Extinction Rebellion protesters - what to do?

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
The Legislation clearly states that Section 14 applies to a particular time and place :
"If the senior police officer, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any public assembly is being held" Public Order Act 1986

Not to a whole city for a range of dates.. I don't think the judges had much choice. That sort of restriction would be tantamount to martial law...Let's be honest these are tossers who can't use a hosepipe, not a source of imminent nationwide disaster..

"Now we have the High Court saying that they can overrule the police"

The Police should be above the law?
What you demonstrate is the POA is out of date. The protesters see the whole city as a target, why should the police not deal the same way?

The police are not above the law, but is there one for protesters and a different one for police?
 
What you demonstrate is the POA is out of date. The protesters see the whole city as a target, why should the police not deal the same way?

The police are not above the law, but is there one for protesters and a different one for police?
Indeed.

with many judicial decisions seemingly supporting the miscreant rather than the victim.

judges seem so out of touch now it's almost s if we need arbitrary sentencing with the judge just overseeing whether they're guilty or not.
 
We'll get back to you when a few deaths have been attributed to blocked in ambulances...
Well apparently we can let people walk around after organising the untimely cremation of 73 souls without invoking special powers to deal with the problem.. So likely there would be no effective official response. I believe that the Police lack the manpower and resources to mitigate the likely public reaction.
 

Awol

LE
The Legislation clearly states that Section 14 applies to a particular time and place :
"If the senior police officer, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any public assembly is being held" Public Order Act 1986

Not to a whole city for a range of dates.. I don't think the judges had much choice. That sort of restriction would be tantamount to martial law...Let's be honest these are tossers who can't use a hosepipe, not a source of imminent nationwide disaster..

"Now we have the High Court saying that they can overrule the police"

The Police should be above the law?
IIRC XR had applied, and been granted, permission to legally protest in specific places, eg Trafalgar Square. They then abused that, and squatted down illegally just about everywhere. The Sect. 14 only denied them the right to stay in those illegal locations and told them to proceed to the sites they'd already been allocated to continue their legal protests.

The courts appear to me, the layman, to be ignoring the letter of the law and instead interpreting it in a way that looks like bias in favour of XR, just like when the Supreme Court ignored the fact that proroguing Parliament was in fact legal to the letter of the law, but chose to second-guess the PM's 'intent', and banned it anyway, because that suited their (declared) Remainer agenda.
 
IIRC XR had applied, and been granted, permission to legally protest in specific places, eg Trafalgar Square. They then abused that, and squatted down illegally just about everywhere. The Sect. 14 only denied them the right to stay in those illegal locations and told them to proceed to the sites they'd already been allocated to continue their legal protests.
Yes that's what happened, they were forcibly removed, tents destroyed etc. However I think the issue is that they were then removed from Traf Square, where they had been told they could lawfully assemble. Not sure why that was done.
 
When the public stop believing in the effectiveness of law and order and start taking things in hand themselves there will be tears on both sides. Even if we don't agree with it (and I don't) some things are still best left to the police and courts. Mind you I suspect that setting fire to a couple of the crusties would stop the protests relatively quickly.
Mmmm.. I love the smell of burning crusties in the morning..
download.jpg
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
Yes that's what happened, they were forcibly removed, tents destroyed etc. However I think the issue is that they were then removed from Traf Square, where they had been told they could lawfully assemble. Not sure why that was done.
Because the pigeons had nowhere to go!
 
Because the pigeons had nowhere to go!
I thought some of our perennial Arrse belters kept them at bay by shouting at them. Lobster, bravo bravo, redshit, brotherton lad, ljonesy yes I mean you throbbers.
 
What you demonstrate is the POA is out of date. The protesters see the whole city as a target, why should the police not deal the same way?
Well then that's for Parliament to discuss.... but even then it's going to run into the issue that the kind of use the Met made of S:14 was in principle a ban on any 2 people assembling anywhere in London because "!“Any assembly linked to the Extinction Rebellion ‘Autumn Uprising’… " is a very amorphous and ill defined term.. Even then any new powers granted on that scale would likely require proscribing the organising body or declaring a state of local/national emergency...
 
Yes that's what happened, they were forcibly removed, tents destroyed etc. However I think the issue is that they were then removed from Traf Square, where they had been told they could lawfully assemble. Not sure why that was done.
I only know what I witnessed but the forcible removal from Trafalgar Sq was of the very large numbers of tents/blockades in the roads. They had only been ok'd to protest in the pedestrian area of the square itself iirc.
 
I only know what I witnessed but the forcible removal from Trafalgar Sq was of the very large numbers of tents/blockades in the roads. They had only been ok'd to protest in the pedestrian area of the square itself iirc.
My understanding also, so I dunno why the decision was taken, after site clearances and clearing the roads, to actually clear Traf Square itself. They weren't doing any harm there, only disrupting the tourists and stinking the place out.
 
Well then that's for Parliament to discuss.... but even then it's going to run into the issue that the kind of use the Met made of S:14 was in principle a ban on any 2 people assembling anywhere in London because "!“Any assembly linked to the Extinction Rebellion ‘Autumn Uprising’… " is a very amorphous and ill defined term.. Even then any new powers granted on that scale would likely require proscribing the organising body or declaring a state of local/national emergency...
Personally i'd like to see the whole issue approached from the other side. There is very little need for physical protests in the modern age so start from a point that unless authorised with appropriate stewarding plans in place and a deposit with plod to cover costs in the event of police intervention being required then they are banned. Might make all manner of belters think twice before trying to clog up town.
 
IIRC XR had applied, and been granted, permission to legally protest in specific places, eg Trafalgar Square. They then abused that, and squatted down illegally just about everywhere. The Sect. 14 only denied them the right to stay in those illegal locations and told them to proceed to the sites they'd already been allocated to continue their legal protests.
The S:14 notice before the court was this one:

"In the light of all the information before him, Superintendent McMillan formed the judgment that it was necessary to impose a further condition under section 14 of the 1986 Act. He did so at 1900 on 14 October, in these terms: “Any assembly linked to the Extinction Rebellion “Autumn Uprising” (publicised as being from 7th October to 19th October at 1800 hours) must now cease their protest(s) within London (MPS & City of London Police Areas) by 2100 hours 14th October 2019.” 29 The condition was publicised in a tweet from the Metropolitan Police Service (“MPS”) Twitter account at 2152 on the same evening, together with a warning that “conditions have been imposed by the senior police officer present in order to prevent serious disruption to the life of the community” and that should you fail to comply with the conditions you run the risk of being arrested and prosecuted”.

See https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Jones-Ors-v-Comm-of-Police-Approved-judgment.pdf

About the earlier notice the court states :

""In those circumstances, at 0550 on 8 October, Superintendent McMillan imposed a condition under section 14(1) of the 1986 Act in the following terms: “Any assembly linked to Extinction Rebellion ‘Autumn Uprising’ and those linked to it who wish to continue with their assembly MUST go to Trafalgar Square the location of Burning Earth.” 25 This condition was publicised by a notice, which contained a warning that the condition had been imposed by the “Senior Police Officer present” and that “should you fail to comply with the conditions you run a risk of being arrested and prosecuted”. The legality of this condition was not in issue before us." (My Bold)
 
Last edited:

NSP

LE
When the public stop believing in the effectiveness of law and order and start taking things in hand themselves there will be tears on both sides. Even if we don't agree with it (and I don't) some things are still best left to the police and courts. Mind you I suspect that setting fire to a couple of the crusties would stop the protests relatively quickly.
Like a "Bugger off or we'll turn you into carbon-heavy pollution" sort of thing? Should work in a "not part of the solution, adding to the problem" stylee.
 
Not only is it the public perception that the crusties were handled with kid gloves during the actual protests, now they see that the protestors were given carte blanche to vandalise property without consequences, and also that the police will have to recompense them if they do get arrested (which is their declared aim anyway).

There is a perfect storm brewing, and the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the judiciary who it seems, are biased in the favour of XR.
The judiciary have become politicised, as we have seen with recent rulings regarding the Brexit process. This has a lot to do with Blair and his vile wife.
 

Latest Threads

Top