Extinction Rebellion protesters - what to do?

One opinions that arresting the lot of them clears the roadway, even if the CPS then decides to not to prosecute?
I agree, so why didn't it happen? Oh and if the CPS decide not to prosecute then does that not encourage them to do it again?
 
I agree, so why didn't it happen? Oh and if the CPS decide not to prosecute then does that not encourage them to do it again?

Then they get lifted again. The police's job is to restore/maintain order of society. Not to worry about what crimes/charges they offenders catch.
When they fail to do that we get incidents were one sees the public doing the job, as has been proved by some of the video footage.
 
Then they get lifted again. The police's job is to restore/maintain order of society. Not to worry about what crimes/charges they offenders catch.
When they fail to do that we get incidents were one sees the public doing the job, as has been proved by some of the video footage.
Does that not then make a mockery of the justice system? The point as I understand it is that if you commit a crime you get arrested, and then if you are found guilty you are awarded a punishment (financial or incarceration). To be arrested (by which I mean you commit a crime and get arrested for it) and released without charge where is the deterent?

Of course if they are not commiting a crime then they should not be arrested, but I would be interested to hear why blocking a public highway is not at leasst traceable to an offence.

In the court of public opinion I would suggest that the sitters are guilty, closely followed by the constabulary for not shifting them quickly
 
Then they get lifted again. The police's job is to restore/maintain order of society. Not to worry about what crimes/charges they offenders catch.
When they fail to do that we get incidents were one sees the public doing the job, as has been proved by some of the video footage.

When through their actions it appears that the police's common purpose is to protect Marxists, who purpose is to break down society and rebuild it in their image
 
Notice that the police are all facing away from the protesters. An example of the public's perception that the police are taking the easy option. By forming a wall facing those trying to go about their lawful occasions it would appear that in an us and them situation the police have opted to side with the protesters.

They may be hating every moment of being used as a cat's paw but if the police PR department haven't realised the continuing damage being done to their reputation then they shouldn't be drawing their pay.


I think they face that way to stop angry drivers getting to grips with the protestors, I'm sure I saw a brief clip of a burly driver who was restrained from dragging one of the morons off. Without the police I feel mob justice would have resulted in quite few idiots being hospitalised and might have prevented others joining them!
 

DarkBrig

War Hero
It's all about perception, this is appears to be a case of the police supporting the rights or protesters against the rights of everyone else going about their business, which does the Police no favours in the long run. I don't care if they get let off in court, what I want to see is the Police acting against not (apparently) supporting the demonstrators.

I would not have been surprised to see the guy in the blue t shirt (video above) being arrested, but I can tell you as a tight jock I would have definitely been contributing to his crowdfunding get out of jail effort.
 

NSP

LE
In a deliciously ironic twist we now appear to not have enough CO2 rather than having too much! Meat industry and NHS both warning about a shortage of the gas; NHS demanding priority of supply.
 
Does that not then make a mockery of the justice system? The point as I understand it is that if you commit a crime you get arrested, and then if you are found guilty you are awarded a punishment (financial or incarceration). To be arrested (by which I mean you commit a crime and get arrested for it) and released without charge where is the deterent?

Of course if they are not commiting a crime then they should not be arrested, but I would be interested to hear why blocking a public highway is not at leasst traceable to an offence.

In the court of public opinion I would suggest that the sitters are guilty, closely followed by the constabulary for not shifting them quickly

As I understand how it should work is as follows:

1: PC Savage comes across a group of residents of this country up to something.
2: PC Savage then Assesses if this is a contravention of the laws of the country.
3: PC Savage (possibly with a few mates) detains said residents, and re-establishes good order.
4: The Good police types then hand over the case to the CPS stating which laws the individual broke, and here is my reasoning/Evidence.

The CPS then charge them formally, and prepare the case for court.
The Courts then apply the laws as set out by Parliament.

If there is a problem the Government is informed and new legislation appears.

So applying that model to the current events:
2: Yes, as there's numerous times when the Police have asked the protestors to move. Which indicates that the police think they are violating something, otherwise they'd not be asked to move.

I'm also curious about how 'Reasonable Person' (Which you know all about ;)) fits into the interpretation of the Law.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
I'm also curious about how 'Reasonable Person' (Which you know all about ;)) fits into the interpretation of the Law.

I'm surprised that's allowed now it's not very woke, in fact 'Reasonable Person' is speciesist
 

Dumb1

War Hero
Publish their full names and addresses. Let their neighbours know who they are. There seems to be a huge number of hippies in the west country travelling up to London and ruining it.
 
Publish their full names and addresses. Let their neighbours know who they are. There seems to be a huge number of hippies in the west country travelling up to London and ruining it.
Makes a change from large numbers of Londoners moving to the West Country and ruining it :)
 

Slime

LE
I agree, so why didn't it happen? Oh and if the CPS decide not to prosecute then does that not encourage them to do it again?

I might be a cynic, but I suspect the police know they would get stiffer and more successful legal opposition from the 20 protesters (if incorrectly dealt with) than the 200,000 motorists stuck on the motorway.
 
One opinions that arresting the lot of them clears the roadway, even if the CPS then decides to not to prosecute?

I think it's been covered in this thread - problem is the number of police needed to arrest and process a couple of dozen crusties. Plus finding somewhere to lock them up. A lot of resources tied up for a long time.
 
So applying that model to the current events:
2: Yes, as there's numerous times when the Police have asked the protestors to move. Which indicates that the police think they are violating something, otherwise they'd not be asked to move.
It appears that the protesters have been given the lawful right to block roads in order to demonstrate by the Supreme Court.

'The Supreme Court has ruled that protests can be a “lawful excuse” to block roads, as the government pushes for new laws to limit peaceful demonstrations.

Britain’s most senior judges said it was right to acquit a group of protesters who blockaded the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair in London in 2017.'

'A ruling given on Friday morning said that protesters can have a “lawful excuse” defence against the offence of obstructing a highway, even where they have used “deliberately physically obstructive conduct”.

“There should be a certain degree of tolerance to disruption to ordinary life, including disruption of traffic, caused by the exercise of the right to freedom of expression or freedom of peaceful assembly,” the majority ruling added.'


This would make it dodgy territory for your Bobby on the ground to forcefully remove a peaceful demonstration without explicit direction from up high.

 

theinventor

War Hero
I think it's been covered in this thread - problem is the number of police needed to arrest and process a couple of dozen crusties. Plus finding somewhere to lock them up. A lot of resources tied up for a long time.
One of the grounds for performing a Citizens Arrest is if "you believe it is not reasonably practical for a police constable to perform the arrest". If plod say they're under-resourced, is that sufficient grounds? I'm sure they'd get volunteers in such circumstances.
 
Have a look at this ... Delingpole: Exposed? Soros on List of Mega-Rich Extinction Rebellion Backers

snip "Extinction Rebellion is disturbingly flush and well-funded: over £1 million raised this year, half of it still unspent, according to the documents.
Major donors are said to include — inevitably — George Soros; Vivienne Westwood’s son Joe Corre (the saucy underwear and dildo tycoon, worth $48 million); the European Climate Foundation (which funnels money from far-left American philanthropic foundations to European climate projects); Greenpeace; the far-left Tides Foundation; and a little known Swiss asset management company, called Furka Holdings, founded by a banker with Russian links, which gave £50,000.
Another of their previously revealed donors is the popular beat combo Radiohead."

Re the funding from George Soros - his organisation appears to be undergoing a restructuring. There is speculation that it may be closing down. Youtuber Count Dankula 2 discusses it here

edited to correct typo.
 
Last edited:
It appears that the protesters have been given the lawful right to block roads in order to demonstrate by the Supreme Court.

'The Supreme Court has ruled that protests can be a “lawful excuse” to block roads, as the government pushes for new laws to limit peaceful demonstrations.

Britain’s most senior judges said it was right to acquit a group of protesters who blockaded the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair in London in 2017.'

'A ruling given on Friday morning said that protesters can have a “lawful excuse” defence against the offence of obstructing a highway, even where they have used “deliberately physically obstructive conduct”.

“There should be a certain degree of tolerance to disruption to ordinary life, including disruption of traffic, caused by the exercise of the right to freedom of expression or freedom of peaceful assembly,” the majority ruling added.'


This would make it dodgy territory for your Bobby on the ground to forcefully remove a peaceful demonstration without explicit direction from up high.


Wonder if that works both ways. Would they be as tolerant if you protested against animal abuse by blocking the streets where the judges and other great and good live?
 

Latest Threads

Top