There have been two reports of people being arrested yesterday for protesting at proclamations of King Charles III. Both the protests appear to have been personal, rather than organised. Neither protestor did anything more than express an opinion.
In the land of Liz Truss and, apparently, King Charles III, such protest would appear to be unacceptable.
I have already noted the absence of any apparent democratic consent to the ascent of Charles to the Throne. That troubled me. That those who wish to express their dissent about his ascension are arrested for doing so troubles me even more.
As I understand it, the reason for the multiple proclamations of the monarch was to gauge the level of support that they might enjoy. In other words, the process recognised that consent was not automatic, and might even be withheld.
This, apparently, is no longer the case. Now the proclamation is an edict that we must take or leave, without our opinion being sought, and with dissent not being permitted.
It is a standard right wing argument to suggest those dissenting from the opinion of those others with power are very rude to disagree, and must be suffering some sort of affliction for doing so. At the very least, dissent is cast as rude, and as justification for ostracism within society.
Alternatively, the person complaining must be very jealous, and so we get the narrative of the politics of envy.
Move just a little further, and the dissenter is a threat to peace, law and order and must be detained. They become a criminal.
But that is not what dissenters are, of course. They are expressing their human right to free speech, and so to disagree. This right is at the very core of all human liberties. It is the bedrock of democracy too. And that, no doubt, is why fascists and Tories alike loathe that freedom, and seek to constrain it, through legislation and inappropriate police intervention of the type seen yesterday.
I would rather we did not have a new King. I think the demands of monarchy an impossibly unfair imposition to place on anyone by accident of birth when I think none more suited to a task by reason of birth than any other. I am also a democrat, and would rather have a say in who is my head of state, and to have a chance to remove them. And I am convinced that endorsed privilege needs to be removed from UK politics when the harm it has caused is now so obvious.
And yes, I think I have the right to say that and that no one should be arrested for doing so.
As they have been, read that for what it says that we have: a fascist, police state.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Very disappointed with Police Scotland. From what I see the person concerned was only holding a placard saying abolish the monarchy. For a breach of the peace to occur you have to be causing fear amongst the lieges. Doubt if this action reaches this criteria.
The law has changed in England, bit I am not sure it has in Scotland
I would be curious to know on what basis they arrested her
This is the National article on it with a photo of one of the protestors arrested together with the “offending” placard https://archive.ph/Pvaxc
I’m not sure how this constitutes a breach of the peace at all…
It doesn’t. For it to be a breach of the peace, the behaviour has to be threatening which it clearly wasn’t. It will be interesting to see if the case goes to court as, once an arrest is made the officer has to convince the desk sergeant that an offence has been committed before temporary incarceration in the station holding cells and, given the nature of the incident I imagine that any decision to charge will be taken at a senior level. That is the point at which we’ll find out whether this was a case of an over-zealous individual and his ignorance of the law he’s supposed to uphold or something more sinister. These are indeed worrying times.
I agree with every word, it’s a travesty of natural justice that people should be arrested for voicing an opinion in a peaceful manner.
This is shocking. There are some who complain loud and long about their right to freedom of speech being denied and that they are being ‘cancelled’ yet when an actual example of the right to freedom of speech being denied and an actual example of someone being ‘cancelled’ it is tolerated and even encouraged and celebrated.
If someone has the view that the monarchy should cease to exist and can articulate why they hold that view then what exactly is the problem? Critical thought and holding those in power to account should be actively encouraged.
Craig
There have been a few protests here and there over the last few days. Many of them have just been someone sounding off because it seems like a good time to get a lot of replies on twitter and the like.
The protests you mentioned, at organised events, are different, in this way. The woman in Edinburgh was arrested for two reasons, I think. Her sign contained a profanity and I for one want children, more than anyone, not to have to be faced with profanity as they go about their business. I feel quite strongly about that and she did not need to use such a word. It is some time since I checked but using profanity in that way is illegal.
Secondly, I am sure the police take the view that anyone protesting in the ways we have seen is being provocative and to that end, take the view that it is right and proper to protect the protester and to stop their being any violence or even threat of violence.
Otherwise, I was brought up in England believing that speech and thought were all free: it’s a free country, we used to say. I still agree with that.
a) Grow up – that profanity is widespread and used by many three-year-olds now, whether you like it or not
b) Your second argument is your fantasy
Your argument that you believe in free speech is that of the fascist – believing in it so long as people say what you want
“a) Grow up – that profanity is widespread and used by many three-year-olds now, whether you like it or not”
are you for real ? You are condoning the use of foul and abusive language in a public place?
I disagree strongly… anyone swearing in a public place should be stopped by the authorities. Whether it be on the way to a football match, throwing out time on a friday night or a political protest.
I post this to show the stupidity of some commentators
Oh dear! I seem to remember Li Peng, one of those responsible for the Tiananmen massacre, saying something very similar.
In order to be found guilty of breach of the peace in Scotland, you must be disruptive AND threatening. I am familiar with this from actions at Faslane. This does not stop Police Scotland from arresting you and clearing you out of the way, but does rather waste the court’s time later.
So, false arrest then
I don’t know what the relevant law is in Scotland, but perhaps she could consider suing the appropriate authorities.
Used to it. In the pantheon of uniformed enforcers, Police Scotland are at the pussycat end of the spectrum.
“It is a standard right wing argument to suggest those dissenting from the opinion of those others with power are very rude to disagree, and must be suffering some sort of affliction for doing so. ”
A short step from this to: putting people in mental hospitals if their views diveerge from those of the state. In the 1960s and 1970s, this was quite common in the Sov-U. Interesting to see that the United Leperdom is on the same path. I was listening to Belgian radio yesterday, they were interviewing people in the Uk: large number were anti-monarch, views which will not see much light in the UK.
On a related note, few years back I was involved in designing a renewable scheme for the Scilly Isles. It would be trivial to make the Scillies 100% renewable – but requires a combo of PV & wind. Step forward Charles Windsor – who hates wind turbines. So the Scillies still rely on an ageing cable to the mainland and back-up diesel generators. Pathetic is not even close.
People in mental hospitals? Try this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerissa_and_Katherine_Bowes-Lyon#:~:text=Nerissa%20Jane%20Irene%20Bowes%2DLyon,Stuart%2DForbes%2DTrefusis).
Man arrested yesterday at Duthie Park (Aberdeen) for carrying eggs.
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeen-aberdeenshire/4781104/police-queen-cortege-aberdeen-duthie-park-eggs/
Points awarded for ‘hatching a plan’ jokes.
At the last count you had blocked 20,000 people on Twitter and have thrown numerous people off this blog. Therefore would you not say your commitment to free speech is arguably at best ‘selective’?
Stop talking total nonsense – or your brother will be deeply embarrassed
I have blocked a tiny number of people on Twitter – for being offensive
The number blocked here is a few hundred over 16 years, for trolling nonsense
You’ve just joined them. I’ll let your brother know
I think there are over 100,000 who have been ejected from the labour party because of disagreeing with management there. That’s why the party has no money left. It doesn’t matter which party rules the country, the peasants can’t win.
I see you are on NotPMQs tomorrow, Richard. Crispin is one of the latest.
King Charles III kingdom is also a kingdom for plunderer-rentiers.
As many of you might remember, I work in housing development in a midlands town local authority.
What I’ve noticed recently is Council retrenchment from estate management. On new developments, developers – with the consent and encouragement of Councils – are allocating the new estate management to separate private management companies and not to existing Council services.
I know this because if we have a s106 or package deal purchased to be used for affordable rent, my arms length management company ends up paying the estate charges just in order to keep the rents affordable. Everyone else on the estate has to pay.
I just think its yet another example of the rentier state – where services will not be traditionally provided, the private sector will come in and make money. That is where we are going isn’t it? Public sector retrenchment in order to make profits.
I have no idea if the other residents get a discount off their Council Tax either.
But also, it makes a mockery of the Governments aims and objectives for levelling up and providing well paid jobs. It’s the reason why the railways are on strike – because they want to actually cut jobs and pay.
But more pointedly I’d like to know how Truss and Co think that they can have a rentier state when there will be an increasing inability by the exploited to pay!!! So it’s not even a good, well thought out BAD policy!
That’s how bad things are to me. Nothing adds up.
That’s why I suppose the Government will use QE to line the pockets of the private sector in the future.
Free Speech is very different from a right to be published
Regarding the arrest, reportedly for ‘breach of the peace’ in Edinburgh: A few years ago, I was at a protest against Steve Bannon having been invited to Edinburgh by the BBC. Watched somebody being arrested by Edinburgh Police who didn’t like that person’s placard: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/steve-bannon-protest-no-nazis-police-arrest-man-threat-edinburgh-a8634081.html. From what I witnessed, that arrest was entirely about a placard that the police objected to. Never went to trial so charges must have been dropped. Wondering if this might be a issue concerning some member(s) of Edinburgh police rather than an ominous new trend, at least in Scotland? Hoping it’s the former (unacceptable as it is in any case to arrest people for holding up a placard like this).
I think you a decided optimist
Not remotely optimistic as far as the right to protest in England is concerned, though. At least in Scotland, legal rights to protest and assembly pretty much remain what they’ve been for decades. The new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act in England and Wales is absolutely chilling.
By the man who was arrested in Oxford.
https://bright-green.org/2022/09/11/i-was-arrested-after-asking-who-elected-him-at-the-proclamation-of-king-charles/
That makes grim, and ominous, reading, under this new act it would seem a free pass to arrest. The action of ‘de-arresting’ is really concerning. It’s like a misuse of powers to move someone they consider annoying. If being annoying becomes an arrestable offence then I am doomed.
Me too
I have no idea what ‘de-arresting’ someone means in law. If someone is arrested and that arrest was unlawful, they have been wrongfully arrested and can and should take legal action, they have almost certainly been unlawfully detained – you cannot legally detain someone unless they have been arrested in accordance with the law. If, subsequent to the arrest a police officer decides there are no grounds for continuing detention, the person is released without charge. You cannot undo an arrest that has taken place.
Playing to the media, I assume.
As you and others have said, Richard, it is outrageous that people should be arrested and charged for expressing opinions in this way. Let’s hope that this serves to expose further the repressiveness of the recent legislation on protest and arouse stronger opposition to it.
Perhaps protestors should resort to holding up completely blank placards, as has happened both in Russia and China. This has resulted in arrests in both countries, which shows they don’t tolerate the mere existence of dissent.
I wonder what would happen here.
Someone was arrested for doing this yesterday
I believe the person arrested for holding a blank placard was a barrister. I expect legal action to follow fairly swiftly.
We could go one further and start holding up “invisible placards” — i.e. just pretend to hold something up.
The lesson we should learn from this is, next time you need a policeman and there are “none available at the moment” hold up a sign with “f–k the monarchy” and they will be there in a flash.
Richard,
I totally agree with you about the slide towards fascism – the news this week is full of stories of democratic suppression, not just in Scotland. Here in Norfolk, there was a particularly disturbing story covered by East Anglian Bylines’ Peter Thurlow September 4, 2022:
https://eastangliabylines.co.uk/what-do-we-do-now-tory-hustings-police-in-protest-arrest-wanted-a-positive-result/
A lone female was “singled out by police” and “detained but not arrested” and taken miles away from Norwich to Aylesham police station where she was held:
“The protest was noisy but trouble-free until an altercation between one of the protestors and a Conservative Party member who was going into the hustings. It is claimed he came over to the protestors and waved a finger in the face of Sophie Ciurlik-Rittenbaum, shouting: “You didn’t have a vote!”
Ciurlik-Rittenbaum shouted back, and alleges it was at this point that somebody grabbed her arm from behind. She yelled “Don’t touch me!”, since, in the heat of the moment, she didn’t know who was manhandling her. Other police officers then gripped her and led her away to one of the vans.
There seems not to have been a struggle: one of the officers told her they were not using handcuffs since she was being co-operative.
Ciurlik-Rittenbaum was driven to Aylsham police station, where she reports indecision on the part of the police. “What do we do now?” one officer asked his colleagues. “After detaining her we can’t just let her go.” She was told she had been arrested but not detained, on the suspicion of potentially causing a breach of the peace.”
How have we come to this? Are any of us safe to “raise our heads above the parapet” any more?
I think you mean allegedly arrested but not detained. The polise cannot detain someone against their will without arresting them. the fact she was then transported a distance means she was also detained although, to their credit, the custody officer at the police station refused to detain her further.
I look forward to all the civil claims that should arise from all of this.
Cyndy, I very much doubt in the Norfolk case there will be any. In my experience, in Norfolk there are no longer any Criminal Lawyers able to represent victims and there is no legal aid. I doubt Ms Ciurlik-Rittenbaum will be able to afford the ££hundreds an hour a private lawyer will cost to bring the case forward.
That’s how they win, see?
I was found guilty of breach of the peace after an incident in Glasgow in 1981. I had been charged with assaulting a police officer and with b of p to support it which is common in such circumstances.
I was found Not Guilty of the assault but Guilty of the breach of the peace. In his comments, the Sheriff conceded that I had not assaulted the police officer but the fact that I criticised him verbally and tried to prevent him punching a guy in the street “might have induced others to assault him or commit a breach of the peace themselves”.
Breach of the peace is a “catch-all” offence and is falls under common law. I believe that the onus is on the accused that his or her actions were “reasonable” under the particular circumstances at the time which I failed to do in arguing that it was the officer’s actions which were unreasonable and might have provoked an illegal response from passers-by.
Admonished! 🙂
Hereditary monarchies and accountability never go hand in hand, case in point, Prince Mike of Kent and Juan Carlos of Spain. We should keep the structure of constitutional monarchy but elect from a group of selected candidates who have demonstrated lifelong servitude to the people
There’s also a lack of challenge from mainstream left of centre media. I’ve seen nothing in the Guardian which challenges the validity of a hereditary monarchy. Its as if no one dare speak out.
“I’ve seen nothing in the Guardian which challenges the validity of a hereditary monarchy”
Maybe you didn’t look hard enough (?) – see yesterday’s editorial: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/12/the-guardian-view-on-monarchy-as-religion-parliament-should-not-bend-the-knee
” The sovereign’s power rests on the fact that monarchical consent must be obtained in advance before the introduction of any bill that interferes with the prerogative powers of the crown and effects on the crown’s private interests. King Charles, like his mother, will have the ability to exercise influence before final decisions are made. Both these aspects of consent should be abandoned.
…
Who is the head of state does matter. Birthright is not the right way to choose one. Parliament is the place to decide whether Britain needs a slimmed down monarchy – or one at all. There is an appeal to a sovereign standing above the fray in an age of political populism. But MPs should not bend the knee before inheritance and rank. Modern Britain has little need for trappings and privileges that belong to another age.”
The peasants help is no longer required. And how disrespectful in this so called “period of mourning.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/king-charles-staff-given-redundancy-notice-during-church-service-for-queen?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
[…] Cross-posted from Tax Research UK […]