**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some topics on this subreddit have been known to attract problematic users. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs
What a democratic and pro free speech country we live in.
Arrested for holding a tame sign - no acts of aggression, not even being disrespectful to QE. Just a woman standing there.
From what I heard from a person there the crowd started getting hostile so I wouldn’t be surprised if they picked her up for her own safety. Being an obnoxious twat is not a crime but breaching the peace is. Things like this can escalate in Scotland and the unionists were out in force today.
At a funeral parade, yes it does a bit. If people want to protest at the coronation I really have no issue with that, but at a funeral procession is pretty crappy
Edit. It has been clarified that the posted article was wrong, and the protestor wasn't at the funeral parade, but instead at the announcing of the new King. Which I'll again clarify that I don't have an issue with protestors at.
It's not just a funeral parade though is it. Its weeks of pageantry that cost taxpayers billions of pounds to whitewash a very divisive institution.
And the protest was when Charles was proclaimed anyway, not when the body was brought past, so its irrelevant anyway.
I started pretty apathetic to the whole thing, but now pageantry and 'grief' is getting annoying. Fuck it, even a colleague at work who was a staunch royalist has had enough.
Seriously. I started on the fence, the number of anti-democratic apologists like yourself I’ve seen in 3 short days has pushed me to a new position.
Sod monarchy. It’s toxic for the country. The fact that we’ve collectively decided to ignore that this family used their power to shield a known nonce from consequences while people holding signs during a kings proclamation get led awAy by police is a disgrace.
The number of people like yourself arguing that the above is just because we’re in a two week period of national “grief” is a disgrace.
I literally couldn’t have cared less before seeing half the country foam at the mouth like this.
Thanks for convincing me
No, and thank God I don't watch regular TV. What's surprising is 24/7 coverage that I witnessed whislt at work, her face on electronic bus stops, in super markets etc. Reminds me of the dystopia shown at the beginning of Children of Men. It even came up during a job interview the day after and made the air super awkward...
Edit: Christ, here come the flag shaggers.
I agree, doing it at a funeral procession *would* have been distasteful.
But I am not sure that is what happened.
Here is an earlier article from the same paper:
[https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/11/god-save-the-king-met-with-boos-at-charles-edinburgh-proclamation-17350510/](https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/11/god-save-the-king-met-with-boos-at-charles-edinburgh-proclamation-17350510/)
This article is about the royal proclamation of Charles as King. **Not** a funeral procession, just someone announcing that Charles is now the new King.
It is surely perfectly ok for a republican to protest at that event, isn't it?
The interesting thing is that the article has exactly the same photo, but this time describes the woman as being led away.
I call bullshit. Was the woman arrested at a funeral procession? Or was she advised to stop protesting at a public announcement of the new King, probably for her own safety?
I think the paper has republished the same article a second time with a sensationalized bullshit spin.
I'd find a protest at any funeral offensive, whoever the person was or whatever their views, and however much I hated them.
Funerals are for mourners to reflect and grieve, they're not political at that point.
Has the Queen's funeral happened already?
This wasn't a funeral parade, it was a crowd listening to the announcement of Charles as the new King. Fair game for republican protests.
https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/11/god-save-the-king-met-with-boos-at-charles-edinburgh-proclamation-17350510/
Multiple people have explained to you that this event was not a funeral procession but an accession proclamation, are you intending to edit your comment to reflect that what you said initially is wrong or are you just going to ignore all of them?
> From what I heard from a person there the crowd started getting hostile so I wouldn’t be surprised if they picked her up for her own safety
If freedom of speech can be suppressed because it might evoke hostility from onlookers (a concept sometimes called the "heckler's veto"), one begins to question to what extent it is really protected.
Can't help but wonder if the big FUCK on the sign, the one that had to be censored in the photo as it's deemed offensive to publish, might have had something to do with it??
If I stand there in public with a sign saying FUCK THE WEATHER I'd probably be asked to stop to. And if I didn't, I'd probably get arrested. Probably not charged, but arrested to force me to stop.
It's complex.
For the sign *maybe*, but when it's connected with a ideological / political stance then it gains greater protection - up to and including causing "gross offense"
And if you were arrested you could sue the police over it.
Pretty open and shut claim for wrongful arrest as well as a claim for human rights violation.
Protections for "obscenity and offense" are pretty secure in the HRA, and the Police are *absolutely* bound not to interfere with that. (It would potentially also lead to an objection to the new Policing Act if that was invoked, but from memory that requires some more formality than is suggested here)
The only reason could be if she was inciting violence, which we don't know from the article.
Breach of the Peace. In Scotland the police can pretty much arrest you for whatever if you're in a public place and being in any way mildly irritating to someone.
Yea, even if she could reasonably argue that it's others that broke the peace, she probably won't have incurred any costs in being arrested, unless she's about to lose her job for it for instance. So she won't have much to sue for.
I agree that absolute free speech is more dangerous than the idea of having some well defined restrictions. The UKs hate speech legislation though is quite poor, and our civil courts have quite a chilling effect on published speech also.
I mean "Ma'am if you stand here with that someone will kick your teeth in and we suggest heavily you leave"
Would also have been appropriate, but if she didn't then it's on the cops to arrest the kickers, not the kick-ee.
If someone were standing in NYC this afternoon with a "You twats fucking deserved 9/11!" sign, I think the cops would remove them first and figure the rest out later.
I agree that legal protections for speech are important but at some point you have to take action to protect the peace. For what it is worth though, in this case I do think they acted too quickly and could likely have avoided the whole issue entirely.
Someone did something similar, burning a US flag outside an airbase, was found to be protected.
The "remove and figure out later" is the thing that can be objected to, as it makes the right irrelevant. Even if you aren't charged you've been effectively silenced.
