FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Coronation II
Coronation II
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
"The police have stated they ‘regret ‘ anti royal protest arrests "Six cretins hoping to help spoil the day for millions. The police acted correctly, in my opinion | |||
| |||
"The police have stated they ‘regret ‘ anti royal protest arrests
Six cretins hoping to help spoil the day for millions.
The police acted correctly, in my opinion "The police regret making the arrests , Graham Smith has received a personal apology from police officers | |||
"The police have stated they ‘regret ‘ anti royal protest arrests
Six cretins hoping to help spoil the day for millions.
The police acted correctly, in my opinion
The police regret making the arrests , Graham Smith has received a personal apology from police officers "So...?? The police acted correctly, in my (and millions of others) opinion. | |||
"The police have stated they ‘regret ‘ anti royal protest arrests
Six cretins hoping to help spoil the day for millions.
The police acted correctly, in my opinion
The police regret making the arrests , Graham Smith has received a personal apology from police officers
So...??
The police acted correctly, in my (and millions of others) opinion."They didn’t, hence the apology | |||
"The police have stated they ‘regret ‘ anti royal protest arrests
Six cretins hoping to help spoil the day for millions.
The police acted correctly, in my opinion
The police regret making the arrests , Graham Smith has received a personal apology from police officers
So...??
The police acted correctly, in my (and millions of others) opinion.
They didn’t, hence the apology "It matters not a jot what you may think. The crazy gang were curtailed. That's what matters. End of. Good morning | |||
"The police have stated they ‘regret ‘ anti royal protest arrests
Six cretins hoping to help spoil the day for millions.
The police acted correctly, in my opinion
The police regret making the arrests , Graham Smith has received a personal apology from police officers
So...??
The police acted correctly, in my (and millions of others) opinion.
They didn’t, hence the apology
It matters not a jot what you may think.
The crazy gang were curtailed.
That's what matters.
End of.
Good morning "The police got it wrong You are wrong Facts End of | |||
| |||
"The police have stated they ‘regret ‘ anti royal protest arrests
Six cretins hoping to help spoil the day for millions.
The police acted correctly, in my opinion
The police regret making the arrests , Graham Smith has received a personal apology from police officers
So...??
The police acted correctly, in my (and millions of others) opinion.
They didn’t, hence the apology
It matters not a jot what you may think.
The crazy gang were curtailed.
That's what matters.
End of.
Good morning
The police got it wrong
You are wrong
Facts
End of "There was no apology for the arrests. Stop with the 'facts' which aren't actually facts. | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest?" They had materials that the police believed could be used to 'lock on'. One of them was also carrying a sharp object. | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest?" My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. | |||
| |||
"The police acted lawfully to prevent an unlawful act." They got it wrong , hence the apology | |||
"The police have stated they ‘regret ‘ anti royal protest arrests
Six cretins hoping to help spoil the day for millions.
The police acted correctly, in my opinion
The police regret making the arrests , Graham Smith has received a personal apology from police officers
So...??
The police acted correctly, in my (and millions of others) opinion.
They didn’t, hence the apology
It matters not a jot what you may think.
The crazy gang were curtailed.
That's what matters.
End of.
Good morning
The police got it wrong
You are wrong
Facts
End of
There was no apology for the arrests. Stop with the 'facts' which aren't actually facts."They apologised for getting it wrong, facts | |||
| |||
"The police have stated they ‘regret ‘ anti royal protest arrests
Six cretins hoping to help spoil the day for millions.
The police acted correctly, in my opinion
The police regret making the arrests , Graham Smith has received a personal apology from police officers
So...??
The police acted correctly, in my (and millions of others) opinion.
They didn’t, hence the apology
It matters not a jot what you may think.
The crazy gang were curtailed.
That's what matters.
End of.
Good morning
The police got it wrong
You are wrong
Facts
End of
There was no apology for the arrests. Stop with the 'facts' which aren't actually facts.
They apologised for getting it wrong, facts "I've posted the statement above, they did no such thing. Here it is again just incase your incapable of scrolling up.... "We regret that those six people arrested were unable to join the wider group of protesters in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere on the procession route." | |||
"The police acted lawfully to prevent an unlawful act. They got it wrong , hence the apology "They kept public order by arresting them. A few city fans singing how sh*t United are in the United stands ain't going to go well is it. | |||
| |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. " I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
| |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
"So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel? | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?"If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics? | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?"I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest. The Met themselves have said this... “We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest. Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.” Totally pre-emptive and without real substance. People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about. Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree! | |||
"The police acted lawfully to prevent an unlawful act. They got it wrong , hence the apology
They kept public order by arresting them.
