National News Extinction "Rebellion"

bashamwonderland said:
Fair enough if the evidence says there wasn't sufficient intelligence, then that's the case. I'd rather change my position when new evidence arises than blindly claim conspiracy in the hope that there is one.

Hopefully the protesters will enjoy their second bite at the cherry in about 20 years when we have another coronation lol.
Click to expand...
So you don't mind police arresting citizens for no reason. F@&! me!!!
 
OUFCGav said:
"Like the Republicans van full of "stuff" "
Stuff that the police knew about in advance following the meetings they had, where no concerns were raised about their plans...
Click to expand...

Do you think said Republicans are 100% kosher and would only have loaded the van with "what they said"?

Vehicles get checked every day.
 
OUFCGav said:
So the 6 organisers of the Republic demo have had bail cancelled and no further action taken after investigating officers found no evidence that placards and luggage straps represented equipment to lock-on. The Met have expressed their "regret"...I assume that to the Met "regret" is like the Republicans in the US talking of "thoughts and prayers" after the latest daily mass shooting.
Click to expand...

Simple enough.
They were arrested "on suspicion".
That suspicion has been evidenced to the contrary and off they go.
That`s how it works.
No record, no problem and they can go about their lives in a civilised society. :)
 
Essexyellows said:
Do you think said Republicans are 100% kosher and would only have loaded the van with "what they said"?

Vehicles get checked every day.
Click to expand...
Check contents maybe. But at what was there was pre-arranged with the Met liaison (who were nearby but not contacted even when it was suggested to do so). So tick that off and let them move on. Deciding that luggage straps are lock-on devices on zero "intelligence" and arresting people was just at best stupid, and at worst quite sinister.
 
OUFCGav said:
Check contents maybe. But at what was there was pre-arranged with the Met liaison (who were nearby but not contacted even when it was suggested to do so). So tick that off and let them move on. Deciding that luggage straps are lock-on devices on zero "intelligence" and arresting people was just at best stupid, and at worst quite sinister.
Click to expand...

So they talk to Met liaison - in the meantime coppers are shipped in from all over the country to police the occasion.

Were they told about the arrangements? Doubt it.

The foot soldiers rarely get told the detail.

Can you use a luggage strap to "lock on"? I have no idea but it seems the professional protesters can use many things to do such from superglue to concrete.

Me? I would just pull really hard until something gives way.... like the French police do. :)

Nothing "sinister" about suspicion is there?
 
Essexyellows said:
Nothing "sinister" about suspicion is there?
Click to expand...
I'm sure we can all remember being denied our freedom of movement, kettled, herded about, whilst simply trying to get to an away match back in the 80s and 90s due to nothing more than 'suspicion'. Stopping people protesting against 'The Establishment' based on 'suspicion' is all a bit North Korea for me.
 
Sheik djibouti said:
Clearly grounds to pursue this I wold think . . . .

https://www.saunders.co.uk/news/wrongful-arrest-what-does-it-mean/
Click to expand...
Good to see you find it funny Essex . . . I assume when you were give a "thick ear" by The Police "back in the day" you knew you deserved it for acting like a dick:ROFLMAO:

If you wish to bring a claim for wrongful arrest, it is dependent on whether:
  • The police should or shouldn’t have believed you may have been involved in or about to commit a criminal offence
  • It was necessary to conduct an arrest.
If the police could have avoided an arrest by making enquiries, then wrongful arrest may have occurred. The officer’s beliefs at the time of arrest can be scrutinized, especially where it was seen as unreasonable to suspect a person of committing a crime.

Highlighted the pertinent bit for you, as you seem to be finding it hard to grasp the concept ;)

All they had to do as @OUFCGav suggests was contact The Met to find out it was all above board and they could've avoided the embarrassment of getting it wrong🤷‍♂️

I guess it was just too difficult for them to do at the time....so decided to bang them up instead . . .
 