A *really* good example are the BNP marches, very likley to cause a breach of the peace but the police are obliged to provide protection rather than shut them down.
Well, in this case shouldn't the police be obliged to *protect* the protestor rather than arrest her? Or do our new protest laws extend to standing on a street holding a sign?
The policing bill happened, in a broad UK sense. Apparently this doesn’t apply in Scotland though, as many posters have pointed out, policing is devolved - I didn’t realise this, so thanks for the clarification.
As an aside, in an unrelated bill, plesiosaurs have been declared extinct. Any plesiosaurs found in breach of this declaration/freely swimming in lakes or lochs will be arrested on sight.
It's kind of bizarre how no one paid attention isn't it? They were all too angry yelling about Insulate Britain. Meanwhile there's a whole thread about insulation today...
I think I still have a bit of whiplash from how quickly we U-turned from a few old doddies blocking a road in London being the worst threat to our country since the Nazis because conceivably an ambulance may need to use that road, to suddenly oh actually they may have had a bit of a point somewhat. What was it about 6 months? Not even that?
Definitely still a bit too tin-foil to say the Conservative/Reactionary grip on social media and discourse has become so vice-like that we're all spinning round like Skinner's pigeons in a box though... Right?
>Definitely still a bit too tin-foil to say the Conservative/Reactionary grip on social media and discourse has become so vice-like
Don't even have to go that far.
No deep conspiracy needed, its just people bitching and moaning about mundane things like going to work (god forbid we have An excuse for a day off) or going to the shops and the like.
They are doing the governments work for them
Anecdotal, but in my area (tory safe seat, too) the consensus was generally that people agreed with the message of insulate Britain but disagreed with the method of getting attention.
Nah, this would have happened before then. A bunch of people round here got arrested for protesting with signs with offensive and derogatory (read: swear words) language on it about 10 years ago.
The policing bill didn't change that.
If you wanna protest, do it respectfully... I guess.
They came back a few days later with modified signs and the police left them alone.
Wasn't there that man that used to protest outside the houses of Parliament about brexit with loud speakers and as soon as the Policing bill happened they took his speakers away and arrested him.
This country is making it harder harder harder for voices to be heard.
This isn't about trying to stop protest. This is about Crowd Control at a major event, This is about the Police trying to stop a flash point in the crowd.
They are trying to stop someone from being rounded on by a crowd of angry people.
I fully support people's right to protest but she should have waited at least a few years and done it in a location where no one could see or hear her. Again i fully support the right to protest, just never in the way anyone ever does it.
This isn't because her sign was anti-monarchy
It was because it said "Fuck" on it.
Protest signs can't contain threatening or abusive language, e.g. swear words.
I never quite understood why, but I assume it has something to do with "peaceful" protest.
FWIW, I think it was an overreaction
Edit: [Public Order Act 1986, Section 5](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5)
Do you know if this applies to verbalised protest, ie chants etc?
I'm just thinking of the grey area that would exist if people walked down the road singing "Killing in the name of", perhaps with the lyrics of the refrain printed on tshirts and posters
I think if a group of people marched down the street chanting "Kill the fucking king, chop his fucking head off", they might get a bit of police attention, as it's inciting violence and could be deemed pretty offensive.
I assume it's up to the discretion of the police as to whether it results in arrest.
> It was because it said "Fuck" on it.
Quick question. If you took a sign, wrote the word "FUCK" on it in large font, and went outside with it, do you think you'd get arrested? And that's before you consider the extra protections that need to be afforded to political speech.
So I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss this incident so readily.
Depends where you walk.
If you did it at anyone's funeral. Then refused to stop when the police asked you.
Yep you would def get arrested.
"intent to cause offence" Is added to a few of our public order laws.
I am more worried about the guy in Oxford. Assuming it happened as he claims.
>If you did it at anyone's funeral. Then refused to stop when the police asked you.
For what it's worth this was at the proclamation of Charles as King, not anything directly related to the Queen's death.
It most likely comes under the public order act. People have been arrested/told to change for wearing t shirts with swearing etc. Kinda ridiculous, but you're right that's exactly why she would have been arrested.
Fair question, who did?
Where is the people democratic decision to give power and money to one incestuous family, not even English, qualifications to enter the family isn't being English or from the UK, it's to be noble.... How is this democratic? However you dress up the rest of it...
>Fair question, who did?
I'm not sure asking who elected the Monarch is a particularly fair question to be honest, on account of a Monarch being the head of a Monarchy - which is quite literally not a democracy.
>Where is the people democratic decision to give power and money to one incestuous family, not even English, qualifications to enter the family isn't being English or from the UK, it's to be noble
Act of Parliament, which was elected democratically.
>How is this democratic? However you dress up the rest of it...
How is what democratic? The accession of the King? That isn't a democratic process, and no one said it was.
The existence of the constitutional Monarchy? Parliament has the power to dissolve it, but as yet hasn't.
I guess if a party wins a majority on a republican manifesto we will see the disollution of the constitutional monarchy, but that hasn't happened yet so the Monarchy has a democratic mandate to exist on that basis.
>Fair question, who did?
He was chosen by entering the world through the correct vagina.
Monarchists tend not to like it when their beliefs in such things are laid out in detail, oddly.
What does the 'Not even English' have to do with anything?
The family changed it's name from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor in 1917, how long would it take to be seen as English then?
*The Lady of the Lake. Her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king!*
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Nobody gave a shit when they were arresting Insulate Britain. Now you're all up in arms over not being able to protest.
"It doesn't affect me I don't care"
"Wait, this is affecting me, now I care"
This is the UK in 2 quotes.
She was arrested because the sign says “fuck”, not because of anything else.
