16 ms·

For little extra context here (for anyone not in the UK), since the OP article was published we had the coronation at the weekend during which many anti-monarch

For little extra context here (for anyone not in the UK), since the OP article was published we had the coronation at the weekend during which many anti-monarchy protestors were arrested - despite prior approval and communication with the Police ahead of the protest. This has been seen as the first major use of these new powers: > Police accused of ‘alarming’ attack on protest rights after anti-monarchist leader arrested https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/06/head-of-uks-leading-anti-monarchy-group-arrested-at-coronation-protest https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/06/head-of-uks-... Prior to the coronation the Met Police tweeted: > Our tolerance for any disruption, whether through protest or otherwise, will be low. > We will deal robustly with anyone intent on undermining this celebration. https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1653745710724968448 https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1653745710724968448 Again, this has been seen as further moves by the Met to quash the right of protest in the UK.

nailer 3y ago
The right to protest is important, but there's a different between disruption and protest that I feel you're overlooking. > Our tolerance for any disruption, whether through protest or otherwise, will be low. > We will deal robustly with anyone intent on undermining this celebration. This sounds like you'll be arrested if you leap in front of the motorcade, scream something in church, etc. Not if you carry a sign protesting the monarch along the route
- swores 3y ago
  And yet... people were arrested for having signs along the route. The police don't deserve any benefit of the doubt that you're trying to give them.
  - jonatron 3y ago
    There is more detail of the Met's version of events here: https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1655665841575174145 https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1655665841575174145 (or https://nitter.nl/metpoliceuk/status/1655665841575174145 https://nitter.nl/metpoliceuk/status/1655665841575174145 )
  - silasdavis 3y ago
    Indeed they were arrested and held for 16 hours on the basis of 'being equipped for locking on'. An newly created offence barely a week old. They had cargo ties to hold their placards during transit. Of no practical use for locking on. The metropolitan police has since says it 'regrets they were unable to join other protestors'. Between this and the online safety bill there are some dreadful dacronian laws making it onto the statue books in the UK in recent months. Compounding other forms of monitoring and criminalising speech under hate and anti terror laws. It definitely could happen here.
    - makomk 3y ago
      Not quite. According to the protestors, they had ties that were supposedly going to be used to secure the placards to things as part of the protest (presumably to railings). Any tie that could be used to secure the pole on a placard to something could obviously be used by protestors to lock their own body to the same thing, and the Met are a bit twitchy about this due to having repeated problems with it over the last few years and especially months. (That's also why there's now a law allowing them to stop protestors before they lock themselves to things in the first place.)
      - swores 3y ago
        Considering the Met have officially apologised and announced "regret" for the specific arrests that were allegedly for that reason, it's hard to care about that excuse any more. The protestors arrested say a) they were reversible plastic straps (i.e. no use for human locking on at all), and b) they had discussed their plans with the official police liaison team who approved it all before the event, then the police on the ground refused to care about that nor tried to discuss with the liaison team while making the arrests. There's also various clips going round, for example this police officer saying they "might" arrest people just for chanting "not my king". Which is just blatantly wrong, albeit possibly down to incompetent officers as much as bad policy (though bad policy seems likely). https://twitter.com/francesleach_/status/1654789805685854208?s=20 https://twitter.com/francesleach_/status/1654789805685854208...
        3y ago
  - jl6 3y ago
    "We were just holding placards" describes one part of the protest. Another was: > groups and individuals were planning to use and throw rape alarms in order to disrupt the coronation procession. ... which is less defensible. Personally I hope a balance is found between allowing protest and preventing egregious disruption.
    - swores 3y ago
      The people they arrested for giving out rape alarms were part of a charity who are in central london every weekend giving them out to women at night - they were arrested the night before, i.e. a very weird time for them to be out if their intention was to protest, and I've not heard anything about the police having any actual reason to believe these people intended to protest at all?
      - selfhoster11 3y ago
        Not only that - their reflective wests bore the logo of the City of Westminster [0] [0]: https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article29914468.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/1_Stars.jpg https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article29914468.ece/AL...
