7 ms·

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, w

by nailer 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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...
      - secretsatan 4y ago
        They could do that on a regular basis though, arrest, release, say sorry, nothing to see.
        swores 4y ago
        They, in fact, do do it on a regular basis. See, for example, the multiple occasions on which they've arrested accredited journalists for covering Just Stop Oil protests, only to apologise a day or two later as if it's perfectly natural their officers didn't realise journalists are allowed to cover protests without being arrested.
        BLKNSLVR 4y ago
        Is there no recourse against wrongful arrest?
        masfuerte 4y ago
        If an officer believes an arrest is lawful he can arrest you. Trying to prove he knew it wasn't lawful but did it anyway is very difficult.
  - standardUser 4y ago
    Many people have a cavalier attitude about someone "being arrested" but it's actually the violent and comprehensive denial of all basic human rights, often done on a whim. We should be reserving such an extreme measure for people who represent a real and urgent threat of violence, and almost never otherwise. Our tolerance towards arrest as a routine procedure is, to me, baffling and unjustifiable.
- jl6 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
    Okay but why are people being arrested for the crime of "soon will be holding a sign"?
    - silasdavis 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
Some would argue that protest is meant to be disruptive.
- pif 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
    "We regret you feel bad about you being arrested by us".
- knorker 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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)

by nailer 4y ago

swores 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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...
    - secretsatan 4y ago
      They could do that on a regular basis though, arrest, release, say sorry, nothing to see.
      - swores 4y ago
        They, in fact, do do it on a regular basis. See, for example, the multiple occasions on which they've arrested accredited journalists for covering Just Stop Oil protests, only to apologise a day or two later as if it's perfectly natural their officers didn't realise journalists are allowed to cover protests without being arrested.
        BLKNSLVR 4y ago
        Is there no recourse against wrongful arrest?
        masfuerte 4y ago
        If an officer believes an arrest is lawful he can arrest you. Trying to prove he knew it wasn't lawful but did it anyway is very difficult.
- standardUser 4y ago
  Many people have a cavalier attitude about someone "being arrested" but it's actually the violent and comprehensive denial of all basic human rights, often done on a whim. We should be reserving such an extreme measure for people who represent a real and urgent threat of violence, and almost never otherwise. Our tolerance towards arrest as a routine procedure is, to me, baffling and unjustifiable.
jl6 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
  Okay but why are people being arrested for the crime of "soon will be holding a sign"?
  - silasdavis 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago

Some would argue that protest is meant to be disruptive.

pif 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
  "We regret you feel bad about you being arrested by us".
knorker 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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)