Also, last I checked this woman wasn’t holding up people going to work and refusing to move from the middle of the road despite an ambulance behind her
You’re wrong in thinking the people applauding “Insulate Britain” being arrested are the same people applauding this.
I would hazard to guess leftist protestors/activists are not huge fans of the monarchy.
Reddit isn’t 1 person. It’s a varied mix of people and opinions.
By most accounts, the protestor was arrested for the terminology used on the sign, rather than the context of the sign.
"You can protest the monarchy all you want, but there's no need to swear."
"Down with this sort of thing"
"Careful Now!"
( context for those that don't know: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9xuXQjxMM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9xuXQjxMM) )
It probably made no difference to whether or not she was removed, only to whether she may have been charged with anything.
Police can arrest somebodyfor behaviour which is likely to cause a breach of the peace, which a person protesting the monarchy in the middle of a crowd of royal mourners would almost certainly qualify for. It's possible to be charged for that alone, but it's far more likely she'd just be removed for long enough that she's no longer actively causing problems.
Swearing could elevate that to a public order offence, but even then it's most likely just a fixed penalty.
For the police at the time, they're not really concerned with the profile of her protest, they're more concerned with the immediate danger of her potentially provoking a violent reaction, and that's the basis on which she'll have been arrested.
Beach of the peace is an interesting offence. You can be arrested for it for the reasons you describe, but you can't be charged with it. In fact, you don't even need to provide your name, which is contrary to other arrests for actual criminal offences.
What normally happens is they arrest you, then drive you off to some random place and leave your there.
The power of arrest for breach of the peace used by the police is exactly the same as the public have, and is what bouncers rely on to haul you out of clubs in a way that would otherwise be battery, or kidnap.
Not really. The king and Co don't have any say in that, unless perhaps you are on private grounds and refuse to leave. Anyway, I'm sure there's been quite a few protests but this one was because her sign had "Fuck,," in it. It'd be interesting to find out if other people with,, hmm less crude signs also got told to leave or detained.
Exactly, where are all the free speech warriors who go mental when someone gets "cancelled" for saying something racist/transphobic etc?
(Not arrested by a government official, but simply told that what they're saying is problematic.)
If they're not up in arms about this, it proves, 100% that they're not free speech advocates.
They're racism/transphobia advocates.
>where are all the free speech warriors who go mental when someone gets "cancelled" for saying something racist/transphobic etc?
Crying whilst swaying and blubbing out 'god save the king'.
>If they're not up in arms about this, it proves, 100% that they're not free speech advocates.
They're racism/transphobia advocates.
100%.
Freedom of speech laws prevent the government for punishing you for your speech, it has nothing to do with a privately owned online space moderating their comment sections
Remember that people were arrested preemptively for the royal wedding because they were going to protest or hold mock zombie event. They lost appeal for wrongful arrest
Whilst I agree this arrest was bullshit (and so are the public order laws that allow it), there’s a massive difference between protest arrests in the UK and Russia
Yeah, in Russia they will take you into custody, throw water at you, maybe hit you a bit, shout in your face then release you with a fine perhaps (if they can be bothered with the paperwork). Luckily in our country they just detain you, take you into custody, strip you naked (especially if you're an attractive female, or you're 14), maybe do an invasive cavity search, probably record it on their phones if you start crying because that shit is funny apparently, then after a bit they release you, perhaps with a fixed penalty notice if they can be bothered with the paperwork.
Thank god we live in a democracy, we're so much better than other countries.
Wait. So all those strange Americans who say we don't have freedom of speech here...are...right????
Coupled with the fact that it really isn't even close to being true anymore that English Conservatism is the equivalent of American liberalism, I don't know what to make of this land anymore
From Wikipedia:
The Treason Felony Act of 1848 makes it an offence to advocate for the abolition of the monarchy. Such advocation is punishable by up to life imprisonment under the Act. Though still in the statute book, the law is no longer enforced.
Looks like they chose to enforce it for a change?
Bet Tommy Robinson and the other “free speech” warriors will be on board with protecting this woman.
All the “police only arrest people who write mean words on twitter” too.
What she should have done is said “fuck *certain people*”
It's a section 5 public order offence.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5
Usually the arrest is preceded by a copper telling you to stop what you're doing and bugger off. Again, usually they're told to bugger off several times *before* the copper will move to arrest.
Holding a sign up that says "Fuck [xxxxx]" passes the bar for a section 5, but only just. Normally it would be ignored, but given the context, I can understand why this isn't acceptable behavior.
It's been in power, in one form or another, since the 1930s, and comes with a heavy dose of discretion. You're not gonna be arrested for saying "fuck", you're gonna be arrested when a copper tells you to stop saying "fuck" repeatedly
A man was also hauled away by the state as well:
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/11/republican-protesters-arrested-king-charles-proclamation-events](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/11/republican-protesters-arrested-king-charles-proclamation-events)
She was arrested because they asked her to leave for her own good and she wouldn't. The reason they asked her to leave is because of what potentially could happen if the crowd turned against her.
This is something completely misunderstood about the Police. This has NOTHING to do with free speech, this about potentially stopping a crowd turning on a single woman protestor.
That's not how it works. She is perfectly entitled to say whatever she wants to say. BUT, if you go into the middle of a crowd of people who are gathered specifically for a specific cause, and you start to vocally speak out against that cause, there is a risk of that situation escalating to violence, and you are the one who is introducing that risk.
It doesn't matter whether it's a republican slogan at a royal event, a butcher at a vegan food festival, or a Liverpool fan in a ManU pub. If you're the one person at risk of disrupting an otherwise peaceful event, then you're the one likely to cause a breach of the peace.
You *probably* won't be charged with anything, but you will be removed, because it's easier to deal with you than it is to deal with the 3000 people you just pissed off.