A few city fans singing how sh*t United are in the United stands ain't going to go well is it."They got it wrong, I fully expect this error will cost a few thousand £ | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree! "Sir Peter Fahy and David Davis also agree | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree! "I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk. | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk. "The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences. Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices. | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices."And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it. If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today? In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors. | |||
| |||
"The protesters had permission to carry out their protest 4 months ago, they were arrested under new laws passed in a rush only days before. The police gave a personal apology to one of the protesters. The Met is again under fire for their unprofessional conduct, hence the apology and public statement. " If they hadn't been given permission would that have been okay? | |||
"The protesters had permission to carry out their protest 4 months ago, they were arrested under new laws passed in a rush only days before. The police gave a personal apology to one of the protesters. The Met is again under fire for their unprofessional conduct, hence the apology and public statement. If they hadn't been given permission would that have been okay? " The facts are they sought permission and were given permission, but instead they were arrested and kept in custody from 06.40 to 23.00 no if's or buts just the facts. | |||
"The protesters had permission to carry out their protest 4 months ago, they were arrested under new laws passed in a rush only days before. The police gave a personal apology to one of the protesters. The Met is again under fire for their unprofessional conduct, hence the apology and public statement. If they hadn't been given permission would that have been okay? The facts are they sought permission and were given permission, but instead they were arrested and kept in custody from 06.40 to 23.00 no if's or buts just the facts." Pavlov's dog do you think? | |||
| |||
"We all knew this law was coming and how it would deter lawful protest, well it has started." did it stop all the protestors on the day? | |||
"The protesters had permission to carry out their protest 4 months ago, they were arrested under new laws passed in a rush only days before. The police gave a personal apology to one of the protesters. The Met is again under fire for their unprofessional conduct, hence the apology and public statement. If they hadn't been given permission would that have been okay? The facts are they sought permission and were given permission, but instead they were arrested and kept in custody from 06.40 to 23.00 no if's or buts just the facts." Are you purposely ignoring some other facts? | |||
| |||
| |||
"The protesters had permission to carry out their protest 4 months ago, they were arrested under new laws passed in a rush only days before. The police gave a personal apology to one of the protesters. The Met is again under fire for their unprofessional conduct, hence the apology and public statement. If they hadn't been given permission would that have been okay? The facts are they sought permission and were given permission, but instead they were arrested and kept in custody from 06.40 to 23.00 no if's or buts just the facts. Are you purposely ignoring some other facts?" Listen you are very argumentative and rude as I have read your posts in the past and you will not abuse or pass your rude comments towards me. it is easy to abuse a person over a keyboard safe that you will not have to face the reality of your actions. do yourself a favour and be polite when speaking to another instead of your hate filled comments. | |||
"The protesters had permission to carry out their protest 4 months ago, they were arrested under new laws passed in a rush only days before. The police gave a personal apology to one of the protesters. The Met is again under fire for their unprofessional conduct, hence the apology and public statement. If they hadn't been given permission would that have been okay? The facts are they sought permission and were given permission, but instead they were arrested and kept in custody from 06.40 to 23.00 no if's or buts just the facts. Are you purposely ignoring some other facts? Listen you are very argumentative and rude as I have read your posts in the past and you will not abuse or pass your rude comments towards me. it is easy to abuse a person over a keyboard safe that you will not have to face the reality of your actions. do yourself a favour and be polite when speaking to another instead of your hate filled comments." Is asking a question now 'hate filled? Give your head a wobble mate, and do not threaten me, I'm happy to face any ' reality you so shall wish  | |||
"All I think is they had permission and still got arrested held for an unaccountable amount of time, given an apology. Will have to pay compensation, which will come from the public purse. There are members of the public who think this behaviour is ok, until it happens to them or a loved one. " Not all the protestors were arrested, the majority of them got on with protesting | |||
"The police acted lawfully to prevent an unlawful act. They got it wrong , hence the apology
They kept public order by arresting them.
A few city fans singing how sh*t United are in the United stands ain't going to go well is it.
They got it wrong, I fully expect this error will cost a few thousand £ "They got it right, they acted under common law to prevent a breach of the peace and to keep the kings peace, guess what it was a coronation day. | |||
"The police acted lawfully to prevent an unlawful act. They got it wrong , hence the apology
They kept public order by arresting them.
A few city fans singing how sh*t United are in the United stands ain't going to go well is it.
They got it wrong, I fully expect this error will cost a few thousand £
They got it right, they acted under common law to prevent a breach of the peace and to keep the kings peace, guess what it was a coronation day. "Unfortunately not, hence the apology this will cost them | |||
"The protesters had permission to carry out their protest 4 months ago, they were arrested under new laws passed in a rush only days before. The police gave a personal apology to one of the protesters. The Met is again under fire for their unprofessional conduct, hence the apology and public statement. If they hadn't been given permission would that have been okay? The facts are they sought permission and were given permission, but instead they were arrested and kept in custody from 06.40 to 23.00 no if's or buts just the facts. Are you purposely ignoring some other facts? Listen you are very argumentative and rude as I have read your posts in the past and you will not abuse or pass your rude comments towards me. it is easy to abuse a person over a keyboard safe that you will not have to face the reality of your actions. do yourself a favour and be polite when speaking to another instead of your hate filled comments." How have they been "rude"...?? Or even "hate filled"...?? | |||
"The police acted lawfully to prevent an unlawful act. They got it wrong , hence the apology
They kept public order by arresting them.
