17 hours ago, IanHarrison said:

If I were the Police, I would have said that, bearing in mind the previous actions and statements,

 

And those previous actions and statements were 4 months of negotiating with the police and the police being perfectly happy with what was planned.

And then, on the day, 2 hours prior, 50 police descended and arrested the organizers they'd been negotiating with.

 

17 hours ago, IanHarrison said:

is "pre-emptive Policing" lawful? I

 

 If Bob the burglar tells everyone he's about to brake into a house then obviously he can be arrested. But that's not what seems to have happened here. 4 months of negotiation with the police and the police being satisfied is what's claimed to have happened here.

In addition, and an expert in the law is required to clarify, if certain individuals within a group express the desire to do break the law and cause mayhem, those INDIVIDUALS can be arrested. But you can't arrest an entire group including the majority that are innocent and including the leaders who its claimed were negotiated with. If you can, I'd say it jolly well shouldn't be. 

As said, if it goes to court it will be interesting to see the outcome.

 

https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2023/05/08/met-police-to-be-questioned-about-arrests-during-coronation-of-king-charles-iii/

Quote

 

"I’m obviously relieved they dropped it so quickly but very angry they even went down this road, robbing people of their liberty for absolutely no reason.

“There was no evidence of any ability or intent to commit any offence and they simply decided to arrest us and that is outrageous.”

The Metropolitan Police has expressed “regret” that the protesters from Republic were arrested."

 

 

Quote

 

“They also said they had intelligence, which is untrue. If they did have intelligence, their intelligence officers are either lying or incompetent because there was never any discussion, thought, email message, [of] any intent to do anything disruptive. And we had four months of close conversation with the Metropolitan Police.”

“The first thing my solicitor said when she went to the police station, to the police officers, [was] this is an unlawful arrest," Mr Smith continued.

 

 

Edited May 9, 20233 yr by martin-w

Police have apologized. Obviously realize they messed up. But what of the other 65 people that were arrested, only four of which were arrested? 61 arrested without charge. 

 

BBC News - Coronation: Met expresses 'regret' over arresting six anti-monarchy protesters
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65527007

 

 

Quote

 

The Metropolitan Police has expressed "regret" over the arrests of six anti-monarchy protesters on Coronation day.

Republic chief executive Graham Smith, who was among the group, said he has now received a personal apology from police officers.

He said he did not accept the apology and would take legal action after no charges were brought against him.

The Met also confirmed it had used a controversial new law to detain the group.

Mr Smith said a chief inspector and two other officers visited his Reading home on Monday evening to issue the apology.

He told PA news agency: "They seemed rather embarrassed to be honest.

"I said for the record I won't accept the apology. We have a lot of questions to answer and we will be taking action."

 

 

Edited May 9, 20233 yr by martin-w

Don’t forget the two volunteers for the Mets night time anti rape initiative who were traumatised by being arrested on the Friday evening in central London where they were handing out rape alarms whilst wearing clothing marked ‘Metropolitan Police’.

Astonishing.

Seems to be going a bit off topic!  Maybe time to let this rest until the next coronation happens! 🤨

2 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Don’t forget the two volunteers for the Mets night time anti rape initiative who were traumatised by being arrested on the Friday evening in central London where they were handing out rape alarms whilst wearing clothing marked ‘Metropolitan Police’.

Astonishing.

 

Says it all.

23 minutes ago, charliearon said:

Seems to be going a bit off topic!  Maybe time to let this rest until the next coronation happens! 🤨

 

👍

Natural selection tends to take care of the issue. Most people don't mind someone speaking about an issue. Few sane people appreciate people shouting about it. The more they shout, the less support for their issue among the hearers. And then, in accordance with the wise observations of Charles Darwin, some things will tend to rise and some things begin to fall.  

On a completely trivial and uncontroversial note, the postillions seem to be wearing powdered wigs under their caps:

44 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

On a completely trivial and uncontroversial note, the postillions seem to be wearing powdered wigs under their caps:

 

Quite right too. It wouldn't do at all for them to be too comfortable. 

