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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Minusorange said:
Yes yawn despite the Met admitting they ****** up and they weren't locking on devices
Click to expand...

You really don't get the law do you? The Commissioner himself still believes the 'luggage straps' could have been used as 'lock on devices' but the Met police don't think they could convince a court to the criminal burden of proof about the intent of those in possession of them.

“While it is unfortunate that the six people affected by this were unable to join the hundreds of peaceful protesters, I support the officers’ actions in this unique fast-moving operational context,” Sir Mark wrote in the Evening Standard.

“Protest is an important right in any democracy, but it is limited and has to be carefully balanced alongside consideration for the rights of others so they too can go about their normal business – in this case participating in a once-in-a-generation event.”

“I can report that we found people in possession of possible lock-on devices and people that appeared to be purporting to be stewards of the event in possession of plastic bottles containing white paint, which we believe were specifically to be used to criminally disrupt the procession and resulted in arrests for going equipped to commit criminal damage,” he added.
Click to expand...



Minusorange said:
you still try to defend their actions against right to protest, instead of questioning the officers common sense
Click to expand...

Interesting that you would question others 'common sense' when you are so ignorant of the law.

Needles to say I know the Met would rather of erred on the side of caution than run an increased risk of a major incident during such an important event.

Minusorange said:
for not being able to tell they aren't locking on devices for 16 hours or the waste of police time & resources in arresting entirely innocent people
Click to expand...

The chief of Republic described them as 'luggage straps' that the group have claimed were for 'securing their placards'



a rather unconvincing answer. Given that placards don't seen to require such fixing in any of the other demo's they are used at.

And given the chief's re tweets I'm not convinced that he would not partake in 'direct action'


(the claim will of course be made that this was just metaphorical)

But then we are treated to the clown world spectacle of him pretending to be surprised that a 'openly affiliated' XR activist was also arrested when found in possession of items there had been publicised concerns about for weeks in advance ...



Minusorange said:
It doesn't matter if random person from the ocuk forums is convinced
Click to expand...

Not just some 'random' of a forum thought is it....again for the ignorant the legal standard for arrest is 'reasonable suspicion' not being 'convinced'.... and the police Commissioner himself has come out and supported his officers with regards to the action they took.

Minusorange said:
the literal police were convinced they weren't actually locking on devices and could prove no intent
Click to expand...

The Met police clearly remain unconvinced about the claim that the 'luggage straps' could not be used as 'lock on devices'

They commissioner called them ' possible lock-on devices'

and their tweet says they were 'unable to prove the intent' neither of those statements should cause any honest person with a semblance of intelligence to think that the police were:
convinced they weren't actually locking on devices
Click to expand...

Why are you so often so demonstrably wrong?


Minusorange said:
case closed you are wrong, the met was wrong, just give up licking their boots
Click to expand...

The actual case is the Met decided to take 'no further action' as they knew they would unlikely be able to prove a case in court.

I have now provided repeated posts, with the relevant laws linked, that show the various reasons police may use their powers to arrest and have explained to you that an intention to charge someone isn't one of the necessity criteria
 
Last edited:
what's with all the twitter diatribe

so they wanted to keep them off the streets for 16hours to neutralise ability to re-organise - out-flanked.
 
Caracus2k said:
So a tacit admission you were wrong when you said:
Click to expand...
They couldn't prove they were lock on devices, any reasonable person would conclude that luggage straps are not locking devices, that's why they dropped the charges because going to court means facing reasonable people

You're literally defending the unreasonable but you do you
 
It is amazing how some people embrace a society where the police can do as they please, then just release you and shrug their shoulders. I'm not a fan of the US style of litigation but if this was there you'd take the MET for large amounts of money for what they did. Though they could never arrest you for peacefully protesting there anyway and speech is actually protected unlike here.
 
Makes no sense why you'd arrest someone for having locking devices?, instead of simply to waiting them to handcuff themselves to whatever or anything similar, then simply cut it, and arrest them.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
It is amazing how some people embrace a society where the police can do as they please, then just release you and shrug their shoulders.
Click to expand...

Back in reality they can't do as they please, they don't always charge everyone they arrest, they have 24 hours (usually) to make a decision on whether to charge or release someone and they need good reason to arrest you in the first place.

Again context matters here... this isn't rocket science, big global event, with multiple heads of state present, watched by millions, groups wanting to disrupt it... of course they're going to be cautious re: things like rape alarms, locking on devices etc. as we know full well what *some* protestors might try and do.

