4 ms·

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.

by swores 3y ago

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...
    - secretsatan 3y ago
      They could do that on a regular basis though, arrest, release, say sorry, nothing to see.
      - swores 3y 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 3y ago
        Is there no recourse against wrongful arrest?
        masfuerte 3y 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.
  - Symbiote 3y ago
    Cable ties, luggage straps or string should be of no concern. They're very easily cut by the police, even if the person is uncooperative. "Lock on" protesters have used things like bicycle locks and handcuffs to shackle themselves to railings or each other. These are difficult to cut without injuring the person, especially if they're not cooperating. Here's the Public Order Act, rushed through and taking effect from 3 May, with the coronation on 6 May: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/15/enacted https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/15/enacted I'd argue cable ties, straps and string aren't capable of causing "serious disruption", and I assume the police/prosecutor agree. It's very concerning that the police made the arrests anyway. (I also disagree with the law, but I'm more concerned that the police abused it.)
  - gambiting 3y ago
    >>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 Nonsense, all you need to tie a sign to a pole is a piece of string that wouldn't hold a human body. If they want to keep that legislation in it should be specific - things like handcuffs, heavy chains with padlocks.....even that I think is an overreach, but it would be better than whatever the law says now.
    - cesaref 3y ago
      Exactly - if you take too broad a view, then the protesters having arms and fingers could be considered devices for 'locking on' to something. Personally I think this has generated renewed interest and publicity for the republican movement, which means in a way, the protest has been a success due to the police action.
      - Symbiote 3y ago
        The law says there's an offence "attach themselves to another person, to an object or to land" — which could include holding hands — but for "being equipped" it needs to be an object: "A person commits an offence if they have an object with them in a place other than a dwelling with the intention that it may be used in the course of or in connection with the commission by any person of an offence under section 1(1) (offence of locking on)." I'll not be at all surprised if later this year the Metropolitan Police arrest protesters from linking arms while surrounding a building or blocking a road.
  - silasdavis 3y ago
    I have seen them reported as luggage straps > which turned out to be luggage straps. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/09/labour-says-something-has-gone-wrong-over-met-police-arrest-of-coronation-protesters https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/09/labour-says-... Easily cut or removed in either case. For the record I do not think locking on should be criminalised in general in the first place, much less for it to be preemptively policed based the discretion of some copper.
- standardUser 3y 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 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.

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.

by 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...
  - secretsatan 3y ago
    They could do that on a regular basis though, arrest, release, say sorry, nothing to see.
    - swores 3y 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 3y ago
        Is there no recourse against wrongful arrest?
        masfuerte 3y 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.
- Symbiote 3y ago
  Cable ties, luggage straps or string should be of no concern. They're very easily cut by the police, even if the person is uncooperative. "Lock on" protesters have used things like bicycle locks and handcuffs to shackle themselves to railings or each other. These are difficult to cut without injuring the person, especially if they're not cooperating. Here's the Public Order Act, rushed through and taking effect from 3 May, with the coronation on 6 May: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/15/enacted https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/15/enacted I'd argue cable ties, straps and string aren't capable of causing "serious disruption", and I assume the police/prosecutor agree. It's very concerning that the police made the arrests anyway. (I also disagree with the law, but I'm more concerned that the police abused it.)
- gambiting 3y ago
  >>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 Nonsense, all you need to tie a sign to a pole is a piece of string that wouldn't hold a human body. If they want to keep that legislation in it should be specific - things like handcuffs, heavy chains with padlocks.....even that I think is an overreach, but it would be better than whatever the law says now.
  - cesaref 3y ago
    Exactly - if you take too broad a view, then the protesters having arms and fingers could be considered devices for 'locking on' to something. Personally I think this has generated renewed interest and publicity for the republican movement, which means in a way, the protest has been a success due to the police action.
    - Symbiote 3y ago
      The law says there's an offence "attach themselves to another person, to an object or to land" — which could include holding hands — but for "being equipped" it needs to be an object: "A person commits an offence if they have an object with them in a place other than a dwelling with the intention that it may be used in the course of or in connection with the commission by any person of an offence under section 1(1) (offence of locking on)." I'll not be at all surprised if later this year the Metropolitan Police arrest protesters from linking arms while surrounding a building or blocking a road.
- silasdavis 3y ago
  I have seen them reported as luggage straps > which turned out to be luggage straps. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/09/labour-says-something-has-gone-wrong-over-met-police-arrest-of-coronation-protesters https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/09/labour-says-... Easily cut or removed in either case. For the record I do not think locking on should be criminalised in general in the first place, much less for it to be preemptively policed based the discretion of some copper.
standardUser 3y 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 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.