Seriously worrying....

[garynortheast]

These are the actions of a state sliding into authoritarianism. Very worrying.

The "lock on devices" claimed by the police to have been found were in fact straps for the large placards.

The police also erected a large screen in front of the protestors so that Charlie Windsor and his missus couldn't see them.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/06/head-of-uks-leading-anti-monarchy-group-arrested-at-coronation-protest

[Craig380]

It's an outrage that a billionaire monarch who claims to be interested in charitable causes is taking hundreds of millions of public money to fund an outdated, ostentatious ceremony. Britain's biggest benefits scroungers.

[admin]

These are the actions of a state sliding into authoritarianism. Very worrying.



The "lock on devices" claimed by the police to have been found were in fact straps for the large placards.



The police also erected a large screen in front of the protestors so that Charlie Windsor and his missus couldn't see them.



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/06/head-of-uks-leading-anti-monarchy-group-arrested-at-coronation-protestThe Met were clearly under orders from the home secretary. They're supposed to upload the law not follow orders from the government. Seriously worrying.

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk

[Bibio]

i'm going to play devils advocate again.. how about the actions of the few spoiling it for the many.

the police were only dong their job. better to be safe than sorry as activists of any kind can get a bit out of hand.

its only the poor who moan about the rich when in fact the rich pay a lot more into society and take less out.

the royal household is only rich due to assets, its not their fault they inherited what they did, like it or not.

[Sir Trev]

Another "advocate" here.

The pomp and ceremony is an investment. A large majority of people enjoy it, even if they publicly say otherwise because they think it's right on to claim otherwise. I didn't watch it all live but watched the very good commentry-free coverage of the ceremony and military procession afterwards on iPlayer, which will be watched all over the world. It was stirring and nationalist, yes, and so it should be. We do this sort of thing very well and people from other countries may never admit it but they love it too. It encourages them to come here as tourists to see it for themselves and they bring millions of Pounds into our economy each year which benefits all of us.

You don't get to choose which life you get born into but most of our Royal Family do far more good for UK PLC than most of us realise. Would I personally change that? Not a chance! Even the YouTube videos I found this evening of the military bands playing as they marched their respective regiments back over Westminster Bridge on their way back to Waterloo Station to go back to barracks was great to see. There were no crowds cheering them but they did it anyway.

Do I want to see a small number of people ruin that? No. They have every right to air their opinion and I'll defend that right as much as I defend the Monarchy, but they should not have carte blanche to wreck a day many millions will enjoy and cherish. The rights of the petulant few do not count more than the majority.

[garynortheast]

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/met-police-regrets-arrests-protesters-coronation_uk_64595d56e4b0c10612e67a8e?d_id=579926 3&ncid_tag=fcbklnkukhpmg00000001&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign=uk_main&fbclid=IwAR3SHaiuTD2G2sVGIicm2WywqGeYnUMZkF-qGh9BUsi5P9Bmb45wSczSU0I

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/police-detain-womens-safety-volunteers-during-coronation-crackdown_uk_64591468e4b007e3d7da522c

[Sir Trev]

And what about the few that glue themselves to roads, climb busy bridges, disrupt major sporting events, damage artworks, and so on? Will the powers get abused every now and then? Probably. Will it, on balance though, stop the radical few spoiling things for the majority? Very likely.

If you don't like something you complain, lobby your MP, make your feelings known. If that does not work you vote someone else into power that says they will do something different. We all know it does not often work thanks to politicians promises, from ALL parties, being worthless, but again, the few should not spoil it for the many.

[admin]

I often think the protesters shoot themselves in the foot. They lose public sympathy when they glue themselves to roads and stop people working, getting to hospital appointments etc.

Sent from my moto g(50) using Tapatalk

[redtrummy]

Therre is a limit and a fine line. Legitimate protest has a place in society and should be viewed as such. History shows the suppressed are usually at a disadvantage and lobbying MPs has little effect, too many invested intrests. Sometimes direct action is necessary and a fair society will accomidate it. Otherwise the likes of Russia and other countries are the alternative.

[mister c]

Why do people feel the need to protest over things that will never get changed? The minority never make a difference. If you want to make a difference, become a politician & try that way.
These people that congregate in numbers to complain about the use of fossil fuels don't walk to the demonstration, they drive, take a train, a bus, or an aeroplane, so they are using the tools that they're complaining about to protest.
I felt sorry for the people standing in front of these idiots on Saturday, they came for a great day out, see some pomp & ceremony & it gets spoilt by *!obheads shouting derogatory remarks all day.
I'm not a royalist, but, the amount of money brought in through tourism far outweighs how much the royal family take out of the country.

Sent from my M2102J20SG using Tapatalk

[Sir Trev]

Therre is a limit and a fine line. Legitimate protest has a place in society and should be viewed as such. History shows the suppressed are usually at a disadvantage and lobbying MPs has little effect, too many invested intrests. Sometimes direct action is necessary and a fair society will accomidate it. Otherwise the likes of Russia and other countries are the alternative.

Completely agree. There is nothing wrong with protesting but there is a world of difference between a demo organised in a sensible place, where speeches and the like can be listened to safely, and a few over zealous people who get in everyone's way and simply demand.

