Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, SwearyCanary said:

Did the look Ady with an anti monarchy dog get arrested for anything in particular? I get the breaching of the peace thing, but holding up a sign in a public place that is not offensive to a protected group isn’t something that you can in all good conscience censor? I guess they could have moved her on for her own safety. 

What are you holding up a blank sign for? It's obvious trolling and they should be arrested also. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What are you holding up a blank sign for? It's obvious trolling and they should be arrested also. 

Lots of typos soz 😂. Lady with anti monarchy sign it should’ve read. 

What’s the issue here? Peaceful Anti government protests happen all the time. I totally agree with a death/funeral march it’s in poor taste but it’s not illegal 

Edited by SwearyCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see after playing the race card, his pathetic apology and the mental health card, he has now posted a selfie with his dog on Twitter.

He's finished. Absolute moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

Lots of typos soz 😂. Lady with anti monarchy sign it should’ve read. 

What’s the issue here? Peaceful Anti government protests happen all the time. I totally agree with a death/funeral march it’s in poor taste but it’s not illegal 

This isn't anti-government protest; it's anti-monarchy protest at an event where a huge majority of the public are there specifically to pay their respects to the late Queen. People turning up to such events protesting the monarchy are clearly risking creating a breach of the peace, which is an offence under UK law and a lawful cause for arrest. 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

This isn't anti-government protest; it's anti-monarchy protest at an event where a huge majority of the public are there specifically to pay their respects to the late Queen. People turning up to such events protesting the monarchy are clearly risking creating a breach of the peace, which is an offence under the UK law and a lawful cause for arrest. 

Fair enough. So was arrested for having the potential to create a breach of the peace? So if people didn’t react to her sign, could she be arrested for something that might not have happened? Genuine question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

Did the lady with an anti monarchy sign get arrested for anything in particular? I get the breaching of the peace thing, but holding up a sign in a public place that is not offensive to a protected group isn’t something that you can in all good conscience censor? I guess they could have moved her on for her own safety. 

She wasn't being disrespectful to the queen or the mourning. She was simply protesting Charles getting the crown. People should be allowed to show dissent.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

This isn't anti-government protest; it's anti-monarchy protest at an event where a huge majority of the public are there specifically to pay their respects to the late Queen. People turning up to such events protesting the monarchy are clearly risking creating a breach of the peace, which is an offence under UK law and a lawful cause for arrest. 

And also, why do anti monarchy protests have greater importance than anti government ones? I’ve seen loads of protests where supporters of one thing are on a march celebrating something (eg Brexit) and the opposition are right there protesting it. No one getting arrested. Why? Again, genuine question 

Edited by SwearyCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Herman said:

She wasn't being disrespectful to the queen or the mourning. She was simply protesting Charles getting the crown. People should be allowed to show dissent.

Charles is her son and her rightful heir as her first-born son. Absolutely it's disrespectful to her to challenge her son's right to succeed her after her death, especially during the grieving period amongst a huge number of people there to pay respects upon her passing. 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, alex_ncfc said:

I see after playing the race card, his pathetic apology and the mental health card, he has now posted a selfie with his dog on Twitter.

He's finished. Absolute moron.

It is a cute dog though

 

02B57192-957C-4A78-8AB2-D8FD9364328C.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Charles is her son and her rightful heir as her first-born son. Absolutely it's disrespectful to her to challenge her son's right to succeed her after her death, especially during the grieving period amongst a huge number of people their to pay respects upon her passing. 

But is it illegal? 

And the challenge is not to the Queen, it’s to whether Charles should be king. That wasn’t her decision. No idea whose decision it actually is? Does anyone know who came up with rules of succession

Edited by SwearyCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SwearyCanary said:

But is it illegal? 

Well yes, because it's reasonable grounds to believe that the actions can lead to a breach of the peace; that is the bar that has to be met for the arrest to be lawful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

Well yes, because it's reasonable grounds to believe that the actions can lead to a breach of the peace; that is the bar that has to be met for the arrest to be lawful. 

So in a parade for Tommy Robinson and his followers, would people be arrested for walking through with a BLM banner? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will be released without charge BUT any perceived threat, genuine or otherwise would have passed by then. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Charles is her son and her rightful heir as her first-born son. Absolutely it's disrespectful to her to challenge her son's right to succeed her after her death, especially during the grieving period amongst a huge number of people there to pay respects upon her passing. 

So people have to keep quiet for ages for something they fundamentally disagree with? It's nonsense and you know it.