A few city fans singing how sh*t United are in the United stands ain't going to go well is it.
They got it wrong, I fully expect this error will cost a few thousand £
They got it right, they acted under common law to prevent a breach of the peace and to keep the kings peace, guess what it was a coronation day.
Unfortunately not, hence the apology this will cost them "In my opinion they were wrong to issue the apology. | |||
"The protesters had permission to carry out their protest 4 months ago, they were arrested under new laws passed in a rush only days before. The police gave a personal apology to one of the protesters. The Met is again under fire for their unprofessional conduct, hence the apology and public statement. If they hadn't been given permission would that have been okay? The facts are they sought permission and were given permission, but instead they were arrested and kept in custody from 06.40 to 23.00 no if's or buts just the facts. Are you purposely ignoring some other facts? Listen you are very argumentative and rude as I have read your posts in the past and you will not abuse or pass your rude comments towards me. it is easy to abuse a person over a keyboard safe that you will not have to face the reality of your actions. do yourself a favour and be polite when speaking to another instead of your hate filled comments. How have they been "rude"...?? Or even "hate filled"...??" Just press the green arrow. | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors."Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics. You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s). Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday. | |||
"The protesters had permission to carry out their protest 4 months ago, they were arrested under new laws passed in a rush only days before. The police gave a personal apology to one of the protesters. The Met is again under fire for their unprofessional conduct, hence the apology and public statement. If they hadn't been given permission would that have been okay? The facts are they sought permission and were given permission, but instead they were arrested and kept in custody from 06.40 to 23.00 no if's or buts just the facts. Are you purposely ignoring some other facts? Listen you are very argumentative and rude as I have read your posts in the past and you will not abuse or pass your rude comments towards me. it is easy to abuse a person over a keyboard safe that you will not have to face the reality of your actions. do yourself a favour and be polite when speaking to another instead of your hate filled comments. How have they been "rude"...?? Or even "hate filled"...?? Just press the green arrow." Fredflintstone not sure I have witnessed any “hate filled” posts from Feisty! Lots of robust challenge and discussion. Opposing viewpoints sure, but that is what discussion and debate is. But not “hate filled”!  | |||
"The police acted lawfully to prevent an unlawful act. They got it wrong , hence the apology
They kept public order by arresting them.
A few city fans singing how sh*t United are in the United stands ain't going to go well is it.
They got it wrong, I fully expect this error will cost a few thousand £
They got it right, they acted under common law to prevent a breach of the peace and to keep the kings peace, guess what it was a coronation day.
Unfortunately not, hence the apology this will cost them
In my opinion they were wrong to issue the apology. "Fair enough, either way, they have fucked this up | |||
"The police acted lawfully to prevent an unlawful act. They got it wrong , hence the apology
They kept public order by arresting them.
A few city fans singing how sh*t United are in the United stands ain't going to go well is it.
They got it wrong, I fully expect this error will cost a few thousand £
They got it right, they acted under common law to prevent a breach of the peace and to keep the kings peace, guess what it was a coronation day.
Unfortunately not, hence the apology this will cost them
In my opinion they were wrong to issue the apology.
Fair enough, either way, they have fucked this up "They should of run it by me first.  | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday."A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police. A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police. A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past. A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall. Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone. I could go on | |||
"The police acted lawfully to prevent an unlawful act. They got it wrong , hence the apology
They kept public order by arresting them.
A few city fans singing how sh*t United are in the United stands ain't going to go well is it.
They got it wrong, I fully expect this error will cost a few thousand £
They got it right, they acted under common law to prevent a breach of the peace and to keep the kings peace, guess what it was a coronation day.
Unfortunately not, hence the apology this will cost them
In my opinion they were wrong to issue the apology.
Fair enough, either way, they have fucked this up
They should of run it by me first. "Ha, tbh, you would probably do a better job of running the Met , they are a shambles | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on "How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ? | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ? "It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors. I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it. If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?" That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened. | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened. "So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner "I'm not sure what your point is | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner
I'm not sure what your point is"Or the police could arrest people who have running shoes on, just in case
Btw, do you think the best way to glue yourself to the road or disrupt an event is to turn up with a placard or display anything that identifies you as a protestor or do you think they might be more successful if they did it ‘undercover ‘ | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner
I'm not sure what your point is
Or the police could arrest people who have running shoes on, just in case
Btw, do you think the best way to glue yourself to the road or disrupt an event is to turn up with a placard or display anything that identifies you as a protestor or do you think they might be more successful if they did it ‘undercover ‘ "Your argument is getting more bizarre by each post. What exactly are you talking about? | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner
I'm not sure what your point is
Or the police could arrest people who have running shoes on, just in case
Btw, do you think the best way to glue yourself to the road or disrupt an event is to turn up with a placard or display anything that identifies you as a protestor or do you think they might be more successful if they did it ‘undercover ‘ "Can you tell what actions and tactics have been most common from protestors recently? | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner
I'm not sure what your point is
Or the police could arrest people who have running shoes on, just in case
Btw, do you think the best way to glue yourself to the road or disrupt an event is to turn up with a placard or display anything that identifies you as a protestor or do you think they might be more successful if they did it ‘undercover ‘
Your argument is getting more bizarre by each post.
