 

[Caracus2k]

Its in the Guardian link. Republic were planning to protest, they had placards, they had coordinated with police in advance and were arrested on the day and their placards removed.

You and others can dress this up anyway you want. Free speech is allowing people to make their views known even if you don't agree with them, especially when you don't agree with them

Please stop beclowing yourself... they were not arrested for 'holding placards'...

Mr Smith later told the PA news agency the group was arrested for allegedly being “equipped for locking on”, a new offence under the controversial Public Order Act aimed at preventing people attaching themselves to objects as part of protests.

We'll protest wherever King Charles goes from now on, Republic leader vows after arrest

Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic, said the arrest of peaceful protesters had 'destroyed' trust in the police as he vowed to step up protests 'wherever Charles goes'

inews.co.uk

 

[Minusorange]

Mr Smith later told the PA news agency the group was arrested for allegedly being “equipped for locking on”, a new offence under the controversial Public Order Act aimed at preventing people attaching themselves to objects as part of protests.

Either they were equipped or they weren't, there can be no allegedly, being equipped can result in a fine or prison sentence under new laws as I posted previously, they were neither fined nor sentenced to prison, so that must mean they weren't equipped to be released without charge, conveniently it took the police 16 hours to decide they weren't equipped despite supposedly, seeing them equipped, to arrest them

At some point you're going to have to stop licking the boot and see some common sense

Some protestors were arrested for going equipped with devices that could be used for locking on.

See above

I refer you to my previous posts which have already explained to you that an arrest in and of itself can achieve a legal aim

So the legal aim was to stop them protesting ?

 

[Caracus2k]

Either they were equipped or they weren't, there can be no allegedly, being equipped can result in a fine or prison sentence under new laws as I posted previously, they were neither fined nor sentenced to prison, so that must mean they weren't equipped to be released without charge

Have you read any of the posts I have made that have laid out, in extensive detail, what the necessary conditions are to arrest someone and how an intention to charge does not form any of the 'neccesity' criteria?

Like for example a protestor with a placard might also have some super strength glue on them that they may claim is for use for their placard but that could also be used to glue themselves to a road or something else to cause disruption.

A police officer may reasonably suspect that the protestor has the glue for the second reason and not the stated claim (and hence have grounds to arrest) but it would be extremely difficult to prosecute to the criminal legal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

But none the less the arrest and detention can, in and of itself, achieve the legal aim of preventing the disruption by preventing the protestor from disrupting the event in question by gluing themselves to something!

conveniently it took the police 16 hours to decide they weren't equipped despite supposedly, seeing them equipped, to arrest them

At some point you're going to have to stop licking the boot and see some common sense

Again please go re read the neccesity criteria.

One of the reasons police may consider releasing someone either with no further action, on bail or 'under investigation' is because the neccesity criteria that had led to their arrest no longer applies and because they have progressed an investigation as far as they think they can in a detention clock.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Please stop beclowing yourself... they were not arrested for 'holding placards'...

We'll protest wherever King Charles goes from now on, Republic leader vows after arrest

Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic, said the arrest of peaceful protesters had 'destroyed' trust in the police as he vowed to step up protests 'wherever Charles goes'

inews.co.uk

I'm with Sue on this, seems you guys aren't.

But Matt Turnbull, another member of Republic who was arrested, said the straps were being used to hold the placards and had been "misconstrued" as lock-on devices.
A former police chief has said she is "very disappointed" by the arrest of protesters and strongly criticised the new powers.
Sue Sim, a former chief constable with Northumbria Police and a specialist in public order policing, said she was "very disappointed" by the arrest of protesters and called the new powers "draconian".
"I think when you're talking about terrorism, where people's lives are at risk that's a very different thing. But where you are talking about peaceful protest the whole thing for me is, what type of society do we want? We do not want a totalitarian police state," she told BBC Radio 4's World This Weekend.

 

[Minusorange]

One of the reasons police may consider releasing someone either with no further action, on bail or 'under investigation' is because the neccesity criteria that had led to their arrest no longer applies and because they have progresses an investigation as far as they think they can in a detention clock.

They were arrested for having lock on devices, so unless the lock on devices suddenly vanished after 16 hours and the police had their memories erased of catching the protestors with lock on devices I'm not sure how exactly that criteria can no longer apply, it's not an arbitrary grey area, they were arrested for possession of lock on devices, they should have been charged, it doesn't take 16 hours to see if they have them on their possession if they were literally in possession of them when arrested

 

[Caracus2k]

I'm with Sue on this, seems you guys aren't.

Ex police officers seeking media attention are some of the worst people to rely upon for accurate information about policing... expecially the ones that themselves left policing under a cloud

Northumbria Police Chief Sue Sim has retired following a misconduct probe

Mrs Sim has retired after 30 years of service weeks after Police and Crime Commissioner Vera Baird launched a probe into misconduct claims

www.chroniclelive.co.uk

And I have seen plenty of protests where people had placards and they never needed heavy duty straps to secure the boards to the poles ir for the poles to be held on to!

See any 'straps' needed here

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057026895651504129

Or here?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012994594362003456

 

[dowie]

Either they were equipped or they weren't, there can be no allegedly, being equipped can result in a fine or prison sentence under new laws as I posted previously, they were neither fined nor sentenced to prison, so that must mean they weren't equipped

Nope, that doesn't necessarily follow. That charges weren't pursued doesn't mean that there were no grounds for the arrest, they can of course sue if they were indeed wrongfully arrested.

Also, you're ignoring that only a few were arrested (for the straps, going equipped) many others attended and protested with placards.

 

[Caracus2k]

They were arrested for having lock on devices, so unless the lock on devices suddenly vanished after 16 hours and the police had their memories erased of catching the protestors with lock on devices I'm not sure how exactly that criteria can no longer apply,

The necessity criteria may have passed because the EVENT had been completed. I would imagine the police retained the 'lock on devices' as evidence!

it's not an arbitrary grey area, they were arrested for possession of lock on devices, they should have been charged, it doesn't take 16 hours to see if they have them on their possession if they were literally in possession of them when arrested

I don't know how my times I have to repeat myself!

Ignorance of the law isn't a defence.... I have already, repeatedly, explained to you what the neccesity conditions for arrest and how 'to charge' isn't one of them.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I don't know how my times I have to repeat myself!

Could you try none?