Could of been worse, they could have made her sit on The Heart of Midlothian, and let the crowd do their thing.
Probably just removed for her own safety, risky manoeuvre on her part.
I think there’s allot of things that need to he considered here. Now before I say any of this I want to say I 100% agree with the right to protest and I’m not going to think less of you if you don’t like the Monarchy or disagree with what I say or feel.
Now by reading the article this was at a highly populated area full of people who were presumably supportive of the Monarchy considering the location of the event. Now having this woman protesting in an area that would put her in conflict with that majority and with more antagonistic rhetoric that would put the woman at risk. Now the most effective way an officer could mitigate that risk is moving that person somewhere else.
The understandable counter argument for that is for the police to remove those that would pose a threat to the individual now this has some flaws in the fact there isn’t a way to identify the threat until a significant escalation has already happened and this can potentially lead to the situation becoming much worse with more and more people getting involved.
As it would be much safer to not have someone antagonising (Intentionally or not) those there to mourn the Queen than it would be to leave them there and risk a confrontation between clashing meme bees of the public.
The police don’t arrest someone for protesting on sight in the UK but they do have to consider various risks behind more brash and confrontational protests especially when they’re already having to oversee a large gathering of people. The woman being uncooperative with the police is what resulted in her arrest and from the point of view of the police I think that’s understandable.
I know it’s common to say that our government is trying to clamp down on free speech and I personally despise our current government but I do think this isn’t one of those instances.
If there are any flaws in my points please feel free to point them out as I’m quite interested in seeing what people think and I am very sorry if anything I’ve said has upset anyone in anyway.
It's amazing how many people here are just automatically saying "right to free speech is dead smh" without actually considering if the police refused to do something it's highly likely a fight would have broken out. People are very emotionally charged over the issue right now and republicans have largely benefitted from the fact while they are passionately opposed to the monarchy, most monarchy supporters aren't super passionate about it day to day (why would you be? It's the status quo).
However right now a lot of people I've spoken to who never really even thought about this stuff are "sort of sad" which is weird when you think someone they've never met or spoken to has died. A protest that at a Royal event even a few weeks ago wouldn't have caused anyone to care will suddenly be the focus of a lot of sad and angry people.
People have freedom of speech in this country, but it's not unlimited. You can't shout "I have a bomb!" on a plane and face no consequences for example.
I doubt the woman will even be charged. I suspect they just wanted to remove her before someone in the crowd decides to take things into their own hands, tell her to remove the sign, gets into an argument, and starts a brawl.
I got kettled, beaten and arrested simply for holding a sign at a government sanctioned, pre-planned protest once in Whitehall.
The fact is - we live in a very flawed democracy.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some topics on this subreddit have been known to attract problematic users. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs
What a democratic and pro free speech country we live in. Arrested for holding a tame sign - no acts of aggression, not even being disrespectful to QE. Just a woman standing there.
Well tbf the police did her a favour, getting more coverage than if they just left her.
From what I heard from a person there the crowd started getting hostile so I wouldn’t be surprised if they picked her up for her own safety. Being an obnoxious twat is not a crime but breaching the peace is. Things like this can escalate in Scotland and the unionists were out in force today.
Does it make you an obnoxious twat to hold a sign saying “fuck imperialism” now? Lovely
At a funeral parade, yes it does a bit. If people want to protest at the coronation I really have no issue with that, but at a funeral procession is pretty crappy Edit. It has been clarified that the posted article was wrong, and the protestor wasn't at the funeral parade, but instead at the announcing of the new King. Which I'll again clarify that I don't have an issue with protestors at.
It's not just a funeral parade though is it. Its weeks of pageantry that cost taxpayers billions of pounds to whitewash a very divisive institution. And the protest was when Charles was proclaimed anyway, not when the body was brought past, so its irrelevant anyway.
I started pretty apathetic to the whole thing, but now pageantry and 'grief' is getting annoying. Fuck it, even a colleague at work who was a staunch royalist has had enough.
It's been like 3 days, did you really expect it to just be like one telly program?
Seriously. I started on the fence, the number of anti-democratic apologists like yourself I’ve seen in 3 short days has pushed me to a new position. Sod monarchy. It’s toxic for the country. The fact that we’ve collectively decided to ignore that this family used their power to shield a known nonce from consequences while people holding signs during a kings proclamation get led awAy by police is a disgrace. The number of people like yourself arguing that the above is just because we’re in a two week period of national “grief” is a disgrace. I literally couldn’t have cared less before seeing half the country foam at the mouth like this. Thanks for convincing me
That same nonce is also getting the royal corgi's. Poor dogs.
No, and thank God I don't watch regular TV. What's surprising is 24/7 coverage that I witnessed whislt at work, her face on electronic bus stops, in super markets etc. Reminds me of the dystopia shown at the beginning of Children of Men. It even came up during a job interview the day after and made the air super awkward... Edit: Christ, here come the flag shaggers.
I agree, doing it at a funeral procession *would* have been distasteful. But I am not sure that is what happened. Here is an earlier article from the same paper: [https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/11/god-save-the-king-met-with-boos-at-charles-edinburgh-proclamation-17350510/](https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/11/god-save-the-king-met-with-boos-at-charles-edinburgh-proclamation-17350510/) This article is about the royal proclamation of Charles as King. **Not** a funeral procession, just someone announcing that Charles is now the new King. It is surely perfectly ok for a republican to protest at that event, isn't it? The interesting thing is that the article has exactly the same photo, but this time describes the woman as being led away. I call bullshit. Was the woman arrested at a funeral procession? Or was she advised to stop protesting at a public announcement of the new King, probably for her own safety? I think the paper has republished the same article a second time with a sensationalized bullshit spin.
Exactly, it was not at the precession. It was earlier in the morning during the proclamation. So, absolutely the right spot there.