What exactly are you talking about?"I am talking about the new bill and the arrests on Saturday at the coronation , which have been proven to be wrong . Should any protestors be arrested for wearing Nike air zoom trainers as they make you run faster and jump higher?? | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner
I'm not sure what your point is
Or the police could arrest people who have running shoes on, just in case
Btw, do you think the best way to glue yourself to the road or disrupt an event is to turn up with a placard or display anything that identifies you as a protestor or do you think they might be more successful if they did it ‘undercover ‘
Can you tell what actions and tactics have been most common from protestors recently?"Disruption leading to publicity | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner
I'm not sure what your point is
Or the police could arrest people who have running shoes on, just in case
Btw, do you think the best way to glue yourself to the road or disrupt an event is to turn up with a placard or display anything that identifies you as a protestor or do you think they might be more successful if they did it ‘undercover ‘
Your argument is getting more bizarre by each post.
What exactly are you talking about?
I am talking about the new bill and the arrests on Saturday at the coronation , which have been proven to be wrong . Should any protestors be arrested for wearing Nike air zoom trainers as they make you run faster and jump higher?? "They weren't arrested for running. They were arrested for having materials that could be used to 'lock on' and carrying a sharp object. | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner
I'm not sure what your point is
Or the police could arrest people who have running shoes on, just in case
Btw, do you think the best way to glue yourself to the road or disrupt an event is to turn up with a placard or display anything that identifies you as a protestor or do you think they might be more successful if they did it ‘undercover ‘
Can you tell what actions and tactics have been most common from protestors recently?
Disruption leading to publicity "Do you censor yourself often? | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner
I'm not sure what your point is
Or the police could arrest people who have running shoes on, just in case
Btw, do you think the best way to glue yourself to the road or disrupt an event is to turn up with a placard or display anything that identifies you as a protestor or do you think they might be more successful if they did it ‘undercover ‘
Your argument is getting more bizarre by each post.
What exactly are you talking about?
I am talking about the new bill and the arrests on Saturday at the coronation , which have been proven to be wrong . Should any protestors be arrested for wearing Nike air zoom trainers as they make you run faster and jump higher?? "Also, the arrests weren't 'proven to be wrong', the police arrest 'on suspicion of', those suspicions were unfounded and the arrested subsequently released. That's how the law works. | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner
I'm not sure what your point is
Or the police could arrest people who have running shoes on, just in case
Btw, do you think the best way to glue yourself to the road or disrupt an event is to turn up with a placard or display anything that identifies you as a protestor or do you think they might be more successful if they did it ‘undercover ‘
Your argument is getting more bizarre by each post.
What exactly are you talking about?
I am talking about the new bill and the arrests on Saturday at the coronation , which have been proven to be wrong . Should any protestors be arrested for wearing Nike air zoom trainers as they make you run faster and jump higher??
They weren't arrested for running.
They were arrested for having materials that could be used to 'lock on' and carrying a sharp object."Wrongfully arrested, but wearing running trainers would have ‘assisted’ them if they wanted to get over the fence | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner
I'm not sure what your point is
Or the police could arrest people who have running shoes on, just in case
Btw, do you think the best way to glue yourself to the road or disrupt an event is to turn up with a placard or display anything that identifies you as a protestor or do you think they might be more successful if they did it ‘undercover ‘
Your argument is getting more bizarre by each post.
What exactly are you talking about?
I am talking about the new bill and the arrests on Saturday at the coronation , which have been proven to be wrong . Should any protestors be arrested for wearing Nike air zoom trainers as they make you run faster and jump higher??
They weren't arrested for running.
They were arrested for having materials that could be used to 'lock on' and carrying a sharp object.
Wrongfully arrested, but wearing running trainers would have ‘assisted’ them if they wanted to get over the fence "Lawfully arrested. | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner
I'm not sure what your point is
Or the police could arrest people who have running shoes on, just in case
Btw, do you think the best way to glue yourself to the road or disrupt an event is to turn up with a placard or display anything that identifies you as a protestor or do you think they might be more successful if they did it ‘undercover ‘
Your argument is getting more bizarre by each post.
What exactly are you talking about?
I am talking about the new bill and the arrests on Saturday at the coronation , which have been proven to be wrong . Should any protestors be arrested for wearing Nike air zoom trainers as they make you run faster and jump higher??
Also, the arrests weren't 'proven to be wrong', the police arrest 'on suspicion of', those suspicions were unfounded and the arrested subsequently released. That's how the law works. "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. | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner
I'm not sure what your point is
Or the police could arrest people who have running shoes on, just in case
Btw, do you think the best way to glue yourself to the road or disrupt an event is to turn up with a placard or display anything that identifies you as a protestor or do you think they might be more successful if they did it ‘undercover ‘
Your argument is getting more bizarre by each post.