    - willis936 3y ago
      Okay but why are people being arrested for the crime of "soon will be holding a sign"?
      - silasdavis 3y ago
        I think we're more or less there already: https://youtu.be/6__jx4YSfNI https://youtu.be/6__jx4YSfNI The crime of offence, to someone.
        willis936 3y ago
        That was during the period of Queen Elizabeth's funeral. I am referring to people being actually arrested in the past week for the crime of having a sign. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/09/world/europe/uk-police-coronation-arrests.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/09/world/europe/uk-police-co... >The police found placards and “items which at the time they had reasonable grounds to believe could be used as lock-on devices,” according to the statement, and arrested six people “on suspicion of going equipped for locking on.” >The protesters who were arrested said that the devices were in fact luggage straps to fasten banners. After the police investigation failed to prove that anyone had intended to use the straps to lock on, all six had their bail canceled and no further action would be taken against them, the police said.
  - nailer 3y ago
    I think you (and, judging by the moderation, other people on HN) mistakenly believe I don't support the right to protest, I very much do, and have a habit of supporting (both financially and otherwise) various civil liberties organizations. However I do like to see logical, robust arguments. > "Our tolerance for any disruption, whether through protest or otherwise, will be low." > "We will deal robustly with anyone intent on undermining this celebration." (and then later) > And yet... people were arrested for having signs along the route. Be clear in what it is you object to. It seems like you want to attack the hypocrisy of arresting non-disruptive protests. Quoting the police saying disruption will not be be allowed, when instead you are concerned about non-disruptive protesters being arrested, weakens and distracts from your argument.
    - swores 3y ago
      I personally am against both the newly passed legislation, and against police arresting people for not even breaking the ridiculous new laws. I'll complain about both :)
      - nailer 3y ago
        Sure. Here's an example of a more robust response, written from you to me, borrowing some of Silas' points: > Personally I support disruptive action (insert rationale here). > Furthermore, the talk of disruptive action is frequently used to mask action against non-disruptive protest. People were arrested for having signs along the route. Others they were arrested and held for 16 hours on the basis of 'being equipped for locking on' which were actually cargo ties to hold their placards during transit - of no practical use for locking on." By responding to the current topic, before bringing up the other, it strengthens your points on both.
  - cameronh90 3y ago
    Note that there were quite significant peaceful and good natured anti-monarchy protests over the weekend, and the vast majority of those taking part weren't arrested. So, we're obviously not talking about some widespread systematic crackdown on protest at this stage, but rather what appears to be a very bad call on the part of (some?) Met officers. At this stage it's too early to know why these individuals ended up being arrested, but it seems to me like some officers on the ground hugely overstepped the mark and I hope the arrested parties get a good settlement out of it. However. There is clearly wider context that makes having a fair discussion about this difficult. On the side against the police and government, there have been far too many instances in the past few years of bad calls, misconduct and, in some cases, using the position of authority to sexually abuse or murder women. There have also been reports finding evidence of systemic racism, homophobia and misogyny within the Met. These do not appear to be isolated incidents. It would appear the Met has a serious cultural problem, and the new Met police chief has admitted this is the case. There hasn't been any real discussion on whether authoritarianism is a factor, but police officers are bound to lean towards authoritarianism and would imagine that's makes them likely to abuse their power. On top of that, this recent police powers bill has been rushed through and hasn't been scrutinised as much as it probably would have been if they weren't working to the deadline of the coronation. On the other hand, there have been a lot of disruptive protests lately causing, I think it is fair to say, a level of havoc that is not considered by most British people to be a protected form of protest. The Just Stop Oil, Animal Rebellion and Extinction Rebellion protests in particular have illegal disruption as an explicit goal. They have been blocking roads, gluing themselves to trains, throwing paint over art at galleries and have publicly stated they have plans to step up the disruption. The majority of Brits do not support this form of protest and have been demanding the police crack down on them, and I suspect there would have been a huge level of criticism against the police if they had allowed one of these groups to disrupt the coronation. Demonstrations and organised marches aren't controversial, but few people consider these new disruptive tactics to be a legal expression of protest. The other thing to consider is despite the recent issues, the UK is one of the countries where you are least likely to experience any sort of police brutality or corruption, and despite the coronation being controversial and attended by many thousands, only 52 people were arrested over the weekend, which is pretty good going for such a major event. Personally, I'm sympathetic to these protest movements and agree with their goals, but we need to have a limit to what we consider protected protest. If they still want to take part in illegal protest and risk prosecution for political purposes, that is entirely up to them to decide whether their cause is worth that. But obviously we need to make sure the crack down on those sorts of groups doesn't spill over into limiting free expression as it has done here, and any police officer with these kind of authoritarian tendencies ought to be screened out of the police.