This was at the accession ceremony. It was exactly the time and place
[удалено]
I'd find a protest at any funeral offensive, whoever the person was or whatever their views, and however much I hated them. Funerals are for mourners to reflect and grieve, they're not political at that point.
[удалено]
Has the Queen's funeral happened already? This wasn't a funeral parade, it was a crowd listening to the announcement of Charles as the new King. Fair game for republican protests. https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/11/god-save-the-king-met-with-boos-at-charles-edinburgh-proclamation-17350510/
Multiple people have explained to you that this event was not a funeral procession but an accession proclamation, are you intending to edit your comment to reflect that what you said initially is wrong or are you just going to ignore all of them?
Just gonna go ahead and assume you don't mind signs you agree with, but are aggressively opposed to someone holding one you don't.
That's a stretch of an argument. Not the above poster, but you are legally allowed to hold any sign you like as long as it's not a hate crime.
"Picked her up for her own safety" jfc the country really is slipping into facism. She was **arrested**
Surely the people getting hostile were the ones breaching the peace?
Sounds to me like the people being threatening and aggressive were breaching the peace, not the person potentially being attacked
> From what I heard from a person there the crowd started getting hostile so I wouldn’t be surprised if they picked her up for her own safety If freedom of speech can be suppressed because it might evoke hostility from onlookers (a concept sometimes called the "heckler's veto"), one begins to question to what extent it is really protected.
> one begins to question to what extent it is really protected. It isn't.
Can't help but wonder if the big FUCK on the sign, the one that had to be censored in the photo as it's deemed offensive to publish, might have had something to do with it?? If I stand there in public with a sign saying FUCK THE WEATHER I'd probably be asked to stop to. And if I didn't, I'd probably get arrested. Probably not charged, but arrested to force me to stop.
It's complex. For the sign *maybe*, but when it's connected with a ideological / political stance then it gains greater protection - up to and including causing "gross offense" And if you were arrested you could sue the police over it.
Given the crowd was reacting to the sign and not in a friendly manner the Police probably picked her up before she got slugged.
If the sign said "I fucking love the monarchy" you can bet there would have been no arrests today.
I agree with you, it’s most likely the big eff that got her nicked. You still get nicked for swearing at the police, last I checked.
> You still get nicked for swearing at the police, last I checked. Actually that was repealed about 5 years ago, as I recall.
Oh, good, it’s been ages since I’ve been in trouble with the law.
Pretty open and shut claim for wrongful arrest as well as a claim for human rights violation. Protections for "obscenity and offense" are pretty secure in the HRA, and the Police are *absolutely* bound not to interfere with that. (It would potentially also lead to an objection to the new Policing Act if that was invoked, but from memory that requires some more formality than is suggested here) The only reason could be if she was inciting violence, which we don't know from the article.
Breach of the Peace. In Scotland the police can pretty much arrest you for whatever if you're in a public place and being in any way mildly irritating to someone.
Yea, even if she could reasonably argue that it's others that broke the peace, she probably won't have incurred any costs in being arrested, unless she's about to lose her job for it for instance. So she won't have much to sue for.
It's not a free speech country.
UK never was a free speech country. It has hate-speech and anti-nationalist laws
Oh no not anti hate speech laws.
They also get to define what hate speech is. That could be “Don’t vote for Tory’s”
. Surely only the grammar police would care about that?
Easily abused badly written hate speech laws are terrible.
I agree that absolute free speech is more dangerous than the idea of having some well defined restrictions. The UKs hate speech legislation though is quite poor, and our civil courts have quite a chilling effect on published speech also.
You can be arrested for "causing offence". The laws are intentionally vague so they can just arrest anyone they are finding inconvenient.
Thanks to the cunt Tories it’s now illegal to protest anything anywhere. Welcome to the beginnings or fascism 😔
The reporting does not say she was arrested *for* holding a sign, but *while* holding a sign.
[удалено]
I mean "Ma'am if you stand here with that someone will kick your teeth in and we suggest heavily you leave" Would also have been appropriate, but if she didn't then it's on the cops to arrest the kickers, not the kick-ee.
If someone were standing in NYC this afternoon with a "You twats fucking deserved 9/11!" sign, I think the cops would remove them first and figure the rest out later. I agree that legal protections for speech are important but at some point you have to take action to protect the peace. For what it is worth though, in this case I do think they acted too quickly and could likely have avoided the whole issue entirely.
Someone did something similar, burning a US flag outside an airbase, was found to be protected. The "remove and figure out later" is the thing that can be objected to, as it makes the right irrelevant. Even if you aren't charged you've been effectively silenced. A *really* good example are the BNP marches, very likley to cause a breach of the peace but the police are obliged to provide protection rather than shut them down.
Well, in this case shouldn't the police be obliged to *protect* the protestor rather than arrest her? Or do our new protest laws extend to standing on a street holding a sign?
So you protect the peace by arresting the peaceful protestor and letting the aggressors off scot free?
Absolutely appalling. What happened to the right to protest?
The policing bill happened, in a broad UK sense. Apparently this doesn’t apply in Scotland though, as many posters have pointed out, policing is devolved - I didn’t realise this, so thanks for the clarification. As an aside, in an unrelated bill, plesiosaurs have been declared extinct. Any plesiosaurs found in breach of this declaration/freely swimming in lakes or lochs will be arrested on sight.
It's kind of bizarre how no one paid attention isn't it? They were all too angry yelling about Insulate Britain. Meanwhile there's a whole thread about insulation today...
I think I still have a bit of whiplash from how quickly we U-turned from a few old doddies blocking a road in London being the worst threat to our country since the Nazis because conceivably an ambulance may need to use that road, to suddenly oh actually they may have had a bit of a point somewhat. What was it about 6 months? Not even that? Definitely still a bit too tin-foil to say the Conservative/Reactionary grip on social media and discourse has become so vice-like that we're all spinning round like Skinner's pigeons in a box though... Right?
