Police state London
Met Police officers have arrested anti-monarchy protesters in central London ahead of the King’s Coronation. The leader of anti-monarchy group Republic has been arrested and the force said it had detained multiple people in the City of Westminster.
They are held on suspicion of breaching the peace, conspiracy to cause public nuisance and possessing articles to cause criminal damage, the force said. Republic said hundreds of their placards had also been seized.
“A significant police operation is under way in central London,” the force said on Twitter. Footage on social media showed officers using their powers under the new Public Order Act.
Chief executive of anti-monarchy group Republic, Graham Smith, was among those apprehended in St Martin’s Lane near Trafalgar Square. Pictures showed protesters in yellow “Not My King” T-shirts, including Mr Smith, having their details taken. In one video an officer said: “I’m not going to get into a conversation about that, they are under arrest, end of.”
Arrested for being anti-monarchist in public. It’s breathtaking.
The Met confirmed that four people were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance on St Martin’s Lane and that lock-on devices were seized.
What about the coronation itself? That’s a massive public nuisance, but we don’t see “The Met” arresting people on suspicion of planning to clog up central London for hours.
I honestly didn’t know it was illegal to be anti-monarchy in the UK.
Footage from the scene also showed about 15 protesters being handcuffed and taken away by a heavy police presence.
On Wednesday the Met said that it would have an “extremely low threshold” for protests during the coronation celebrations, and that demonstrators could expect “swift action”.
Why? What right do they have to do that? How are demonstrations illegal and deserving of “swift action” in the form of aggressive arrest? The Beeb shows a photo of a guy being carried off like a sack of potatoes.
The police carried out their threat to arrest people for protesting.
Dozens of people have been arrested during the King’s Coronation, including the leader of a prominent anti-monarchy group. London’s Metropolitan Police said 52 arrests were made for a range of reasons, and all remain in custody.
The arrest of anti-monarchy protesters earlier in the day has been labelled “alarming” by human rights groups. The Met said it “understands” public concern, but that officers had acted proportionally under the law.
“Protest is lawful and it can be disruptive,” Commander Karen Findlay, leading the day’s operation, said – pointing to numerous protests that had been policed without any arrests. Officers, she said, have a duty to intervene “when protest becomes criminal and may cause serious disruption. This depends on the context. The Coronation is a once in a generation event and that is a key consideration in our assessment.”
Well it shouldn’t be. The coronation is a public display of monarchism, and the police have no business imposing monarchism on people who object to it. Police enforcing monarchism underlines what a bad idea monarchism is.
Police said the 52 arrests were made for offences including affray, public order offences, breach of the peace and conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. A breakdown provided later revealed that 32 – or about 60% – were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.
The coronation is a public nuisance! Arrest the people who planned that!
Ugh, it’s so toadying and belly-crawling and repellent.
That makes me doubly glad my husband ordered a “Not My King” t-shirt. Obvious here, of course, since he is an American citizen, born and raised in Iowa, but I’m still glad he did. Maybe he can wear it when I wear my nasty woman t-shirt and people will know we oppose dictatorship in whatever form.
Suspicion of. Not actually doing, but being suspected of planning to do. I thought Minority Report was fiction?
QEII has been universally acknowledged as a fine, upstanding, and admirable woman. She came into the job by accident after several years of trauma. During WW2 (not yet Queen), she did not join the military, but she did join the Women’s Land Army along with so many of her future subjects. She enriched herself, she ensured her wealth would be passed on, tax-free, to her heir. But for all that, Britons mostly loved and admired her.
Camilla’s tampon knew that he would never achieve the love and admiration shown to his mother. The ghost of Dianna, his wayward son, and his rather unsavoury brother would make sure of that. And then, there’s his older son, Willy, who seems to be a clone of his ignorant, racist, self-entitled grandfather.
No, Camilla’s Tampon always knew there’s be strings attached to his coronation. A King must be seen to be Stately, Kingly, and most of all, universally loved by his subjects. I suspect that those in “The Palace” knew how fragile his ego is and wanted to ensure Camilla’s tampon did not have to see a hint of disapprobation or outright disgust at the expense.
PS – I used a lot of hyperbole in para 1 to mark out the generational difference. I am an avowed anti-monarchist, and have been ever since my Irish-born grandmother said to my Australian-born 8-year-old self “David, you can’t say that. You’re British”. It didn’t make sense then, and it doesn’t now.
QE2 wasn’t in the Women’s Land Army, though she did attend an event of theirs. She did a kind of pantomime of joining the Auxiliary Territorial Service, but in reality she just attended some lectures, surrounded by officers. The non-royal non-officer plebeians had thought she’d be working alongside them, but she didn’t. The palace wouldn’t let her. The story is that she wanted to, but who knows if that’s true.
Updating to add: she did the ATS pantomime in April 1945, when the war was all but over. Again, could be the palace’s doing, but anyway it’s the reality. There’s a lot of exaggeration of her war service floating about.
OK, I guess I bought the myth. I was working from memory, never a good idea at 71. :-)
But I still think the comparison in the way mother and son are perceived stands.
Oh definitely. I have some respect for her myself. I find Charles really unbearable.
It’s funny because he and his sister must have the same dated posh accent, but hers sounds kind of brisk and no nonsense while his sounds…I don’t know, a foul stew of everything most pompous and self-infatuated in the Upper Clahhhses.
Looking at the pictures you posted of the coronation, I thought he looked like one of the kings in Alice in Wonderland. Sort of like a cartoon.
Exactly.