- samwillis 3y ago
  > I feel you're overlooking Just to clarify, my comment is not passing any judgment or offering any analysis. I intend to provide context in the aftermath of this weekend, and why I assume this has been posted and voted to the top of the homepage. Of course there is nuance, and not all "protest" activities can be justified.
- HyprMusic 3y ago
  26 people were arrested for signs, t-shirts and flags. https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1767017/just-stop-oil-coronation-arrested https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1767017/just-stop-oil-c...
- becquerel 3y ago
  Some would argue that protest is meant to be disruptive.
  - pif 3y ago
    As such, they are not a human right. You have the right to talk; you don't have the right to force the others to listen to you.
    - pyth0 3y ago
      Given the fact that people are being arrested for holding up signs, it does not seem that they "have the right to talk".
      - pif 3y ago
        I was replying to: "protest is meant to be disruptive". I agree that holding up signs is not a good reason for an arrest.
    - account42 3y ago
      Speaking in a public place is not forcing others to listen to you. If you are only allowed to talk where noone can listen you then you do not in fact have free speech.
      - pif 3y ago
        I was replying to: "protest is meant to be disruptive". Speaking in a public place is free speech. Interrupting a motorcade is not free speech. Pushing people around to get in from of cameras is neither. By the way, I'm using these two possible behaviours as examples of disruptive actions that do not constitute free speech. I'm not stating that people in London were arrested due to such behaviours.
        account42 3y ago
        > Interrupting a motorcade is not free speech. Depends entirely on the kind of interruption. Remember that a mortorcade is itself already a disruption of the normal use of a public space. > Pushing people around to get in from of cameras is neither. By the way, I'm using these two possible behaviours as examples of disruptive actions that do not constitute free speech. I'm not stating that people in London were arrested due to such behaviours. Yes, that's called a strawman. And you are using very imprecise language to boot - pushing people around can describe a number of behaviors from a gentle nudge to ouright assault. Saying that protests should be allowed to be disruptive does also not mean that any kind of disruption needs to be accepted. Obviously if a protest prevents effectively detains you it is not ok. But having to take a slight detour or hearing people say things you want to ignore, that's something that is effectively required for a protest to have any result at all.
- callahad 3y ago
  The police themselves have expressed "regret" over the arrests and made personal apologies to those arrested. [0] Now, I doubt the sincerity of that regret, but the fact that they're choosing that message at all means there's no cause for a devil's advocate here. It's a bad law, poorly implemented. [0]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65530967 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65530967
  - fauigerzigerk 3y ago
    I doubt the police would express regret for enforcing the law, however bad a particular law may be. I'm pretty sure they are expressing regret knowing they acted unlawfully even under the new law.
    - InCityDreams 3y ago
      "We regret you feel bad about you being arrested by us".
  - knorker 3y ago
    The same police that had the chief say "oh they weren't supposed to, he he he" when people were arrested for quietly holding A4-sized signs a few months ago on this topic. They're fascists. That used to be hyperbole, but now they're actually arresting people for their peaceful opinions on the government.
    - 1827163 3y ago
      Yes, that is because the Overton window has shifted so far towards authoritarianism. If it didn't the Police would find resistance both within, from the population and from the government as well. People should hold up a blank piece of paper, that echoes what people do in russia to protest against the war. https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/russian-police-arrest-demonstrator-protesting-with-blank-sign-b2192816.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/russian-police-arrest-...