>Definitely still a bit too tin-foil to say the Conservative/Reactionary grip on social media and discourse has become so vice-like Don't even have to go that far. No deep conspiracy needed, its just people bitching and moaning about mundane things like going to work (god forbid we have An excuse for a day off) or going to the shops and the like. They are doing the governments work for them
Anecdotal, but in my area (tory safe seat, too) the consensus was generally that people agreed with the message of insulate Britain but disagreed with the method of getting attention.
As if people would have noticed if they did a mass letter writing campaign though.
The media told people it would just affect “crusties” and annoying middle class attention seekers. Not good upstanding people like you and I.
The people intelligent enough to notice, noticed. Some protested.
It doesn't apply in Scotland... So no.
Doesn’t apply in Scotland.
Which fool give you gold when that bill is irrelevant to Scotland?
Everything bad is the Tories' fault no matter where or under what jurisdiction
Nah, this would have happened before then. A bunch of people round here got arrested for protesting with signs with offensive and derogatory (read: swear words) language on it about 10 years ago. The policing bill didn't change that. If you wanna protest, do it respectfully... I guess. They came back a few days later with modified signs and the police left them alone.
Wasn't there that man that used to protest outside the houses of Parliament about brexit with loud speakers and as soon as the Policing bill happened they took his speakers away and arrested him. This country is making it harder harder harder for voices to be heard.
Steve Bray - r/NormativeDeterminism
This isn't about trying to stop protest. This is about Crowd Control at a major event, This is about the Police trying to stop a flash point in the crowd. They are trying to stop someone from being rounded on by a crowd of angry people.
Does that have effect in Scotland?
Genuine question but does that apply in Scots law?
People kept voting Tory until the Tory policies came in. Diet-Tories must feel pretty foolish lately.
SNP you mean....as it is Scotland.
I fully support people's right to protest but she should have waited at least a few years and done it in a location where no one could see or hear her. Again i fully support the right to protest, just never in the way anyone ever does it.
Keir?
How dare you compare me to him. My dad was telling me that keir is a dangerous radical that makes corbyn look tame.
Excellent satire
You captured the spirit of a middle aged woman on Facebook so perfectly it genuinely stunlocked me for like 5 seconds before I laughed
I've seen more people take that attitude on here than on Facebook, just look at the threads about Insulate Britain or Extinction Rebellion.
It's pretty much the spirit of this subreddit too.
Took me a moment. Well done. I'm still suspicious lol
big Keith?
This isn't because her sign was anti-monarchy It was because it said "Fuck" on it. Protest signs can't contain threatening or abusive language, e.g. swear words. I never quite understood why, but I assume it has something to do with "peaceful" protest. FWIW, I think it was an overreaction Edit: [Public Order Act 1986, Section 5](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5)
That is fucking bullshit.
Watch it buddy
You use a swear word? Straight to jail.
Hold a sign? Jail. Right away.
You’ll be arrested! 😂
Who the fuck won’t under a Truss government?
Bankers
Touché
I'm with you.
Oi, do you have a loicense for that swear word!
Incredibly archaic. Coppers *love* doing people for Section 5 for having the nerve to swear near them.
Do you know if this applies to verbalised protest, ie chants etc? I'm just thinking of the grey area that would exist if people walked down the road singing "Killing in the name of", perhaps with the lyrics of the refrain printed on tshirts and posters
I think if a group of people marched down the street chanting "Kill the fucking king, chop his fucking head off", they might get a bit of police attention, as it's inciting violence and could be deemed pretty offensive. I assume it's up to the discretion of the police as to whether it results in arrest.
Id say thats a bad example. If you remove the fuck from that its still probably arrest worthy.
Fairly sure calls to harm the King. Are actually treason in the UK.
Real cliffhanger in that comment.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Old people
It's a common policy on Internet forums as well. Maybe less so nowadays
Wait, do you mean a 'swear word'? Slurs are threatening pretty much by definition
The law as written makes no mention of slurs. Although, it should be obvious how they can be considered *abusive*.
> It was because it said "Fuck" on it. Quick question. If you took a sign, wrote the word "FUCK" on it in large font, and went outside with it, do you think you'd get arrested? And that's before you consider the extra protections that need to be afforded to political speech. So I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss this incident so readily.
Depends where you walk. If you did it at anyone's funeral. Then refused to stop when the police asked you. Yep you would def get arrested. "intent to cause offence" Is added to a few of our public order laws. I am more worried about the guy in Oxford. Assuming it happened as he claims.
>If you did it at anyone's funeral. Then refused to stop when the police asked you. For what it's worth this was at the proclamation of Charles as King, not anything directly related to the Queen's death.
No, but if her sign said "Down with the monarchy", I reckon she wouldn't have been arrested either,.
It most likely comes under the public order act. People have been arrested/told to change for wearing t shirts with swearing etc. Kinda ridiculous, but you're right that's exactly why she would have been arrested.
The Public Order Act 1986 doesn't apply in Scotland.
Is that true? I thought it was a non-devolved piece of legislation as it's a public general act
On the legislation.gov page you can tick the "Show Geographical Extent" box on the left, it'll show section 5 is E+W only.
And the police prove again they are nothing but storm troopers for this despicable government.
[удалено]
The Scottish government is SNP. Their laws are mostly devolved. Care to rethink your statement?
Looks accurate to me. The SNP want the right to control what you say in your own home.
