4 ms·
"In the months leading up to the wedding, a series of demonstrations by students, trade unionists and others saw hundreds of thousands of people take to the str
by cones688 13y ago
"In the months leading up to the wedding, a series of demonstrations by students, trade unionists and others saw hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets to protest against government cuts. There were outbreaks of disorder and in one case student demonstrators attacked a car carrying Prince Charles and his wife Camilla." [1]
I might just be being cynical but this sounds like an intelligence led operation to remove people who were at a high risk of commiting public disorder. It seems pretty limited that it was 20 people and they were picked up all across london - the police didn't just swoop in on a group of protesters with anti-monarchy banners, they were specifically targeted. I appreciate although the UK has no "constitution" we have to free protest but from the riots last year I think The Met have every right to be cautious about preventing demonstrations which could spark into something dangerous at one of the biggest public spectacles of the decade, when the entire crowd is made up of families trying to enjoy themselves.
If the cause is so noble, one shouldn't need to use a large public spectacle as a vehicle for it.
[1]http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/27/activists-arrested-c/hallenge-police-high-court http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/27/activists-arrested-...
- tehwalrus 13y agoThat's little comfort: I still get the impression that if I'd been standing next to them I would have been arrested too. Freedom of expression means being allowed to make a spectacle. Not by attacking Charles & Camilla, but marching up and down shouting in the daytime, sure.
- gadders 13y agoToo true. We already had the left's equivalent of the Westborough Baptist Church trying to wreck Margaret Thatcher's funeral.
- casiotone 13y ago> I might just be being cynical but this sounds like an intelligence led operation to remove people who were at a high risk of commiting public disorder. You are being cynical. You cannot be preemptively arrested for having a "high risk of committing public disorder", which is what happened. Many people, who actually had no plans to demonstrate or do anything other than spend the day drinking and trying not to watch the ceremony, were subjected to dawn raids for no reason other than that they are on police watchlists (along with thousands and thousands of other peaceful protestors) It's so incredibly easy to get on a police watchlist now - you merely have to turn up to a protest to get yourself on file. Pensioners have had files for merely walking along a protest route and then going home.
- cones688 13y agoIn same way you can be arrested for "going equipped" or banned from near sports stadiums for football hooliganism, it is rarely held up in court but a tool for the police to preempt people who are positioned to commit a crime. There must be reasonable grounds otherwise one has a case for false imprisonment, I am guessing The Met took all reasonable steps to make sure they were targeting the right people using precious resources on what was one of the biggest police operations of the decade.
- casiotone 13y agoOh, they targeted the 'right people' alright. But this was not an operation to 'save the day' from the mean protestors. It was an intimidation campaign. The people who were targeted had committed no crime, had not planned to commit any crime, they were targeted because they were known left-wing activists. This is now cause in itself for the Met to bring you up. Your rose-tinted glasses view of the Met is naive - they are corrupt servants of the ruling class. These operations have one purpose - to shut people up, to present an image of Britain as a united nationalist utopia. We all love the Queen! Look! Nobody even protested!