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      Interesting to contrast the (sometimes) global opinion that the US First Amendment is too extremist with the current situation in the UK arising in part from the lack of such an extremist "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" framework.
- whostolemyhat 3y ago
  The Republic protest was a planned protest, ie they were co-ordinating with the police for weeks beforehand about what they were going to do, where and when, which the Met told them was ok[1]. Then on the morning they were arrested, and have now been released and not charged. 1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65530967 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65530967
- class4behavior 3y ago
  And you're overlooking the fact that laws always appear to solve some trouble or evil, even if the definition of said trouble is nonsensical or evil itself.
- tailspin2019 3y ago
  > Not if you carry a sign protesting the monarch along the route This is exactly what many arrested were doing (or were intending to do)
Randomizer42 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- vasco 3y ago
  Once you go down this rabbithole you see how most people are hostage to their school system. Most European countries with monarchies today have a majority of their population approving of the system - or so we're told in polls. Seeing as the monarchy is completely against any other modern values of equality and equity and diversity, the only explanation is indoctrination in the school system somehow works. I cannot fathom for example how progressive countries like the Netherlands are pro-monarchy, but I live here among them and can tell you that while there's dissent, the majority of the country supports it. It's the subject that most boggles my mind in the modern world. Sweden and Denmark being more examples of countries that say they are pro equality while keeping a family above all others.
  - bl0rg 3y ago
    History and tradition plays a major role in those opinions. No one is saying it is fair, but most are willing to overlook it. Why do you, so confidently, state that the reason is the school system/indoctrination? I've gone to school in these countries, and I've never heard a pro-monarchy argument in class.
    - antonvs 3y ago
      Have you heard an anti-monarchy argument in class? One way to maintain a status quo is just to avoid talking about it too much. That was part of the original point of the New Atheism movement: that politely keeping quiet about religious beliefs encouraged believers to think that their beliefs were universally held or at least respected, among other things. Changing that, pushing back against the status quo, made a big difference.
zo1 3y ago
""> Our tolerance for any disruption, whether through protest or otherwise, will be low. > We will deal robustly with anyone intent on undermining this celebration." If only they had this much zest and conviction for actual, troubling issues, dangerous issues. While I agree that disrupting a ceremony now is in poor taste, there are much bigger issues at play in the UK that deserve hands-on policing.
- nprateem 3y ago
  > disrupting a ceremony now is in poor taste Sorry, what? And it's in good taste to piss away hundreds of millions of taxpayers money on a coronation? Please explain why people having a problem with this shouldn't exercise their right to protest.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    as an American, and not emotionally involved in this topic.. the answer must include actions by degree.. that is, protest by civilized actions, cards and flyers, costumed theater, symbolic union of people via presence or art.. not riot, break windows, steal, attack police or others.. etc
    - WickyNilliams 3y ago
      They arrested people for the former. The latter are illegal in any case
      - nprateem 3y ago
        Well really they preemptively arrested people, before they'd protested at all. I'm glad this abuse of power hasn't gone unnoticed.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > And it's in good taste to piss away hundreds of millions of taxpayers money on a coronation? The British royal family is accretive to the U.K. The coronation brought in billions of dollars of tourism and earned media. There are legitimate gripes one may have about the British royals, but costing the taxpayer isn't one of them, unless we're at the point of seizing their private lands.
account-5 3y ago
Not the MET, the UK government. The MET are just enforcing the law the UK gov enacted, regardless of whether you like the MET or not they didn't suddenly decide to attack the right to protest.
- bearmode 3y ago
  The Met can choose not to enforce fascist laws if they want to.
  - switch007 3y ago
    Yes and no. What they decide to enforce is largely political. They won’t get away with ignoring things the Home Secretary wants enforced for very long before some chief is called in to a meeting in which they perspire heavily.
  - born2discover 3y ago
    Police does not hold any discretionary powers on whether to enforce a law. In a functional State, Police is a subordinate of the executive branch, not it's willing accomplice. It can't enforce laws it deems "ok" and turn a blind eye on those it deems "meh".