As a republican I was more than willing to keep my opinions on the monarchy to myself for a couple of days out of respect but you can't keep forcing it on people. You're going to cause a lot of anger with this draconian outlook.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Herman said:

So people have to keep quiet for ages for something they fundamentally disagree with? It's nonsense and you know it.

As a republican I was more than willing to keep my opinions on the monarchy to myself for a couple of days out of respect but you can't keep forcing it on people. You're going to cause a lot of anger with this draconian outlook.

10 days, and they would be perfectly free to protest somewhere away from the Queen's procession and royal dwellings where mourners are gathering where there's no risk of them creating a breach of the peace by their actions. 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve just looked up breach of the peace and it very explicitly stated the behaviour HAS to be ‘riotous’ or ‘disorderly’. Holding a sign is neither of these things birdie. That’s not to say there isn’t some law that prohibits it, and again I think it’s in very poor taste, but clearly not illegal, therefore unlawful arrest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

10 days, and they would be perfectly free to protest somewhere away from the Queen's procession. 

That’s very generous of you to give your permission. 10 days of mourning is excessive in my mind. And there won’t be a procession in ten days will there? So any protest loses its strength. You wouldn’t protest against a nuclear power plant being built after it was already there

Edited by SwearyCanary
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SwearyCanary said:

That’s very generous of you to give your permission. 10 days of mourning is excessive in my mind. 

I didn't set the 10 days. I'm just telling you what the protocol is, what the law is and why it's lawful for those we've seen arrested to be arrested. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

I didn't set the 10 days. I'm just telling you what the protocol is, what the law is and why it's lawful for those we've seen arrested to be arrested. 

But I’ve literally looked up the law and it states differently. Are you in law? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SwearyCanary said:

But I’ve literally looked up the law and it states differently. Are you in law? 

It is now widely accepted that the correct definition for breach of the peace is that which was given in the case R v. Howell (1981), ie, that the behaviour of the person involved caused the police officer (or private citizen) to believe that:

  1. a breach of the peace had or would occur; and that
  2. it related to harm which was actually done or likely to be done to a person or, in his/her presence, their property.

I'm not in law, but the fact we're seeing a lot of SJWs squawking about the arrests, but not actual lawyers, suggests I've interpreted correctly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can, be arrested on suspicion of.....and then subsequently released. 

So arrested on suspicion of behavior likely to cause a disturbance......but then discharged when that suspicion is unfounded (which reads the impact of their protest has minimized). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It is now widely accepted that the correct definition for breach of the peace is that which was given in the case R v. Howell (1981), ie, that the behaviour of the person involved caused the police officer (or private citizen) to believe that:

  1. a breach of the peace had or would occur; and that
  2. it related to harm which was actually done or likely to be done to a person or, in his/her presence, their property.

I'm not in law, but the fact we're seeing a lot of SJWs squawking about the arrests, but not actual lawyers, suggests I've interpreted correctly. 

But the people protesting won’t have caused the actual breach of the peace by peacefully protesting surely, it’s possible that someone punching them will cause a breach of the peace. Confusing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Greavsy said:

You can, be arrested on suspicion of.....and then subsequently released. 

So arrested on suspicion of behavior likely to cause a disturbance......but then discharged when that suspicion is unfounded (which reads the impact of their protest has minimized). 

So can the police effectively shut down any protest through arrests? Because essentially any protest could lead to this happening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, SwearyCanary said:

So can the police effectively shut down any protest through arrests? Because essentially any protest could lead to this happening. 

Theoretically I'd assume so. But I'm no expert. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Herman said:

So do we have to mourn for ten days by law?

Only when you're not at the football...... ☺ 

Edited by Greavsy
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

But the people protesting won’t have caused the actual breach of the peace by peacefully protesting surely, it’s possible that someone punching them will cause a breach of the peace. Confusing. 

The risk in the situation is that their protest will incite a violent backlash against them. The easiest way to diffuse that and to keep the peace is to remove the protestor to prevent a disturbance and for their safety.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Theoretically I'd assume so. But I'm no expert. 

 

I don't think so. If you're protesting among a group of protesters protesting the same thing then there's no risk of them turning violent against you; it's reasonable to presume that it'll be peaceful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is bad. Boo to those fascistic Russians.

Watch: Russian cops arrest woman for holding a blank sign | Boing Boing

This is fine and dandy. Well done British bobbies.

Protester with 'not my King' poster led away as Charles III addresses  parliament - Mirror Online

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...