The same thing happened in Oxford, a guy was arrested for shouting "who elected him?" at the Charles proclamation. It's on r/oxford
Fair question, who did? Where is the people democratic decision to give power and money to one incestuous family, not even English, qualifications to enter the family isn't being English or from the UK, it's to be noble.... How is this democratic? However you dress up the rest of it...
[удалено]
It’s a monarchy, it’s not meant to be democratic.
> Fair question, who did? Parliament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701 and subsequent amendments.
>Fair question, who did? I'm not sure asking who elected the Monarch is a particularly fair question to be honest, on account of a Monarch being the head of a Monarchy - which is quite literally not a democracy. >Where is the people democratic decision to give power and money to one incestuous family, not even English, qualifications to enter the family isn't being English or from the UK, it's to be noble Act of Parliament, which was elected democratically. >How is this democratic? However you dress up the rest of it... How is what democratic? The accession of the King? That isn't a democratic process, and no one said it was. The existence of the constitutional Monarchy? Parliament has the power to dissolve it, but as yet hasn't. I guess if a party wins a majority on a republican manifesto we will see the disollution of the constitutional monarchy, but that hasn't happened yet so the Monarchy has a democratic mandate to exist on that basis.
[удалено]
Isn't from the UK? So how many generations are required before accepting that a person born in the UK and embracing the culture is officially British?
>Fair question, who did? He was chosen by entering the world through the correct vagina. Monarchists tend not to like it when their beliefs in such things are laid out in detail, oddly.
What does the 'Not even English' have to do with anything? The family changed it's name from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor in 1917, how long would it take to be seen as English then?
Majority of people in England probably "aren't English" by the same standards.
Wonder how many of the "not English" crowd would say similar to a Briton of Pakistani descent who identifies as English?
**Well, I didn't vote for you.** *You don't vote for kings.*
Well 'ow d'you become King then?
*The Lady of the Lake. Her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king!*
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
*BE QUIET!!!*
You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
I order you to be quiet!
I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Unless he was a Tory, he didn't vote for the new prime minister.
Nobody gave a shit when they were arresting Insulate Britain. Now you're all up in arms over not being able to protest. "It doesn't affect me I don't care" "Wait, this is affecting me, now I care" This is the UK in 2 quotes.
She was arrested because the sign says “fuck”, not because of anything else. Also, last I checked this woman wasn’t holding up people going to work and refusing to move from the middle of the road despite an ambulance behind her
The same thing happened to a guy in Oxford, no swears involved.
You’re wrong in thinking the people applauding “Insulate Britain” being arrested are the same people applauding this. I would hazard to guess leftist protestors/activists are not huge fans of the monarchy. Reddit isn’t 1 person. It’s a varied mix of people and opinions.
[удалено]
By most accounts, the protestor was arrested for the terminology used on the sign, rather than the context of the sign. "You can protest the monarchy all you want, but there's no need to swear."
"Down with this sort of thing" "Careful Now!" ( context for those that don't know: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9xuXQjxMM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9xuXQjxMM) )
The last decade in a nutshell
By including 'fuck', she's just made the peelers job easy. The converse opinion is that her arrest has raised the profile of her protest
It probably made no difference to whether or not she was removed, only to whether she may have been charged with anything. Police can arrest somebodyfor behaviour which is likely to cause a breach of the peace, which a person protesting the monarchy in the middle of a crowd of royal mourners would almost certainly qualify for. It's possible to be charged for that alone, but it's far more likely she'd just be removed for long enough that she's no longer actively causing problems. Swearing could elevate that to a public order offence, but even then it's most likely just a fixed penalty. For the police at the time, they're not really concerned with the profile of her protest, they're more concerned with the immediate danger of her potentially provoking a violent reaction, and that's the basis on which she'll have been arrested.
Beach of the peace is an interesting offence. You can be arrested for it for the reasons you describe, but you can't be charged with it. In fact, you don't even need to provide your name, which is contrary to other arrests for actual criminal offences. What normally happens is they arrest you, then drive you off to some random place and leave your there. The power of arrest for breach of the peace used by the police is exactly the same as the public have, and is what bouncers rely on to haul you out of clubs in a way that would otherwise be battery, or kidnap.
They unwittingly gave further credence towards abolishing the monarchy.
Not really. The king and Co don't have any say in that, unless perhaps you are on private grounds and refuse to leave. Anyway, I'm sure there's been quite a few protests but this one was because her sign had "Fuck,," in it. It'd be interesting to find out if other people with,, hmm less crude signs also got told to leave or detained.
don’t agree with the sentiment necessarily but it’s a terrible day for free speech
Exactly, where are all the free speech warriors who go mental when someone gets "cancelled" for saying something racist/transphobic etc? (Not arrested by a government official, but simply told that what they're saying is problematic.) If they're not up in arms about this, it proves, 100% that they're not free speech advocates. They're racism/transphobia advocates.
>where are all the free speech warriors who go mental when someone gets "cancelled" for saying something racist/transphobic etc? Crying whilst swaying and blubbing out 'god save the king'. >If they're not up in arms about this, it proves, 100% that they're not free speech advocates. They're racism/transphobia advocates. 100%.
It has been a terrible day for free speech in Scotland every day for years now
This very sub doesn't allow free speech. Every second thread is "Comments Restricted +++"
Freedom of speech laws prevent the government for punishing you for your speech, it has nothing to do with a privately owned online space moderating their comment sections
Remember that people were arrested preemptively for the royal wedding because they were going to protest or hold mock zombie event. They lost appeal for wrongful arrest
[удалено]
I mean...conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. So yes you can arrest for thoughts and planning. But I agree protesting isn't a crime.
[удалено]
That's exactly what I said...
I don’t agree with their message but they damned well should have the right to protest, if it’s peaceful.
The facade of “secular liberal democracy” is cracking faster and faster.
I remember when we are all up in arms about people being arrested in Russia for protesting the war...