    - bearmode 3y ago
      And yet, this happens literally every day. Many individual officers, if not entire forces, have effectively stopped enforcing marijuana posession laws. If that happens, why not refuse to enforce fascist anti-protest laws?
    - malnourish 3y ago
      Police absolutely have discretionary powers; it would be logically incompatible for them to not have such powers. They have a chain of command, and at each level decide where to focus their efforts (guided by existing laws, to be sure). Patrol routes are chosen, dispatchers must (effectively) triage calls, and officers make decisions like whether to assess a warning or a citation.

nailer 3y ago

The right to protest is important, but there's a different between disruption and protest that I feel you're overlooking. > Our tolerance for any disruption, whether through protest or otherwise, will be low. > We will deal robustly with anyone intent on undermining this celebration. This sounds like you'll be arrested if you leap in front of the motorcade, scream something in church, etc. Not if you carry a sign protesting the monarch along the route

swores 3y ago
And yet... people were arrested for having signs along the route. The police don't deserve any benefit of the doubt that you're trying to give them.
- jonatron 3y ago
  There is more detail of the Met's version of events here: https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1655665841575174145 https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1655665841575174145 (or https://nitter.nl/metpoliceuk/status/1655665841575174145 https://nitter.nl/metpoliceuk/status/1655665841575174145 )
- silasdavis 3y ago
  Indeed they were arrested and held for 16 hours on the basis of 'being equipped for locking on'. An newly created offence barely a week old. They had cargo ties to hold their placards during transit. Of no practical use for locking on. The metropolitan police has since says it 'regrets they were unable to join other protestors'. Between this and the online safety bill there are some dreadful dacronian laws making it onto the statue books in the UK in recent months. Compounding other forms of monitoring and criminalising speech under hate and anti terror laws. It definitely could happen here.
  - makomk 3y ago
    Not quite. According to the protestors, they had ties that were supposedly going to be used to secure the placards to things as part of the protest (presumably to railings). Any tie that could be used to secure the pole on a placard to something could obviously be used by protestors to lock their own body to the same thing, and the Met are a bit twitchy about this due to having repeated problems with it over the last few years and especially months. (That's also why there's now a law allowing them to stop protestors before they lock themselves to things in the first place.)
    - swores 3y ago
      Considering the Met have officially apologised and announced "regret" for the specific arrests that were allegedly for that reason, it's hard to care about that excuse any more. The protestors arrested say a) they were reversible plastic straps (i.e. no use for human locking on at all), and b) they had discussed their plans with the official police liaison team who approved it all before the event, then the police on the ground refused to care about that nor tried to discuss with the liaison team while making the arrests. There's also various clips going round, for example this police officer saying they "might" arrest people just for chanting "not my king". Which is just blatantly wrong, albeit possibly down to incompetent officers as much as bad policy (though bad policy seems likely). https://twitter.com/francesleach_/status/1654789805685854208?s=20 https://twitter.com/francesleach_/status/1654789805685854208...
      - 3y ago
- jl6 3y ago
  "We were just holding placards" describes one part of the protest. Another was: > groups and individuals were planning to use and throw rape alarms in order to disrupt the coronation procession. ... which is less defensible. Personally I hope a balance is found between allowing protest and preventing egregious disruption.
  - swores 3y ago
    The people they arrested for giving out rape alarms were part of a charity who are in central london every weekend giving them out to women at night - they were arrested the night before, i.e. a very weird time for them to be out if their intention was to protest, and I've not heard anything about the police having any actual reason to believe these people intended to protest at all?
    - selfhoster11 3y ago
      Not only that - their reflective wests bore the logo of the City of Westminster [0] [0]: https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article29914468.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/1_Stars.jpg https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article29914468.ece/AL...
  - willis936 3y ago
    Okay but why are people being arrested for the crime of "soon will be holding a sign"?
    - silasdavis 3y ago
      I think we're more or less there already: https://youtu.be/6__jx4YSfNI https://youtu.be/6__jx4YSfNI The crime of offence, to someone.