 

(I love that shade of blue on the horses.)

I have two questions:

1. What are the white bows being worn attached to their epaulets? At first, I thought they might have been white gloves, but a closer look at Prince Williams shoulders revealed them to be bows.
2. Were the protesters "preemptively detained" or were they "arrested?" There is a huge legal difference.

2 hours ago, n4gix said:

I have two questions:

1. What are the white bows being worn attached to their epaulets? At first, I thought they might have been white gloves, but a closer look at Prince Williams shoulders revealed them to be bows.
2. Were the protesters "preemptively detained" or were they "arrested?" There is a huge legal difference.

1: By the looks of them, the white bows are there to secure the gold regalia he's wearing round his shoulders.  Our royal family are big on fancy dress - this sort of stuff seems to be really important to them....  

2:  The protesters were arrested; without lawful cause it turns out. There is no such thing as 'pre-emptive detention' in British (nor, I suspect, US) law.  

Edited May 9, 20233 yr by DD_Arthur

35 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

There is no such thing as 'pre-emptive detention' in British (nor, I suspect, US) law.  

In the USA you can be briefly detained if you are suspected of committing a crime or suspected of being about to commit a crime (Reasonable Suspicion), and you are arrested when you are being charged for a crime.

Yes it is different in the UK and also where I live in New Zealand, in New Zealand we can trespass people from public places which is something they cannot do in the USA so it is just different approaches in the situations.

Edited May 9, 20233 yr by Matthew Kane

6 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

There is no such thing as 'pre-emptive detention' in British (nor, I suspect, US) law.  

I watch many episodes of Traffic Cops on YouHooTube, and they frequently state that the suspects are being "detained" while the cops investigate. I've been very impressed with the degree of professionalism and the way the cops manage to deescalate the situations.

Yes, I read the "apology" from senior officers of Met to the six who were "wrongfully arrested," yet it still struck me that they might have been briefly detained just to keep them from active agitating while the ceremonies were being conducted.

Here in the U.S. the police can "detain" suspects up to 72 hours, and then be either not charged and released, or actually arrested.

2 hours ago, n4gix said:

I watch many episodes of Traffic Cops on YouHooTube, and they frequently state that the suspects are being "detained" while the cops investigate. I've been very impressed with the degree of professionalism and the way the cops manage to deescalate the situations.

Yes, I read the "apology" from senior officers of Met to the six who were "wrongfully arrested," yet it still struck me that they might have been briefly detained just to keep them from active agitating while the ceremonies were being conducted.

If you’re driving a motor vehicle the police have different powers. They can demand ID, search your vehicle.

The point is, these people had every right to protest. They’d even been in contact with the police weeks in advance to work out where their protest would take place.

 

2 hours ago, n4gix said:

I watch many episodes of Traffic Cops on YouHooTube, and they frequently state that the suspects are being "detained" while the cops investigate. I've been very impressed with the degree of professionalism and the way the cops manage to deescalate the situations.

Yes, I read the "apology" from senior officers of Met to the six who were "wrongfully arrested," yet it still struck me that they might have been briefly detained just to keep them from active agitating while the ceremonies were being conducted

 

The individuals from the organisation Republic were not briefly detained, they were arrested and held for 16 hours. There was no evidence of intention to agitate. They had been negotiating with the police for 4 months and the police were happy with what they intended.

The police must have reasonable cause to arrest. There was no reasonable cause. The police have said they used the controversial new law that was rushed in, to arrest the group. 

The apology from the police is obviously because they messed up and now they are panicking because legal action is incoming and numerous human rights groups and politicians have expressed concern.

In total there were 65 people arrested and only 4 charged. 

I thought Charlie said we should stop debating this now?

Edited May 10, 20233 yr by martin-w

11 hours ago, martin-w said:

I thought Charlie said we should stop debating this now?

Okay. I'm simply seeking clarification of what actually the facts of the matter were, not a "debate."  Thanks for such clarification!