What exactly are you talking about?
I am talking about the new bill and the arrests on Saturday at the coronation , which have been proven to be wrong . Should any protestors be arrested for wearing Nike air zoom trainers as they make you run faster and jump higher??
They weren't arrested for running.
They were arrested for having materials that could be used to 'lock on' and carrying a sharp object.
Wrongfully arrested, but wearing running trainers would have ‘assisted’ them if they wanted to get over the fence
Lawfully arrested."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. | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner
I'm not sure what your point is
Or the police could arrest people who have running shoes on, just in case
Btw, do you think the best way to glue yourself to the road or disrupt an event is to turn up with a placard or display anything that identifies you as a protestor or do you think they might be more successful if they did it ‘undercover ‘
Your argument is getting more bizarre by each post.
What exactly are you talking about?
I am talking about the new bill and the arrests on Saturday at the coronation , which have been proven to be wrong . Should any protestors be arrested for wearing Nike air zoom trainers as they make you run faster and jump higher??
Also, the arrests weren't 'proven to be wrong', the police arrest 'on suspicion of', those suspicions were unfounded and the arrested subsequently released. That's how the law works. "they also conveniently forget that lots of protestors were left alone to protest... | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner
I'm not sure what your point is
Or the police could arrest people who have running shoes on, just in case
Btw, do you think the best way to glue yourself to the road or disrupt an event is to turn up with a placard or display anything that identifies you as a protestor or do you think they might be more successful if they did it ‘undercover ‘
Your argument is getting more bizarre by each post.
What exactly are you talking about?
I am talking about the new bill and the arrests on Saturday at the coronation , which have been proven to be wrong . Should any protestors be arrested for wearing Nike air zoom trainers as they make you run faster and jump higher??
They weren't arrested for running.
They were arrested for having materials that could be used to 'lock on' and carrying a sharp object.
Wrongfully arrested, but wearing running trainers would have ‘assisted’ them if they wanted to get over the fence
Lawfully arrested.
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. "Tey quoting what the Met actually said and not what a newspaper reported | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner
I'm not sure what your point is
Or the police could arrest people who have running shoes on, just in case
Btw, do you think the best way to glue yourself to the road or disrupt an event is to turn up with a placard or display anything that identifies you as a protestor or do you think they might be more successful if they did it ‘undercover ‘
Your argument is getting more bizarre by each post.
What exactly are you talking about?
I am talking about the new bill and the arrests on Saturday at the coronation , which have been proven to be wrong . Should any protestors be arrested for wearing Nike air zoom trainers as they make you run faster and jump higher??
They weren't arrested for running.
They were arrested for having materials that could be used to 'lock on' and carrying a sharp object.
Wrongfully arrested, but wearing running trainers would have ‘assisted’ them if they wanted to get over the fence
Lawfully arrested.
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.
Tey quoting what the Met actually said and not what a newspaper reported"Why did they apologise | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner
I'm not sure what your point is
Or the police could arrest people who have running shoes on, just in case
Btw, do you think the best way to glue yourself to the road or disrupt an event is to turn up with a placard or display anything that identifies you as a protestor or do you think they might be more successful if they did it ‘undercover ‘
Your argument is getting more bizarre by each post.
What exactly are you talking about?
I am talking about the new bill and the arrests on Saturday at the coronation , which have been proven to be wrong . Should any protestors be arrested for wearing Nike air zoom trainers as they make you run faster and jump higher??
They weren't arrested for running.
They were arrested for having materials that could be used to 'lock on' and carrying a sharp object.
Wrongfully arrested, but wearing running trainers would have ‘assisted’ them if they wanted to get over the fence
Lawfully arrested.
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.
Tey quoting what the Met actually said and not what a newspaper reported
Why did they apologise "Quote The Mets apology... I've already quoted it twice for you. | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner
I'm not sure what your point is
Or the police could arrest people who have running shoes on, just in case
Btw, do you think the best way to glue yourself to the road or disrupt an event is to turn up with a placard or display anything that identifies you as a protestor or do you think they might be more successful if they did it ‘undercover ‘
Your argument is getting more bizarre by each post.
What exactly are you talking about?
I am talking about the new bill and the arrests on Saturday at the coronation , which have been proven to be wrong . Should any protestors be arrested for wearing Nike air zoom trainers as they make you run faster and jump higher??
They weren't arrested for running.
They were arrested for having materials that could be used to 'lock on' and carrying a sharp object.
Wrongfully arrested, but wearing running trainers would have ‘assisted’ them if they wanted to get over the fence
Lawfully arrested.
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.
Tey quoting what the Met actually said and not what a newspaper reported
Why did they apologise
Quote The Mets apology...
