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.
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.
"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
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.)
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...
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.
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.
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.
> which turned out to be luggage straps.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
[0]: https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article29914468.ece/AL...
1. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/08/arrests-coro...
The crime of offence, to someone.
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-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.