      - willis936 3y ago
        That was during the period of Queen Elizabeth's funeral. I am referring to people being actually arrested in the past week for the crime of having a sign. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/09/world/europe/uk-police-coronation-arrests.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/09/world/europe/uk-police-co... >The police found placards and “items which at the time they had reasonable grounds to believe could be used as lock-on devices,” according to the statement, and arrested six people “on suspicion of going equipped for locking on.” >The protesters who were arrested said that the devices were in fact luggage straps to fasten banners. After the police investigation failed to prove that anyone had intended to use the straps to lock on, all six had their bail canceled and no further action would be taken against them, the police said.
- nailer 3y ago
  I think you (and, judging by the moderation, other people on HN) mistakenly believe I don't support the right to protest, I very much do, and have a habit of supporting (both financially and otherwise) various civil liberties organizations. However I do like to see logical, robust arguments. > "Our tolerance for any disruption, whether through protest or otherwise, will be low." > "We will deal robustly with anyone intent on undermining this celebration." (and then later) > And yet... people were arrested for having signs along the route. Be clear in what it is you object to. It seems like you want to attack the hypocrisy of arresting non-disruptive protests. Quoting the police saying disruption will not be be allowed, when instead you are concerned about non-disruptive protesters being arrested, weakens and distracts from your argument.
  - swores 3y ago
    I personally am against both the newly passed legislation, and against police arresting people for not even breaking the ridiculous new laws. I'll complain about both :)
    - nailer 3y ago
      Sure. Here's an example of a more robust response, written from you to me, borrowing some of Silas' points: > Personally I support disruptive action (insert rationale here). > Furthermore, the talk of disruptive action is frequently used to mask action against non-disruptive protest. People were arrested for having signs along the route. Others they were arrested and held for 16 hours on the basis of 'being equipped for locking on' which were actually cargo ties to hold their placards during transit - of no practical use for locking on." By responding to the current topic, before bringing up the other, it strengthens your points on both.
- cameronh90 3y ago
  Note that there were quite significant peaceful and good natured anti-monarchy protests over the weekend, and the vast majority of those taking part weren't arrested. So, we're obviously not talking about some widespread systematic crackdown on protest at this stage, but rather what appears to be a very bad call on the part of (some?) Met officers. At this stage it's too early to know why these individuals ended up being arrested, but it seems to me like some officers on the ground hugely overstepped the mark and I hope the arrested parties get a good settlement out of it. However. There is clearly wider context that makes having a fair discussion about this difficult. On the side against the police and government, there have been far too many instances in the past few years of bad calls, misconduct and, in some cases, using the position of authority to sexually abuse or murder women. There have also been reports finding evidence of systemic racism, homophobia and misogyny within the Met. These do not appear to be isolated incidents. It would appear the Met has a serious cultural problem, and the new Met police chief has admitted this is the case. There hasn't been any real discussion on whether authoritarianism is a factor, but police officers are bound to lean towards authoritarianism and would imagine that's makes them likely to abuse their power. On top of that, this recent police powers bill has been rushed through and hasn't been scrutinised as much as it probably would have been if they weren't working to the deadline of the coronation. On the other hand, there have been a lot of disruptive protests lately causing, I think it is fair to say, a level of havoc that is not considered by most British people to be a protected form of protest. The Just Stop Oil, Animal Rebellion and Extinction Rebellion protests in particular have illegal disruption as an explicit goal. They have been blocking roads, gluing themselves to trains, throwing paint over art at galleries and have publicly stated they have plans to step up the disruption. The majority of Brits do not support this form of protest and have been demanding the police crack down on them, and I suspect there would have been a huge level of criticism against the police if they had allowed one of these groups to disrupt the coronation. Demonstrations and organised marches aren't controversial, but few people consider these new disruptive tactics to be a legal expression of protest. The other thing to consider is despite the recent issues, the UK is one of the countries where you are least likely to experience any sort of police brutality or corruption, and despite the coronation being controversial and attended by many thousands, only 52 people were arrested over the weekend, which is pretty good going for such a major event. Personally, I'm sympathetic to these protest movements and agree with their goals, but we need to have a limit to what we consider protected protest. If they still want to take part in illegal protest and risk prosecution for political purposes, that is entirely up to them to decide whether their cause is worth that. But obviously we need to make sure the crack down on those sorts of groups doesn't spill over into limiting free expression as it has done here, and any police officer with these kind of authoritarian tendencies ought to be screened out of the police.
samwillis 3y ago
> I feel you're overlooking Just to clarify, my comment is not passing any judgment or offering any analysis. I intend to provide context in the aftermath of this weekend, and why I assume this has been posted and voted to the top of the homepage. Of course there is nuance, and not all "protest" activities can be justified.
