Police seek more powers to stop Extinction Rebellion crippling London with protests

[spen666]

We regularly here police seeking new powers to deal with issues, but these are not needed if the Police use their existing powers. For example, two issues in this story from the Standard

Like most peole I support the point the protestors are making, but I do not support their criminal tactics and believe the police should use their existing powers

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ ... 52006.html

Scotland Yard is seeking new legal powers to help it stop Extinction Rebellion and other protesters bringing parts of the capital to a standstill.

In a submission to the Home Office, Met chiefs have asked for a change in the law to make it possible to prohibit people freed on bail from immediately returning to a protest to commit new offences by blocking the streets again.

Police already have powers to impose bail conditions. Impose a condition not to attend and Extinction Rebellion Protest - job done, no new powers needed

The force also wants extra powers to allow it to stop campaigners bringing items ranging from boats to furniture to protests to use as barriers to traffic.

If they use items or otherwise block the highway, then arrest them for Obstructing the Highway - seems there is an existing offence there covering this, or even conspiracy to obstruct highway, which can be used before highway is blocked.

no need for a new power here

Both this tactic and the return of arrested protesters were key features of the Extinction Rebellion protests in London in April when environmental campaigners halted traffic for days by setting up a camp around a boat in the middle of Oxford Circus.

The Met also wants ministers to update existing powers under Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act to increase their effectiveness.

The first allows police to impose conditions on public processions. The second allows officers to order protesters to confine demonstration to a particular place, to keep numbers down, and when to end it.

The police request — which is understood to have been received favourably — comes ahead of a planned 10-day protest by Extinction Rebellion in London due to start next week. It aims to block at least 11 sites, including Westminster and Lambeth Bridges and several streets in the area, as part of a campaign to force the Government to take swifter, more extensive action on climate change.

The organisers say they expect “thousands more ordinary citizens” including “parents, builders, footballers, doctors, teachers, musicians, scientists, CEOs, farmers” to take part.

In a statement today the Met said it was liaising with Extinction Rebellion in an attempt to reduce any disruption.

But the force warned that the protest was “co-ordinated, planned, and designed to cause maximum impact on those who live, work and visit London for 24 hours over two weeks” and that it would take robust action against law-breakers.

The Met added: “The policing plan is well resourced and flexible to be able to respond to the activities of this group. We will take action against any individual who engages in criminal activity and this includes seizing any property that forms part of unlawful activity.”

Meanwhile, latest Met statistics show 256 people have already been convicted of offences during the Extinction Rebellion protest in April. Although many received a conditional discharge, police say this is still a criminal conviction that can have a lasting impact, including on travel to countries such as the US.

[Beradogs]

What are you doing to support the protests? No longer fly? Do not use energy intensive devices like computers. Do not eat red meat? No thought not. I will see you’re support and raise you a doing nothing but saying you support them means you can moan.

[spen666]

What are you doing to support the protests? No longer fly? Do not use energy intensive devices like computers. Do not eat red meat? No thought not. I will see you’re support and raise you a doing nothing but saying you support them means you can moan.

I am doing nothing to support the protests, because as I said I do not support the criminal tactics they use.

[Proposition Joe]

Shut down the streets.

[Admin]

Shut down the streets.

Fair. Dry your eyes was an abomination.

[Long slender neck]

I wonder how much they gave us to feature the east stand in the video for that?

[BoniO]

That Guy Fawkes bloke had the right idea......

[RientO]

Surprised the cops ain't looking for dance and skateboard lessons.

[Howling Mad Murdock]

Ear ya go.Fill yer boots.

[Long slender neck]

Dicks. Hope it was a non polluting/staining 'blood'.

[Redcard]

I think we should outlaw ALL demonstrations whatever the merits of their cause. The right of assembly and protest is outmoded and relates to time when that was the only way people could get their message heard. Today you have hundreds of news outlets, radio, television, newspapers, and of course social media.
All these protesters do is make life intolerable for people going about their daily business, blocking roads, and causing people to miss appointments, trains, planes etc.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

I think we should outlaw ALL demonstrations whatever the merits of their cause.

[spen666]

I think we should outlaw ALL demonstrations whatever the merits of their cause. The right of assembly and protest is outmoded and relates to time when that was the only way people could get their message heard. Today you have hundreds of news outlets, radio, television, newspapers, and of course social media.
All these protesters do is make life intolerable for people going about their daily business, blocking roads, and causing people to miss appointments, trains, planes etc.

So, you want to end all football matches, people going shopping, children playing in parks etc.

All involve people exercising their rights of assembly.. as does people getting on public transport etc.

[Redcard]

Spenn, you are coming across as very stupid. I said “demonstrations” and later “assembly and protests “. If you think that I was referring to groups of people attending football matches ect then you are misguided.

[spen666]

Spenn, you are coming across as very stupid. I said “demonstrations” and later “assembly and protests “. If you think that I was referring to groups of people attending football matches ect then you are misguided.

On the contrary, you are naive and stupid, if you think abolishing the right to assembly is anything other than a prevention of normal activity.

The right of assembly is one of the cornerstones of our freedoms, as is the right to peacefully protest.

You may not have been thinking of people going to football matches, but that is because you are naive or hadn't thought through the consequences of your desire to abolish the right of assembly

Add to that, the protests against the FB regime would be illegal under your regime.


You are acting like a turkey voting for Christmas by your calls

[Redcard]

Don’t be so ridiculous, you are totally ignoring the fact that to anyone bar you it’s clear that when I state demonstrations I mean exactly that, and likewise when I state “assembly and protest”. At times like this you more closely resemble the village idiot than a lawyer.

[spen666]

Don’t be so ridiculous, you are totally ignoring the fact that to anyone bar you it’s clear that when I state demonstrations I mean exactly that, and likewise when I state “assembly and protest”. At times like this you more closely resemble the village idiot than a lawyer.

Sadly, you fail to understand the situation.

Who decides what assembly and protest is? You are creating a dictatorship.

Imagine this.. you are at a football match & disagree with the referee....that expression of disagreement is a protest, you are now under arrest and facing a criminal conviction


You are waiting for train to work and it's late, you say to person next to you that it's always late....another protest and because you have assembled on platform with others...you are facing arrests


Sadly you do not appear to understand what you are calling for. You are giving away our freedoms . You make it easier for the authorities to prevent any expression of dissent.

Fortunately, few right thinking persons agree with you and such a proposal is unlikely to come into being.

[Dunners]

Spen-O
Spen-O
Spen-O
etc.....

[Redcard]

Spen, give it a rest , you are digging yourself into a bottomless pit, trying to equate massive disruptive protests with a few people complaining is ludicrous.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Don’t be so ridiculous, you are totally ignoring the fact that to anyone bar you it’s clear that when I state demonstrations I mean exactly that, and likewise when I state “assembly and protest”. At times like this you more closely resemble the village idiot than a lawyer.

In spens defence, he's not the numptie advocating the banning of protestation.

[Redcard]

Perhaps you have never been affected by the disruption caused by tens, if not hundreds of thousands of protesters.
I have no real objection to mass protests provided it’s not at the expense of the general public, preventing people from conducting their day to day business. An acceptable compromise would be for the protesters to conduct their activity within one of our parks and not on public thoroughfare, that way anybody who was interested in hearing them could attend while the rest of us could get on with our lives.

[StillSpike]

Or maybe the protesters could hold their protest somewhere were it will have no effect on anyone else. That'll work.

Do you not think the whole point of protest (or industrial action, for that matter) is that it DOES have an effect on others. Where's the incentive for government to take action, if they can just ignore a protest because it doesn't affect other citizens?

[spen666]

Spen, give it a rest , you are digging yourself into a bottomless pit, trying to equate massive disruptive protests with a few people complaining is ludicrous.

Sorry mate, but you are the one advocating ending the right of assembly and right to protest.

You end it or you dont.

You end it then the scenarios I outlined are criminal offences.

It may not be what you wanted to outlaw, but its the consequences of your proposal.

The law doesnt just apply to protests you personally dislike.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Perhaps you have never been affected by the disruption caused by tens, if not hundreds of thousands of protesters.
I have no real objection to mass protests provided it’s not at the expense of the general public, preventing people from conducting their day to day business. An acceptable compromise would be for the protesters to conduct their activity within one of our parks and not on public thoroughfare, that way anybody who was interested in hearing them could attend while the rest of us could get on with our lives.

[Redcard]

Spike, that’s the crux of my argument, the protesters set out to inconvenience others. I personally don’t want my right to go about my business curtailed in that way.
Spen, where have I suggested that only the ones I disagreed with should be outlawed.
I said clearly that with all the available means of communication that disruptive protests were unnecessary.