Of course, if you want to pretend this all happened for no reason and that there is some dystopian situation where people can't protest at all then you'd have to willfully ignore that a whole load of people did in fact protest and didn't get arrested.
 
platinum87 said:
Makes no sense why you'd arrest someone for having locking devices?, instead of simply to waiting them to handcuff themselves to whatever or anything similar, then simply cut it, and arrest them.
Click to expand...

Makes plenty of sense, have you not seen what happens when protestors lock onto objects or lock themselves together in a chain, they can block roads and it can take ages to clear them.
 
dowie said:
Makes plenty of sense, have you not seen what happens when protestors lock onto objects or lock themselves together in a chain, they can block roads and it can take ages to clear them.
Click to expand...

If they lock themselves together you cut the link to the fence, then drag them with a car out of the way, takes 2 minutes
 
What matters is evidence of intent which most of the boot lickers are failing to comprehend

If they were caught with chains, one could reasonably assume they were there to lock on
If they were caught with paint, one could reasonably assume they were there to throw it

Unless of course at point of arrest they can provide good reason for having those things, maybe they had just bought it and were passing through and could show the receipt, or any other legitimate reason they might have for being in possession

Likewise with luggage straps, if they were transporting hundreds of placards, one could reasonably assume the luggage straps were to secure the placards in transit and to then be used to secure those placards to things like railings and lampposts as the protestors explaining

That does not give the police the right to put 2 & 2 together to get 11 and automatically assume beyond reason that the persons sole intent is to commit crime, maybe they should have just arrested everybody with a vehicle in London for fears somebody might their use vehicle to run people over during the Coronation without reasonably thinking people might be using their vehicles to transport themselves
 
dowie said:
Back in reality they can't do as they please, they don't always charge everyone they arrest, they have 24 hours (usually) to make a decision on whether to charge or release someone and they need good reason to arrest you in the first place.

Again context matters here... this isn't rocket science, big global event, with multiple heads of state present, watched by millions, groups wanting to disrupt it... of course they're going to be cautious re: things like rape alarms, locking on devices etc. as we know full well what *some* protestors might try and do.

Of course, if you want to pretend this all happened for no reason and that there is some dystopian situation where people can't protest at all then you'd have to willfully ignore that a whole load of people did in fact protest and didn't get arrested.
Click to expand...

Of course it happened for a reason. The establishment didn't want these people spoiling their special day with their speech. Sorry but that isn't how it works. Having people say things you don't like when you don't like is what free speech is.

You are saying arresting people is fine if you then release them without charge.

Luggage straps are in no sense locking on devices. It was clearly an excuse used to stop those people with their placards joining the demonstration.

So free speech is when you are sometimes allowed to protest? Protesting is up there with the most important rights we have in a free society and this government keeps making it more and more difficult. I thought you believed in free speech? And just because the police didn't arrest everyone doesn't mean those they did arrest shouldn't have been.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Of course it happened for a reason. The establishment didn't want these people spoiling their special day with their speech. Sorry but that isn't how it works. Having people say things you don't like when you don't like is what free speech is.
Click to expand...

Nope, that's not it again you're just playing dumb and ignoring that plenty of protestors were able to speak freely.

Colonel_Klinck said:
You are saying arresting people is fine if you then release them without charge.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying the police need to have grounds to arrest people and arresting people doesn't necessarily mean they're going to charge them. Most people who wanted to protest weren't arrested, no one stopped them from exercising their free speech. The people who were arrested weren't arrested to stop them from exercising free speech but to prevent them from breaking the law and disrupting the event illegally.
 
Last edited:
platinum87 said:
If they lock themselves together you cut the link to the fence, then drag them with a car out of the way, takes 2 minutes
Click to expand...

The police can't drag people with a car, it takes them time to clear protestors who've locked onto things, that's the reality ergo it makes sense if they really really don't want to have this event disrupted to be rather cautious about protestors who seem to have intentions beyond simply protesting and exercising free speech.
 
Minusorange said:
And there we have it, it's okay as long as it happens to people you don't like
Click to expand...


If they were genuine protesters their, niche at best, 'cause' has got more publicity than them waving their luggage strap constructed placards at the side of the road.

If they were trying to disrupt the event then they deserved to be arrested.

It's pretty obvious you are just gutted that no one managed to throw paint over Camilla or scare a horse into running over the public so you could gloat on twitter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom