Forum Topic

Oh dear, oh dear - yet again you dig yourself deeper and deeper. I certainly did not feel abused by the likes of you; I just thought it hilarious that, because you can’t win this debate, you feel driven to attempt abuse. Now that you let it be known that you have a law degree I find it even more hilarious that you are so inept at debate. Furthermore, I find it astounding that you are unable to understand that this isn’t about the right to free speech, it’s about adherence to the law whether you like the law or not. The fact is that the police are charged with upholding the law and they certainly did uphold the law on coronation day. Those who broke the law were arrested. Certainly the spooking of horses etc could have had someone killed but you seem to care not a jot about that. You are more determined, if not obsessed,  with trying to convince yourself that the police apologised.  They didn’t. Get over it. They did no wrong. Alining yourself with the likes of Davies, Fahey and Sim speaks volumes.These are has beens who are no longer relevant.  I am aware that Davies has been wrong on everything recently and has become a bit of a laughing stock and I am aware that Sim ‘retired’ just weeks after an investigation was launched into claims of misconduct against her. As for Fahey….!!Of course your link also quotes the current commissioner, who is the only one relevant at this time and, unfortunately for you, he is the only one whose comments count for anything!  Why? Because he is accountable. The others you mention count for zero. Why? Because they are past their sell by dates. “Met Police commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said ‘celebrating crowds applauded and cheered’ as his officers made arrests near the processional route”You probably don’t even see that your extreme, law-and-order hating Corbynista style mantra makes you come across as a rabid supporter of Trump and his comments regarding the Capital Buildings!  You have to ask yourself why you have such a deep seated resentment of law and order and public safety.

Steve Taylor ● 346d

ST: "Why is it that you feel the need to resort to insults simply because you have no argument."RC: The first time you used the term, I merely pointed out that this is not "hearsay". That was your opportunity to check it out and retract, or at least let it go.When instead you repeated it, I was more direct.But for a third (and final) time: Reporter saying "X told me something" is not hearsay, whereas Reporter saying "Y told me that X had told him something" is.If you cannot or will not see the difference, then that is your problem, not mine.ST: "There is absolutely no evidence that these junior police officers apologised to Smith even if in your imaginary world you had hoped they would."RC: Once again you appear to have trouble with basic terminology. The "evidence" is the statement Smith gave to the reporter. That evidence does not constitute proof, but neither do you have any (ahem) counter-evidence to show that Smith is outright lying. On which point, why DO you imagine the Met sent three officers round to Smith's house to speak to him personally? Concern for his welfare perhaps? To invite him to join his local Neighbourhood Watch?While it remains open to the Met to refute, or at least repudiate, Smith's subsequent account of the meeting. So far they have not. Curious, that.ST: "It would have killed off any defence the police may have if Smith chooses to take legal action. They are not fools and even a junior officer like a Chief Inspector would understand that even if you don’t!!"RC: "Any defence"? Has it never occurred to you that the Met realised it hadn't a leg to stand on if Smith and the others took them to court? And that sending these officers round was a (vain) attempt to placate him and so persuade him to leave it there? While if he went ahead anyhow, it would still be his word against theirs that they had actually apologised? "The claimant appears confused, or maybe his memory is at fault, M'Lud"Anyhow it is clear that at best you consider that the Met did nothing wrong in arresting all these people, before releasing them without charge.At worst, you may believe that even if the Met acted unlawfully, then it doesn't matter, since these people probably deserved it - I'll leave it to you to declare which it is.Either way, rather than considering all the facts and evidence to hand and coming to a conclusion accordingly, you instead contrive a tortuous, selective interpretation to suit the conclusion you arrived at from the outset.Or garbage, for short.

Richard Cathcart ● 351d

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley (Aaron Chown/PA)Sir Mark Rowley6 hours agoThe Coronation of His Majesty King Charles III and Her Majesty Queen Camilla was an historic moment of huge national significance. We are proud to have successfully ensured its safety and security despite the most challenging, fast-moving and complex policing picture we have ever encountered for a national celebration.This was the largest security operation the Metropolitan Police has ever led – 11,500 officers and staff and volunteers from across the Met, along with those who joined us from across the UK and overseas did an incredible job alongside over 6,500 military ceremonial troops.Months of planning for Operation Golden Orb, preparation and coordination, together with swift response to escalating intelligence, ensured this event went ahead without disruption.With 312 of the world’s leaders and dignitaries in the area being protected by 800 Close Protection officers, no practical alternative processional routes in the small footprint of central Westminster and hundreds of thousands looking to enjoy this event we explained in advance that there would be a low tolerance of disruption and zero tolerance of security and safety threats. It is in this extraordinary, almost unprecedented, security context that our officers operated.The UK, and London in particular, has a long history of policing protest. Last year we policed more than 4,000 events and protests in London, 500 were protest-specific and involving millions of people. Over half of these pass without any arrest being made. WeProtest is an important right in any democracy, but it is limited and has to be carefully balanced alongside consideration for the rights of others so they too can go about their normal business – in this case participating in a once-in-a-generation event. Parliament has created laws requiring police to act to bring this careful balance.By Friday evening, only twelve hours from the Coronation, we had become extremely concerned by a rapidly developing intelligence picture suggesting the Coronation could suffer. This included people intent on using rape alarms and loud hailers as part of their protest which would have caused distress to military horses. We also had intelligence that people intended to extensively vandalise monuments, throw paint at the procession, and incur on to the route.Adding to our concerns, military colleagues shared their worries about how some of this disruption would significantly unsettle their 160-strong mounted regiments, with the potential of causing multiple serious injuries and compromising public safety. The threat was so concerning that on Friday the Home Secretary and Mayor were given late-night briefings as plans were being put in place.Clearly, this would not only have been unlawful, but also extremely dangerous. Officers worked around the clock to try to identify the full criminal network, establish the detail of their plans, and make arrests.While we said that our tolerance for disruption of the Coronation celebrations was low, it was not zero. I must challenge those claiming there was a ‘protest ban’ around the Coronation. This is simply not accurate. There were hundreds of undisturbed protestors along the route including a large group in Trafalgar Square, although small in comparison to the tens of thousands seeking to enjoy the event.The intelligence and subsequent investigative work led to officers making arrests across multiple locations. These included arrests made for sex offences, illegal drugs and fighting but also groups who were believed to be involved in the type of criminal activities our intelligence had indicated. Officers have told me how the celebrating crowds applauded and cheered as they made 17 arrests in The Mall area close to the processional route and imminent to the start of the procession.We are committed to sharing all of the information we can with the public to reassure people about our policing tactics. However, it is frustrating that there are things we are unable to share and investigations are ongoing. It is the hallmark of good policing when it prevents crime that it often goes unnoticed. But while our investigations continue, I can report that we found people in possession of possible lock-on devices and people that appeared to be purporting to be stewards of the event in possession of plastic bottles containing white paint which we believe were specifically to be used to criminally disrupt the procession and resulted in arrests for going equipped to commit criminal damage.Much of the ill-informed commentary on the day is wholly inaccurate – for example protest was not banned. I want to be absolutely clear - our activity was targeted at those we believed were intent on causing serious disruption and criminality. Serious and reliable intelligence told us that the risks were very real. 53 individuals have been bailed and most of the following investigations will be lengthy as we work towards criminal charges.However, on reviewing the evidence we will be taking no further action against the six Republic protestors arrested. Officers searched a vehicle on Saturday morning and found items which at the time they believed could have been used as part of a ‘lock on’ style protest. As I would expect the arresting officers were vigilant, curious, and proactive. They formed the ‘reasonable suspicion’ necessary to arrest for the new Section 2 Public Order Act 2023 offence of Being Equipped to Lock On, and these were the only arrests under the new legislation. Having now reviewed the evidence and potential lines of enquiry we do not judge that we will be able to prove criminal intent beyond all reasonable doubt.While it is unfortunate that the six people affected by this were unable to join the hundreds of peaceful protestors, I support the officers’ actions in this unique fast-moving operational context.The Coronation was one of the most significant events the Met has ever policed and presented a constantly evolving threat picture. I am immensely proud of the exceptional work of our officers who prevented criminal disruption, damage and danger destroying such a unique occasion.Indeed, personally, I am immensely grateful to them that I am not currently trying to explain why we failed to prevent the perfect Coronation celebration being significantly disrupted or injury or harm to people witnessed on the world stage. In the coming weeks, months and years we will deal with further challenging events.While too often polarised public commentary will criticise based more on bias than facts, we will always strive to pursue our responsibilities without fear or favour, acting on the information available on the day, and striving to strike that balance: protecting freedom of expression, as well as the rights of Londoners, and visitors, to enjoy our city.Sir Mark Rowley is Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police

Adrian Irving ● 353d

RG: "If those arrested because the police suspected they might have caused trouble during the coronation were now being hauled through the courts, I might agree with you about curtailment of freedom. As they were mostly released after a night in the cells, then I think the police acted for the greater good (and did an amazingly good job of it too), even if in some cases they were taking preventative action against potential troublemakers rather than waiting for them to do something foolish."RC: What utter cobblers! The way the system works - or should work - is that if the police have reasonable suspicion to believe that someone may be planning to commit an offence, they arrest them. So that if they they have evidence to back up that suspicion, then they charge them, thereafter for the CPS to prosecute and a Court to determine guilt or innocence. Now of course there will be some instances whereby they will decide not to take it any further after questioning the suspect and reviewing the evidence etc. But in this case, the overwhelming number of "suspects" (and I use that term loosely here) have been released without charge, while the paltry few charges which have been brought are for offences (eg drugs) not related to the original arrest.Worse still, the Commissioner has had to issue a grovelling apology for them most high profile arrest, though it appears that this will not prevent the complainant from taking it further.In any circumstances this would amount to such a waste of police time as to constitute incompetence. But given the peculiar circumstances here, it is increasingly clear that this is much more, namely that a newly appointed Met Chief Constable, already under pressure to fix the poor reputation and morale of his force, has bowed to government pressure to clamp down on any possible display which might embarrass them (government) - and to Hell with the rights of all the people the Met is meant to be serving.RG: "As the police have said, there are things they are not able to reveal"RC: Aye, convenient that.RG: "... in this case the end justified the means."RC: Wow! Maybe we are closer to Putin's Russia than I had thought.RG: " Just because someone had been "outing" himself does not mean that he might not have caused a breach of the peace had he been at liberty to do so."RC: Wow! again. If someone was seriously intending to break the law, then why on earth would he willingly bring himself to the attention of the police months beforehand?For that would be nearly as stupid as eg the police concluding that someone was intending to break the law and instead of arresting him before the event, waiting until he was already at the scene of the (intended) crime, but then arresting him before they had any actual evidence of same.And then having to issue a grovelling apology to him, which likely won't even prevent them from embarrassing them further, if he gets his day in Court.Of course, if people think I'm scaremongering over this assault on all our civil liberties, I would merely point them to what happened in Scotland, when an SNP government led by Nicola Sturgeon abolished the 7(?) Regional police forces which had formerly been answerable to their respective local authorities, and replaced them with a single Police Scotland, answerable to her Scottish administration. At which point, she also got to appoint the new Chief Constable.The same Chief Constable who showed a curious disinclination to look into the financial affairs of the SNP for 18 months, despite repeated complaints, until after Sturgeon resigned her position and was replaced by a much weaker First Minister.But I'm sure that is all entirely coincidental, is it not? For we surely shouldn't fear political policing on this side of the border when we have such a liberal and tolerant Home Secretary as Ms Braverman in post.I mean, it's hardly some corrupt 3rd world republic like eg Rwanda we're talking about here, is it?

Richard Cathcart ● 353d

The article goes on to say; "But while our investigations continue," he added: "I can report that we found people in possession of possible lock-on devices and people that appeared to be purporting to be stewards of the event in possession of plastic bottles containing white paint which we believe were specifically to be used to criminally disrupt the procession and resulted in arrests for going equipped to commit criminal damage."He continued: "While it is unfortunate that the six people affected by this were unable to join the hundreds of peaceful protesters, I support the officers' actions in this unique fast-moving operational context."It comes after Scotland Yard issued a statement on Sunday night expressing "regret" over the six arrests."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," the statement said."This evening all six have had their bail cancelled and no further action will be taken. 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 total of 64 people were arrested during the event on Saturday, including members of Westminster City Council's women's safety campaign Night Stars, who hand out rape alarms and other items."I agree with the Commissioner, it was unfortunate that these six were arrested however in the light of the bigger picture the officers did what was necessary. ie take no chances.

Adrian Irving ● 353d

I was talking to a neighbour at a street party the day after the Coronation who told me she had gone along to area on the day. She didn't have strong views on the monarchy either way but wanted to be part of history.She passed close to an area where there were some protestors and although she couldn't see what was going on in their interaction with the police she did notice, among the massive number of people there, a proportion of people who were making quite threatening noises about the protestors some of whom appeared to her to be ex-forces.Her feeling was that the situation was a bit of a powder keg  and that the people most at danger were the protestors.There seems to be a trend these days that protests must be provocative and annoying to have any impact. For a monarchist, particularly those who may have waited for hours and days to have their special day disrupted would have been infuriating just as people held up in huge traffic jams by Just Stop Oil will have been angered.It seems to me that when your protest's main victim is the general public rather than the organisation or authority that you are protesting against, then you cannot expect universal support and may even have to anticipate some kickback.I don't know the exact situation on the ground but I very much doubt that this was simply an example of the Met wishing to suppress protest. If there as a chance of serious public disorder due to these arrests, it is possible they acted proportionately and in the best interests of the protestors.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 353d

So if the police action was so "reasonable" as they claim, then how come so few of the arrested have been charged with an offence, or at least, with the sort of offence which reflects the much trailed warnings about disruption and violence etc?And why have the police felt the need to apologise for what they have done? I mean, that isn't their normal modus opoerandi, at least not where their actions appear otherwise to have support from a significant section of the government, media and general public. Might it have been an attempt to head off legal action against them by the people arrested, thereby preventing further embarrassment?While on the point of the government attitude, I was listening to a retired Chief Constable* on the radio the other day. She thought that the reaction of the police was excessive, though she had sympathy for the officers on the ground, since she felt they will have been under pressure from senior officers, who in turn were under pressure from a government which was determined not to have their shiny, happy celebrations spoiled by nasty people booing and waving placards demanding an end to the Monarchy etc. I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories etc, but nothing of the sort would surprise me when we have such a reactionary Home Secretary as Suella Braverman in office.More generally, for all those people who are concerned by how it would have looked in the eyes of the world had the Coronation been marked by noisy, boisterous protestors etc, my reaction is actually as follows.As a Monarchist, but also a democrat, I actually think it would have reflected so much better on this country had we shown the world that we are perfectly willing to accept a minority of dissenting voices on the streets at the same time as the majority of happy revellers do their thing.For that surely is a much more important message about the UK to people in other countries like Riussia or China, where all public dissent is ruthlessly suppressed.* - Not from the Met.

Richard Cathcart ● 353d