HyprMusic 3y ago
26 people were arrested for signs, t-shirts and flags. https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1767017/just-stop-oil-coronation-arrested https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1767017/just-stop-oil-c...
becquerel 3y ago
Some would argue that protest is meant to be disruptive.
- pif 3y ago
  As such, they are not a human right. You have the right to talk; you don't have the right to force the others to listen to you.
  - pyth0 3y ago
    Given the fact that people are being arrested for holding up signs, it does not seem that they "have the right to talk".
    - pif 3y ago
      I was replying to: "protest is meant to be disruptive". I agree that holding up signs is not a good reason for an arrest.
  - account42 3y ago
    Speaking in a public place is not forcing others to listen to you. If you are only allowed to talk where noone can listen you then you do not in fact have free speech.
    - pif 3y ago
      I was replying to: "protest is meant to be disruptive". Speaking in a public place is free speech. Interrupting a motorcade is not free speech. Pushing people around to get in from of cameras is neither. By the way, I'm using these two possible behaviours as examples of disruptive actions that do not constitute free speech. I'm not stating that people in London were arrested due to such behaviours.
      - account42 3y ago
        > Interrupting a motorcade is not free speech. Depends entirely on the kind of interruption. Remember that a mortorcade is itself already a disruption of the normal use of a public space. > Pushing people around to get in from of cameras is neither. By the way, I'm using these two possible behaviours as examples of disruptive actions that do not constitute free speech. I'm not stating that people in London were arrested due to such behaviours. Yes, that's called a strawman. And you are using very imprecise language to boot - pushing people around can describe a number of behaviors from a gentle nudge to ouright assault. Saying that protests should be allowed to be disruptive does also not mean that any kind of disruption needs to be accepted. Obviously if a protest prevents effectively detains you it is not ok. But having to take a slight detour or hearing people say things you want to ignore, that's something that is effectively required for a protest to have any result at all.
callahad 3y ago
The police themselves have expressed "regret" over the arrests and made personal apologies to those arrested. [0] Now, I doubt the sincerity of that regret, but the fact that they're choosing that message at all means there's no cause for a devil's advocate here. It's a bad law, poorly implemented. [0]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65530967 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65530967
- fauigerzigerk 3y ago
  I doubt the police would express regret for enforcing the law, however bad a particular law may be. I'm pretty sure they are expressing regret knowing they acted unlawfully even under the new law.
  - InCityDreams 3y ago
    "We regret you feel bad about you being arrested by us".
- knorker 3y ago
  The same police that had the chief say "oh they weren't supposed to, he he he" when people were arrested for quietly holding A4-sized signs a few months ago on this topic. They're fascists. That used to be hyperbole, but now they're actually arresting people for their peaceful opinions on the government.
  - 1827163 3y ago
    Yes, that is because the Overton window has shifted so far towards authoritarianism. If it didn't the Police would find resistance both within, from the population and from the government as well. People should hold up a blank piece of paper, that echoes what people do in russia to protest against the war. https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/russian-police-arrest-demonstrator-protesting-with-blank-sign-b2192816.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/russian-police-arrest-...