I've already quoted it twice for you."‘Regret’ and ‘unfortunate’, they have fucked up yet again, this will cost the tax payers £1000s | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner
I'm not sure what your point is
Or the police could arrest people who have running shoes on, just in case
Btw, do you think the best way to glue yourself to the road or disrupt an event is to turn up with a placard or display anything that identifies you as a protestor or do you think they might be more successful if they did it ‘undercover ‘
Your argument is getting more bizarre by each post.
What exactly are you talking about?
I am talking about the new bill and the arrests on Saturday at the coronation , which have been proven to be wrong . Should any protestors be arrested for wearing Nike air zoom trainers as they make you run faster and jump higher??
They weren't arrested for running.
They were arrested for having materials that could be used to 'lock on' and carrying a sharp object.
Wrongfully arrested, but wearing running trainers would have ‘assisted’ them if they wanted to get over the fence
Lawfully arrested.
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.
Tey quoting what the Met actually said and not what a newspaper reported
Why did they apologise
Quote The Mets apology...
I've already quoted it twice for you.
‘Regret’ and ‘unfortunate’, they have fucked up yet again, this will cost the tax payers £1000s "How about we have an adult discussion about it rather than you trying to control the narrative? Here is what the Met said: The Met said the group of six were detained after items were found in a vehicle which officers "had reasonable grounds to believe could be used as lock on devices". But the force said it was "unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event". One man in the group was also arrested for possession of a knife or pointed article. The Met said it was "not clear at the time" to the arresting officers that "at least one of the group stopped had been engaging with police" about holding a lawful protest prior to the Coronation. "We regret that those six people arrested were unable to join the wider group of protesters in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere on the procession route," a statement continued. | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
How would the new bill have prevented any of these incidents ?
It wasn't about the new bill rather the way the coronation was being policed based on the risk from protestors.
I said "we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?"
That was challenged as you can't simply climb over the fences, hence the examples of when it has happened.
So the new bill won’t stop people running onto roads etc, they should consider building bigger fences , or just arrest anyone who is good at jumping and is a fast runner
I'm not sure what your point is
Or the police could arrest people who have running shoes on, just in case
Btw, do you think the best way to glue yourself to the road or disrupt an event is to turn up with a placard or display anything that identifies you as a protestor or do you think they might be more successful if they did it ‘undercover ‘
Your argument is getting more bizarre by each post.
What exactly are you talking about?
I am talking about the new bill and the arrests on Saturday at the coronation , which have been proven to be wrong . Should any protestors be arrested for wearing Nike air zoom trainers as they make you run faster and jump higher??
They weren't arrested for running.
They were arrested for having materials that could be used to 'lock on' and carrying a sharp object.
Wrongfully arrested, but wearing running trainers would have ‘assisted’ them if they wanted to get over the fence
Lawfully arrested.
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.
Tey quoting what the Met actually said and not what a newspaper reported
Why did they apologise
Quote The Mets apology...
I've already quoted it twice for you.
‘Regret’ and ‘unfortunate’, they have fucked up yet again, this will cost the tax payers £1000s
How about we have an adult discussion about it rather than you trying to control the narrative?
Here is what the Met said:
The Met said the group of six were detained after items were found in a vehicle which officers "had reasonable grounds to believe could be used as lock on devices".
But the force said it was "unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event".
One man in the group was also arrested for possession of a knife or pointed article.
The Met said it was "not clear at the time" to the arresting officers that "at least one of the group stopped had been engaging with police" about holding a lawful protest prior to the Coronation.
"We regret that those six people arrested were unable to join the wider group of protesters in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere on the procession route," a statement continued."Regret, they fucked up | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on "So to me that shouts “inadequate badly planned and executed security for the event”. I would argue that anyone serious about attempting something like that would be covert and keep a low profile until doing it, in which case the pre-emptive actions would be irrelevant. If you were going to climb over the fence on Saturday you were never going to be more than 5 feet from an armed police officer (spaced ten feet apart). Ironically arresting these anti-monarchists has given them more exposure then leaving them be as they were roundly ignored by the media for the most part. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"I think the reply+quote and jolly repartee has derailed yet another thread "Sorry , anyway, it looks like the Met have made a big error regarding these arrests, the new bill needs more clarity, it is far too ambiguous | |||
"I think the reply+quote and jolly repartee has derailed yet another thread "You're right, it's a shame this forum hasn't been updated to something more modern. I know this has nothing to do with the thread but it would help with your complaint | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
So to me that shouts “inadequate badly planned and executed security for the event”. I would argue that anyone serious about attempting something like that would be covert and keep a low profile until doing it, in which case the pre-emptive actions would be irrelevant.
If you were going to climb over the fence on Saturday you were never going to be more than 5 feet from an armed police officer (spaced ten feet apart).
Ironically arresting these anti-monarchists has given them more exposure then leaving them be as they were roundly ignored by the media for the most part. "It wasn't poorly planned it was planned very well but that is not what I was saying... I said that an event of this nature the police are going to control it and are expected to control it by the nation, it is after all their job. My point is as mentioned earlier, that the policing methods will change and they would rather ask for forgiveness than get it badly wrong. The examples I provided were of people gaining access, you said they couldn't but as my examples show, they can and have got onto the Mall. With the tactics of protestors being locking on or sitting in front of, the police took action and rightly in my opinion. Let us not forget that we are talking 6 people in this group the rest were left to protest, the protests were not shut down they were allowed to continue. | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
So to me that shouts “inadequate badly planned and executed security for the event”. I would argue that anyone serious about attempting something like that would be covert and keep a low profile until doing it, in which case the pre-emptive actions would be irrelevant.