Essexyellows said:
So they talk to Met liaison - in the meantime coppers are shipped in from all over the country to police the occasion.

Were they told about the arrangements? Doubt it.

The foot soldiers rarely get told the detail.

Can you use a luggage strap to "lock on"? I have no idea but it seems the professional protesters can use many things to do such from superglue to concrete.

Me? I would just pull really hard until something gives way.... like the French police do. :)

Nothing "sinister" about suspicion is there?
Click to expand...
If there is no actual reason for suspicion then yes, pre-judgement or deliberate malfeasance is sinister.

The police on the ground were told they needed to check with the Police liaison and given the exact names to speak to. This wasn't an inflamed or violent situation in which they needed to react. This was a group of middle aged people calmly unloading placards from a van. There was no need for immediate action, they could have checked, they made a conscious decision not to.

Superglue - hard to separate, concrete - hard to break. luggage strap - easily unclipped or cut.
 
This law has only just come into force, so I do have an element of sympathy for the officers actually on the ground, officers were left to interpret it and make decisions accordingly, all with no previous precendent or experience of it, and on such a high profile occassion.
 
Carpy said:
This law has only just come into force, so I do have an element of sympathy for the officers actually on the ground, officers were left to interpret it and make decisions accordingly, all with no previous precendent or experience of it, and on such a high profile occassion.
Click to expand...

And there is the danger of making a law so broad and then rushing it in.
 
Marked Ox said:
And there is the danger of making a law so broad and then rushing it in.
Click to expand...
Can't say I have read it in detail to be honest, so unsure whether it is too broad or not. But I certainly would have discouraged its use at such a high profile event, knowing the Met and their officer training, I can imagine that many officers have not yet had the formal training on the proper use of the new powers.

Feel they've probably been hung out to dry by those higher up in the food chain.
 
Carpy said:
Can't say I have read it in detail to be honest, so unsure whether it is too broad or not. But I certainly would have discouraged its use at such a high profile event, knowing the Met and their officer training, I can imagine that many officers have not yet had the formal training on the proper use of the new powers.

Feel they've probably been hung out to dry by those higher up in the food chain.
Click to expand...

I don't think that there will be many blaming the arresting officers. Its the chain above them that rushed through an ill-throughout law and pressurised senior officers to make public examples of those they felt would cause embarrassment of the establishment.

We know of recent examples of bad coppers within the Met (and elsewhere). But there are also many exceptionally good coppers but they're let down by bad leaders who could have, and should have, pushed back against this all.
 
Carpy said:
Can't say I have read it in detail to be honest, so unsure whether it is too broad or not. But I certainly would have discouraged its use at such a high profile event, knowing the Met and their officer training, I can imagine that many officers have not yet had the formal training on the proper use of the new powers.

Feel they've probably been hung out to dry by those higher up in the food chain.
Click to expand...

To quote Tory MP David Davis:

"There's too many elements of the law that are too crude and too broadly defined."

And

"Former Greater Manchester police chief Sir Peter said he gave evidence in Parliament expressing his concern that the new law was "poorly defined and far too broad"."

From this:

www.bbc.co.uk

Law behind Coronation arrests too broad - Tory MP

The Met expresses regret over arrests made after changes to the law which critics say was rushed in.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
Scotchegg said:
I don't think that there will be many blaming the arresting officers.
Click to expand...
Depends, if it goes down the route of legal challenges for unlawful arrests, not only will the arresting officer have to answer for why they thought it was lawful, but the Custody Sergeant will have to explain why they authorised their detention. Neither should have been put in that position in the first place.
 
bashamwonderland said:
As a general principle, yes.

In this case, I don't really care.
Click to expand...
So, there should be a right to protest but you’re willing to have that right waived if you disagree with the cause?

Seems a little ironic that we ‘took back‘ our right to govern to simply then enable legislation that takes away our right to protest or even to vote in some instances?
 
  • React
Reactions: QR
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom