Guest Posted May 9, 2023 Share Posted May 9, 2023 2 hours ago, Axe said: They were used to prevent a potential breach of the peace by troublemakers and worse potential incidents. It would have been embarrassing for our country if the troublemakers had manage to disrupt the Coronation proceedings. The Met police did an excellent job. There was no potential breach of the peace though. They have not been charged and the police admit that they have committed no offence and they should not have been arrested. THAT IS NOT AN EXCELLENT JOB. The law has now been set up so that the police can run arrest anyone on the grounds that, though you have done no wrong, you might do later. I think the police are going to be sued now as a result of this. Isn't it embarrassing for our country that the law breaking which the police should be dealing with, is not being dealt with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted May 9, 2023 Share Posted May 9, 2023 31 minutes ago, Organgrinder said: There was no potential breach of the peace though. They have not been charged and the police admit that they have committed no offence and they should not have been arrested. THAT IS NOT AN EXCELLENT JOB. The law has now been set up so that the police can run arrest anyone on the grounds that, though you have done no wrong, you might do later. I think the police are going to be sued now as a result of this. Isn't it embarrassing for our country that the law breaking which the police should be dealing with, is not being dealt with. You are confused again. Six have not been charged. Quote As part of the policing operation in central London for the Coronation a total of 64 arrests were made on Saturday, 6 May. 52 of these related to concerns people were going to disrupt the event, and arrests included to prevent a breach of the peace and conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. As part of the wider policing operation eight arrests were made for other offences, including possession of an offensive weapon, drugs offences, and breaching a sexual harm prevention order. Ahead of the Coronation, a significant police operation was launched after we received information protesters were determined to disrupt the Coronation procession. Our activity was targeted at those we believed were intent on taking this action. It was not our intention to prevent protest and whilst the vast masses of the crowd were there to celebrate and witness a once in a generation event, it is very clear a number of protests took place across the footprint both before, during and after the event with no police intervention. Any suggestion all protest was prohibited is not correct. Investigations into the 64 arrests have progressed over the weekend and so far four charges have been brought. Other investigations, which are more complex, require more time to progress all associated enquiries. This evening, Monday, 8 May, six people who had been arrested and bailed have been informed that they will face no further action. https://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrests-made-during-policing-operation-for-the-coronation-466461 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 9, 2023 Share Posted May 9, 2023 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Axe said: You are confused again. Six have not been charged. https://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrests-made-during-policing-operation-for-the-coronation-466461 The six who have not been charged, are the six referred to who were arrested under the new law. Arrests which the police REGRETTED. They should not have been arrested as they had committed no offence. The rest of what you posted, everybody knew already, but I am talking about men who were wrongly arrested, under the new laws, and are considering suing the police. The rest were arrested under the existing laws. This shows that the new laws are clearly unworkable. Try to un-confuse yourself and keep up. Edited May 9, 2023 by Organgrinder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prettytom Posted May 9, 2023 Share Posted May 9, 2023 45 minutes ago, Axe said: You are confused again. Six have not been charged. https://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrests-made-during-policing-operation-for-the-coronation-466461 Incorrect. You need to go to counting school. 60 of the 64 have not been charged. If you want to live in a police state, you should consider emigrating to Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Grey Posted May 9, 2023 Share Posted May 9, 2023 4 hours ago, Axe said: They were used to prevent a potential breach of the peace by troublemakers and worse potential incidents. It would have been embarrassing for our country if the troublemakers had manage to disrupt the Coronation proceedings. The Met police did an excellent job. Where do you live? I want to protest your comment on this site? It's my right to keep you awake all night and stop you leaving the house For climate change of course 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted May 10, 2023 Share Posted May 10, 2023 7 hours ago, Organgrinder said: The six who have not been charged, are the six referred to who were arrested under the new law. Arrests which the police REGRETTED. They should not have been arrested as they had committed no offence. The rest of what you posted, everybody knew already, but I am talking about men who were wrongly arrested, under the new laws, and are considering suing the police. The rest were arrested under the existing laws. This shows that the new laws are clearly unworkable. Try to un-confuse yourself and keep up. You do not know what you are talking about. 52 were arrested because there were concerns they were going to disrupt the event and not just the 6 who have been told they will not be charged. The new law allows the police to arrest people they suspect might cause a disturbance or breach of the peace which prevents them doing so. The new law is workable because it helps to stop disturbances and breaches of the peace happening which was the situation on Coronation day. It is irrelevant whether those arrested end up facing charges. Most people who get arrested using existing laws do no get charged with criminal crimes. 7 hours ago, Prettytom said: Incorrect. You need to go to counting school. 60 of the 64 have not been charged. If you want to live in a police state, you should consider emigrating to Russia. You are nitpicking. 6 out of the 64 have been told they will not be charged. We do not know how many out of the 64 will face no charges because the police have not decided yet. You are being a Drama Queen by implying we live in a police state. The new law allows the police to stop troublemakers spoiling the day for peaceful respectable folk such as the crowds who enjoyed watching the Coronation day proceedings. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 10, 2023 Share Posted May 10, 2023 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Axe said: You do not know what you are talking about. 52 were arrested because there were concerns they were going to disrupt the event and not just the 6 who have been told they will not be charged. The new law allows the police to arrest people they suspect might cause a disturbance or breach of the peace which prevents them doing so. The new law is workable because it helps to stop disturbances and breaches of the peace happening which was the situation on Coronation day. It is irrelevant whether those arrested end up facing charges. Most people who get arrested using existing laws do no get charged with criminal crimes. You are nitpicking. 6 out of the 64 have been told they will not be charged. We do not know how many out of the 64 will face no charges because the police have not decided yet. You are being a Drama Queen by implying we live in a police state. The new law allows the police to stop troublemakers spoiling the day for peaceful respectable folk such as the crowds who enjoyed watching the Coronation day proceedings. I am talking ONLY of the six who were arrested in the new "police state" laws. Stop explaining what the law allows the police to do because we already know what the police can do. They already did it and turned out to be wrong and their boss said t was REGRETFUL. A police state is where the police can arrest you simply on the grounds that, THEY THINK YOU MAY BE GOING TO DO SOMTHING. I will nit pick as much as I like - the new law resembles that of a police state and, on it's very first use, turned out to be wrong enough for the chief to express REGRET. Edited May 10, 2023 by Organgrinder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Bundy Posted May 10, 2023 Share Posted May 10, 2023 49 minutes ago, Axe said: You do not know what you are talking about. 52 were arrested because there were concerns they were going to disrupt the event and not just the 6 who have been told they will not be charged. The new law allows the police to arrest people they suspect might cause a disturbance or breach of the peace which prevents them doing so. The new law is workable because it helps to stop disturbances and breaches of the peace happening which was the situation on Coronation day. It is irrelevant whether those arrested end up facing charges. Most people who get arrested using existing laws do no get charged with criminal crimes. You are nitpicking. 6 out of the 64 have been told they will not be charged. We do not know how many out of the 64 will face no charges because the police have not decided yet. You are being a Drama Queen by implying we live in a police state. The new law allows the police to stop troublemakers spoiling the day for peaceful respectable folk such as the crowds who enjoyed watching the Coronation day proceedings. This.... All day long. Just something else to get worked up about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted May 10, 2023 Share Posted May 10, 2023 6 minutes ago, Organgrinder said: I am talking ONLY of the six who were arrested in the new "police state" laws. Stop explaining what the law allows the police to do because we already know what the police can do. They already did it and turned out to be wrong and their boss said t was REGRETFUL. A police state is where the police can arrest you simply on the grounds that, THEY THINK YOU MAY BE GOING TO DO SOMTHING. I will nit pick as much as I like - the new law resembles that of a police state and, on it's very first use, turned out to be wrong enough for the chief to express REGRET. A couple of points. A police officer said they regretted the action. Probably a personal opinion as the Commissioner does not appear to agree. Conspiracy to commit a crime is an offence before the crime has been committed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 10, 2023 Share Posted May 10, 2023 8 minutes ago, harvey19 said: A couple of points. A police officer said they regretted the action. Probably a personal opinion as the Commissioner does not appear to agree. Conspiracy to commit a crime is an offence before the crime has been committed. That is an offence IF IT IS PROVED. which it wasn't Arresting someone who has done nothing, and detaining them, not for an hour or two, but for 16 hours, knowing they were innocent, is a feature of a police state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now