If you were going to climb over the fence on Saturday you were never going to be more than 5 feet from an armed police officer (spaced ten feet apart).
Ironically arresting these anti-monarchists has given them more exposure then leaving them be as they were roundly ignored by the media for the most part.
It wasn't poorly planned it was planned very well but that is not what I was saying...
I said that an event of this nature the police are going to control it and are expected to control it by the nation, it is after all their job.
My point is as mentioned earlier, that the policing methods will change and they would rather ask for forgiveness than get it badly wrong.
The examples I provided were of people gaining access, you said they couldn't but as my examples show, they can and have got onto the Mall. With the tactics of protestors being locking on or sitting in front of, the police took action and rightly in my opinion.
Let us not forget that we are talking 6 people in this group the rest were left to protest, the protests were not shut down they were allowed to continue. "The police have admitted that they got it wrong though | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
So to me that shouts “inadequate badly planned and executed security for the event”. I would argue that anyone serious about attempting something like that would be covert and keep a low profile until doing it, in which case the pre-emptive actions would be irrelevant.
If you were going to climb over the fence on Saturday you were never going to be more than 5 feet from an armed police officer (spaced ten feet apart).
Ironically arresting these anti-monarchists has given them more exposure then leaving them be as they were roundly ignored by the media for the most part.
It wasn't poorly planned it was planned very well but that is not what I was saying...
I said that an event of this nature the police are going to control it and are expected to control it by the nation, it is after all their job.
My point is as mentioned earlier, that the policing methods will change and they would rather ask for forgiveness than get it badly wrong.
The examples I provided were of people gaining access, you said they couldn't but as my examples show, they can and have got onto the Mall. With the tactics of protestors being locking on or sitting in front of, the police took action and rightly in my opinion.
Let us not forget that we are talking 6 people in this group the rest were left to protest, the protests were not shut down they were allowed to continue.
The police have admitted that they got it wrong though "They were wrong after an investigation into the arrests, which I'm fine with. I would not have been fine with them turning a blind eye and getting it wrong. The rest of the protestors, protested and made their point, the protests were not stopped. | |||
"Not followed this closely at all. Q. What did the protestors do that warranted arrest? My understanding is they are temporarily detained, not to stop them making their protest, but in order to prevent an incident, a breach of the peace. Can you imagine, say, 5 anti Royal protesters going into a large crowd of fervent monachists who are cheering the King? They could easily become the target of abuse and/or violence. I know this power can be abused by the police but the principal is good; preserving the peace. That is why the police herd the protesters into an area where they can be monitored and protected. I agree with this
We have seen the tactics used by recent protestors such as sitting in the road. The consequences of attempting to jump the barrier and run towards the carriage could be life changing....
So...it is a bit like Minority Report but with less certainty of intent or outcome. In other words a guess that these protestors might do something, but no certainty they will do something? A pre-emptive strike? Based on what intel?
If you needed to write a risk report on the chances of disruption and what type of disruption could occur, what would you have put in it based on what you know about previous protester behaviours and tactics?
I still think this is a dangerous precedent and seems to underpin some people’s concerns about preventing all forms of effective protest.
The Met themselves have said this...
“We have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest.
Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.”
Totally pre-emptive and without real substance.
People are not concerned when it stops protestors protesting about things they do not agree with, but what happens when it is something you do support or feel strongly about.
Generally (not specifically in this case) I continue to think the Public Order Bill is a concern. The UN seems to agree!
I have seen this and I understand their response, but the question was if you were asked to write a risk assessment on the chances and tactics of protestors what would you have highlighted as risks, let's also not forget that this would be an event of the highest national security threat and risk.
The risk assessment would have highlighted the necessary and proportionate mitigating actions already planned to ensure security. These included armed police officers standing every 10ft facing the crowd along the entire route. Plain clothes officers throughout the crowd. Snipers on the rooftops. Aerial recon with helicopters and drones. 4,000 armed military personnel marching in the procession. Crowd corralled behind abdomen height linked fences.
Let’s get real here. Nobody was getting anywhere near any member of the royal family. This was about suppression of any dissenting or protesting voices.
And we know the protestors favourite tactic is to run in front and block. You think they wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but they have a track record for it.
If one or more protestors did try and jump the barrier and run towards the carriage and was shot how would that be for an outcome, satisfactory or outrageous? Or if a bad actor intent on hitting the target used the tactic to soften the response and allow them an extra few seconds, what would be the debate today?
In my opinion there will be events that may need a stronger approach to ensure the safety of everyone, that includes the general public and the protestors.