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    Interesting to contrast the (sometimes) global opinion that the US First Amendment is too extremist with the current situation in the UK arising in part from the lack of such an extremist "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" framework.
whostolemyhat 3y ago
The Republic protest was a planned protest, ie they were co-ordinating with the police for weeks beforehand about what they were going to do, where and when, which the Met told them was ok[1]. Then on the morning they were arrested, and have now been released and not charged. 1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65530967 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65530967
class4behavior 3y ago
And you're overlooking the fact that laws always appear to solve some trouble or evil, even if the definition of said trouble is nonsensical or evil itself.
tailspin2019 3y ago
> Not if you carry a sign protesting the monarch along the route This is exactly what many arrested were doing (or were intending to do)

Randomizer42 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
vasco 3y ago
Once you go down this rabbithole you see how most people are hostage to their school system. Most European countries with monarchies today have a majority of their population approving of the system - or so we're told in polls. Seeing as the monarchy is completely against any other modern values of equality and equity and diversity, the only explanation is indoctrination in the school system somehow works. I cannot fathom for example how progressive countries like the Netherlands are pro-monarchy, but I live here among them and can tell you that while there's dissent, the majority of the country supports it. It's the subject that most boggles my mind in the modern world. Sweden and Denmark being more examples of countries that say they are pro equality while keeping a family above all others.
- bl0rg 3y ago
  History and tradition plays a major role in those opinions. No one is saying it is fair, but most are willing to overlook it. Why do you, so confidently, state that the reason is the school system/indoctrination? I've gone to school in these countries, and I've never heard a pro-monarchy argument in class.
  - antonvs 3y ago
    Have you heard an anti-monarchy argument in class? One way to maintain a status quo is just to avoid talking about it too much. That was part of the original point of the New Atheism movement: that politely keeping quiet about religious beliefs encouraged believers to think that their beliefs were universally held or at least respected, among other things. Changing that, pushing back against the status quo, made a big difference.

zo1 3y ago

""> Our tolerance for any disruption, whether through protest or otherwise, will be low. > We will deal robustly with anyone intent on undermining this celebration." If only they had this much zest and conviction for actual, troubling issues, dangerous issues. While I agree that disrupting a ceremony now is in poor taste, there are much bigger issues at play in the UK that deserve hands-on policing.

nprateem 3y ago
> disrupting a ceremony now is in poor taste Sorry, what? And it's in good taste to piss away hundreds of millions of taxpayers money on a coronation? Please explain why people having a problem with this shouldn't exercise their right to protest.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  as an American, and not emotionally involved in this topic.. the answer must include actions by degree.. that is, protest by civilized actions, cards and flyers, costumed theater, symbolic union of people via presence or art.. not riot, break windows, steal, attack police or others.. etc
  - WickyNilliams 3y ago
    They arrested people for the former. The latter are illegal in any case
    - nprateem 3y ago
      Well really they preemptively arrested people, before they'd protested at all. I'm glad this abuse of power hasn't gone unnoticed.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > And it's in good taste to piss away hundreds of millions of taxpayers money on a coronation? The British royal family is accretive to the U.K. The coronation brought in billions of dollars of tourism and earned media. There are legitimate gripes one may have about the British royals, but costing the taxpayer isn't one of them, unless we're at the point of seizing their private lands.

account-5 3y ago

Not the MET, the UK government. The MET are just enforcing the law the UK gov enacted, regardless of whether you like the MET or not they didn't suddenly decide to attack the right to protest.

bearmode 3y ago
The Met can choose not to enforce fascist laws if they want to.
- switch007 3y ago
  Yes and no. What they decide to enforce is largely political. They won’t get away with ignoring things the Home Secretary wants enforced for very long before some chief is called in to a meeting in which they perspire heavily.
- born2discover 3y ago
  Police does not hold any discretionary powers on whether to enforce a law. In a functional State, Police is a subordinate of the executive branch, not it's willing accomplice. It can't enforce laws it deems "ok" and turn a blind eye on those it deems "meh".
  - bearmode 3y ago
    And yet, this happens literally every day. Many individual officers, if not entire forces, have effectively stopped enforcing marijuana posession laws. If that happens, why not refuse to enforce fascist anti-protest laws?
  - malnourish 3y ago
    Police absolutely have discretionary powers; it would be logically incompatible for them to not have such powers. They have a chain of command, and at each level decide where to focus their efforts (guided by existing laws, to be sure). Patrol routes are chosen, dispatchers must (effectively) triage calls, and officers make decisions like whether to assess a warning or a citation.