Politicians do look at well attended mass rallies as it shows real feeling and public mood, especially if it is well organised and has good grass roots backing. After all they do need to get re-elected every now and then. Screaming fanatics however, to John's point, often have a good message but make right Horlicks of putting it across.

Should we stop using oil? Yes, but we cannot possibly do if right now, so gluing yourself to the road is pointless and makes people more likely to do the opposite in spite for holding them up. If the police can effectively stop the "demanders" with these new powers then its fine with me.

[Bri w]

Very similar to Keanu Reeves film, Minority Report. Arrested for crimes they might commit in the future. Will we get done for speeding when we put a leg over the bike or open the car door? Bit of a stretch but… a fair example?

I understand the arresting them early might stop a bit of a riot, but where’s the proof they would have really triggered something serious?

And the step down and apology from the Met…? All too contrived…

[Sir Trev]

From The Evening Standard. What would have happened if the opposite was true - The Met had chose to ignore the threats their intelligence was suggesting and it ended up as carnage with terrified horses bolting into crowds? At least this way nobody actually got hurt, did they?

"Scotland Yard chief Sir Mark Rowley on Tuesday claimed officers had foiled a plot to cause “multiple serious injuries” at the King’s Coronation after the force was criticised for heavy-handed tactics.

Met Commissioner Sir Mark said he had become extremely concerned by “rapidly developing” intelligence suggesting some demonstrators had conspired to use rape alarms and loudhailers to cause distress to military horses taking part in the procession from Buckingham Place to Westminster Abbey.

He claimed some “intended to extensively vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession, and incur on to the route”.

Others posing as stewards for the event had plastic bottles containing white paint and some were in possession of possible lock-on devices, he insisted.

Sir Mark said the threat was so concerning that Home Secretary Suella Braverman and Mayor Sadiq Khan were given late-night briefings on Friday."

Let's not forget that only a few weeks ago protesters disrupted The Grand National by causing horses distress. With one horse reportedly being euthanized as a consequence. If you were in charge of public safety at the Corronation and you had credible intelligence that something like this was brewing, wouldn't you try and stop it?

I do not doubt the real threat will only be from a few more militant people but if you know they are part of your chosen organisation and still mix in such crowds you should expect to get stopped and asked questions. If you joined an MC knowing full well a couple of members were drug dealers you can hardly complain if you get implicated by association.

[Ruffy]

IMHO, there's a big difference between making a visible protest (to suggest or promote an alternative) and deliberately disrupting someone else's event in a destructive way.

Unfortunately 'the truth' is quite often hard to discern. Reliance on underlying assumptions or prior situations is often required, and judgement calls need to be made. Often the same facts can be interpreted in different ways and decisions made 'on the fly' in operational circumstances are statistically far more likely to be imperfect than not, and thus almost always open to criticism from some direction or other.

But that does not mean they were necessarily wrong or bad decisions. It's all about reasonableness and trade-offs. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" is a pretty tough gig.

For example, picking one of the quoted instances, why did a group feel this particular occasion necessitated a significant-scale issue of rape alarms? Personally, I probably have a natural suspicious or cynical tendency and it does feel a bit incongruous to me that a daytime, public, heavily policed event like this would be perceived as so sexually threatening to women that such distribution was felt important. So, I find it hard to believe that it wasn't just an attempt to create a plausible excuse to disguise or mask a hidden agenda intending to facilitate disruption for other reasons.

I'm pretty ambivalent about the monarchy and the coronation but I won't lose any sleep about a few folk feeling (or being) wronged because of attempts to keep the main show of the day on plan. There should be a time and a place for the other debate but Saturday definitely wasn't it!

(None of that is to suggest that I don't think there are plenty of issues with our political system. I have other concerns about the policies and ideology of those in Westminster - not just government, across all parties.)

[Ruffy]

Very similar to Keanu Reeves film, Minority Report. Arrested for crimes they might commit in the future.
Sorry to be a pedant but actually it was a Tom Cruise film. And in the story they're arresting people for crimes they will commit if left unchecked. ;)

It's been a while since I read the short story it's based on (The Minority Report by Philip K D!ck) but I recall the thread of the story is subtly different to the film - probably the filmmakers made adjustments for greater popular dramatic effect. I recommend the read though, it's very thought provoking.

IMHO, there are already plenty of places where 'pre-crime' is already being baked into our laws and we're trying to get ahead of the unwanted action itself: Carrying certain knives, expressing unpopular or controversial opinions to name a couple. There's a growing trend to allege intent as if it's the same as actually committing the crime.

So far there still seems to be some common sense left in our enforcement and justice system to see the nuances in reality, but I agree there is a risk of an ever constraining ruleset, or a draconian government, that will be less open to discretion and debate. And that is something to keep our eye on carefully.

Will we get done for speeding when we put a leg over the bike or open the car door? Bit of a stretch but… a fair example?
Reasonable comparison IMHO. But to be a real agent-provocateur, how many of us can genuinely say we never sped, ever, during many of our journeys, even if it wasn't our conscious intent before setting off? So if, in all probability, we will end up speeding, is the ticket deserved anyway?