Oh come on that totally conflates tactics that are possible to execute during normal circumstances vs trying to do the same under the watchful eye of probably the highest security event run in the UK since the Olympics.
You cannot simply climb over an abdomen height barrier (amongst an extremely densely crowded group of people) under the watchful eye of armed police officers and rush in front of the royal carriage(s).
Saying people like Just Oil do things like that at petrol stations or motorways or oil refineries is simply not the same. No way anti monarchists could have pulled off something like that on Saturday.
A man jumped the fences on the Mall during the King Charles Accession ceremony last September and tackled by armed police.
A man jumped the fences interrupting the trooping of the colour in June and was taken to the ground by armed police.
A man tried to get over the barriers at the cenotaph when the queens coffin was going past.
A man fired six blanks from a pistol at the queen on the Mall.
Protestors jumped fences and got onto the track at Silverstone.
I could go on
So to me that shouts “inadequate badly planned and executed security for the event”. I would argue that anyone serious about attempting something like that would be covert and keep a low profile until doing it, in which case the pre-emptive actions would be irrelevant.
If you were going to climb over the fence on Saturday you were never going to be more than 5 feet from an armed police officer (spaced ten feet apart).
Ironically arresting these anti-monarchists has given them more exposure then leaving them be as they were roundly ignored by the media for the most part.
It wasn't poorly planned it was planned very well but that is not what I was saying...
I said that an event of this nature the police are going to control it and are expected to control it by the nation, it is after all their job.
My point is as mentioned earlier, that the policing methods will change and they would rather ask for forgiveness than get it badly wrong.
The examples I provided were of people gaining access, you said they couldn't but as my examples show, they can and have got onto the Mall. With the tactics of protestors being locking on or sitting in front of, the police took action and rightly in my opinion.
Let us not forget that we are talking 6 people in this group the rest were left to protest, the protests were not shut down they were allowed to continue.
The police have admitted that they got it wrong though
They were wrong after an investigation into the arrests, which I'm fine with. I would not have been fine with them turning a blind eye and getting it wrong.
The rest of the protestors, protested and made their point, the protests were not stopped."As it seems that only a few were detained and the protest went ahead it appears it was the implementation or interpretation of this new law that was at fault and ultimately the police appear to have got it wrong with the few that were held. Maybe the new law needs to to be clearer. That said it seems the police decided on being better get it wrong with holding a few protesters than wrong with possible dire consequences with the world looking on. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"In 1066 William or Normandy invaded England and killed the Saxon King. The Saxon system of rulership, while still a monarchy, was arguably fairer and more egalitarian. Over the next few years, Norman armies ripped through the country destroying villages, burning churches and stealing land. It's estimated that 100,000 people died from starvation as a result. He built castles to frighten and subjugate and reduced free people to serfs, he took away property rights and forced women to marry Normans in order to remain on their land. To enable all of this he gave stoIen land to Norman immigrants in return for military favours, and thus the aristocracy as we know it today was created. Regardless of surname, every English monarch since then is a descendent of William I, and (regardless of any declared neutrality) they still benefit from the spoils of his invasion via the Crown Estate. I get why people like all the pomp and circumstance, but considering how they got their wealth, the amount of support for this establishment is just baffling. "I award you the medal for the longest held grudge (caveat outside of biblical stuff) I hope you’re seeking reparations from France, can you pencil in those reparations that we officially get Boudreaux back and we keep what we have in the Dordogne | |||
"I award you the medal for the longest held grudge (caveat outside of biblical stuff) I hope you’re seeking reparations from France, can you pencil in those reparations that we officially get Boudreaux back and we keep what we have in the Dordogne "Well, I didn't say I held a grudge, I said I was baffled -- largely at working and middle class people who fawn over the Royal charade -- it makes no sense and presents like some kind of ancestral Stockholm Syndrome. Of course, we cannot change history, but we can educate ourselves to the fact that the entire royal charade is built on theft and the sycophants who enabled it. However, if you wish to grant me a medal, then please let me know how I can collect it and under whose authority it was issued. | |||
| |||
"I award you the medal for the longest held grudge (caveat outside of biblical stuff) I hope you’re seeking reparations from France, can you pencil in those reparations that we officially get Boudreaux back and we keep what we have in the Dordogne
Well, I didn't say I held a grudge, I said I was baffled -- largely at working and middle class people who fawn over the Royal charade -- it makes no sense and presents like some kind of ancestral Stockholm Syndrome.
Of course, we cannot change history, but we can educate ourselves to the fact that the entire royal charade is built on theft and the sycophants who enabled it.
However, if you wish to grant me a medal, then please let me know how I can collect it and under whose authority it was issued. "Your medal is granted under the highest order of the land, fab swinging medals. You will obviously need to complete the reparations requests and ensure I have at least 2 vineyards in the St Emillion regions and the usual swanky pad next to the river down in Dordogne. Welcome aboard, we have a huge ceremony lined up for you and your carriage will pick you up at 10:30 sharp next Saturday, you will need to share the bank holiday | |||
| |||
| |||