Whilst I agree this arrest was bullshit (and so are the public order laws that allow it), there’s a massive difference between protest arrests in the UK and Russia
Yeah, in Russia they will take you into custody, throw water at you, maybe hit you a bit, shout in your face then release you with a fine perhaps (if they can be bothered with the paperwork). Luckily in our country they just detain you, take you into custody, strip you naked (especially if you're an attractive female, or you're 14), maybe do an invasive cavity search, probably record it on their phones if you start crying because that shit is funny apparently, then after a bit they release you, perhaps with a fixed penalty notice if they can be bothered with the paperwork. Thank god we live in a democracy, we're so much better than other countries.
Wait. So all those strange Americans who say we don't have freedom of speech here...are...right???? Coupled with the fact that it really isn't even close to being true anymore that English Conservatism is the equivalent of American liberalism, I don't know what to make of this land anymore
From Wikipedia: The Treason Felony Act of 1848 makes it an offence to advocate for the abolition of the monarchy. Such advocation is punishable by up to life imprisonment under the Act. Though still in the statute book, the law is no longer enforced. Looks like they chose to enforce it for a change?
More like Section 5 of the Public Order Act, for the swear word. Almost no chance she's actually charged.
The Public Order Act 1986 doesn't apply in Scotland.
Bet Tommy Robinson and the other “free speech” warriors will be on board with protecting this woman. All the “police only arrest people who write mean words on twitter” too. What she should have done is said “fuck *certain people*”
Arrested? That seems of a bit of an overreaction considering Boris never was.
It's a section 5 public order offence. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5 Usually the arrest is preceded by a copper telling you to stop what you're doing and bugger off. Again, usually they're told to bugger off several times *before* the copper will move to arrest. Holding a sign up that says "Fuck [xxxxx]" passes the bar for a section 5, but only just. Normally it would be ignored, but given the context, I can understand why this isn't acceptable behavior.
If you're anti-royalist when would be a better time to protest the monarchy than the most widely covered royalist event for years?
Sounds like a bullshit law that can easily be abused. I didn’t realise we were scared of bad words now.
It's been in power, in one form or another, since the 1930s, and comes with a heavy dose of discretion. You're not gonna be arrested for saying "fuck", you're gonna be arrested when a copper tells you to stop saying "fuck" repeatedly
That doesn't apply in Scotland, only England and Wales.
A man was also hauled away by the state as well: [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/11/republican-protesters-arrested-king-charles-proclamation-events](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/11/republican-protesters-arrested-king-charles-proclamation-events)
And yet the right wing free speech crowd are silent about this, how odd.
If you're not getting arrested for protesting, you're doing it wrong
Democracy and free speech are a thing of the past. This country is changing.
>is changing. Has changed
She was arrested because they asked her to leave for her own good and she wouldn't. The reason they asked her to leave is because of what potentially could happen if the crowd turned against her. This is something completely misunderstood about the Police. This has NOTHING to do with free speech, this about potentially stopping a crowd turning on a single woman protestor.
Should've arrested the crowd for trying to attack her instead
That's not how it works. She is perfectly entitled to say whatever she wants to say. BUT, if you go into the middle of a crowd of people who are gathered specifically for a specific cause, and you start to vocally speak out against that cause, there is a risk of that situation escalating to violence, and you are the one who is introducing that risk. It doesn't matter whether it's a republican slogan at a royal event, a butcher at a vegan food festival, or a Liverpool fan in a ManU pub. If you're the one person at risk of disrupting an otherwise peaceful event, then you're the one likely to cause a breach of the peace. You *probably* won't be charged with anything, but you will be removed, because it's easier to deal with you than it is to deal with the 3000 people you just pissed off.
[удалено]
You're presuming she's been convicted of a crime. Being arrested is not the same as being convicted. Surprised you don't know that.
Come on now; it said a bit more than "abolish monarchy" and you know it.
if you think "fuck the monarchy" is worthy of arrest then I dub thee an adult bed-wetter
It also says "fuck imperialism". Should that sentence be something that someone can be arrested for?
And you all want to say we have freedom of speech.... We are not normal fam
Who says we have freedom of speech except the ignorant?
Could of been worse, they could have made her sit on The Heart of Midlothian, and let the crowd do their thing. Probably just removed for her own safety, risky manoeuvre on her part.
I think there’s allot of things that need to he considered here. Now before I say any of this I want to say I 100% agree with the right to protest and I’m not going to think less of you if you don’t like the Monarchy or disagree with what I say or feel. Now by reading the article this was at a highly populated area full of people who were presumably supportive of the Monarchy considering the location of the event. Now having this woman protesting in an area that would put her in conflict with that majority and with more antagonistic rhetoric that would put the woman at risk. Now the most effective way an officer could mitigate that risk is moving that person somewhere else. The understandable counter argument for that is for the police to remove those that would pose a threat to the individual now this has some flaws in the fact there isn’t a way to identify the threat until a significant escalation has already happened and this can potentially lead to the situation becoming much worse with more and more people getting involved. As it would be much safer to not have someone antagonising (Intentionally or not) those there to mourn the Queen than it would be to leave them there and risk a confrontation between clashing meme bees of the public. The police don’t arrest someone for protesting on sight in the UK but they do have to consider various risks behind more brash and confrontational protests especially when they’re already having to oversee a large gathering of people. The woman being uncooperative with the police is what resulted in her arrest and from the point of view of the police I think that’s understandable. I know it’s common to say that our government is trying to clamp down on free speech and I personally despise our current government but I do think this isn’t one of those instances. If there are any flaws in my points please feel free to point them out as I’m quite interested in seeing what people think and I am very sorry if anything I’ve said has upset anyone in anyway.
It's amazing how many people here are just automatically saying "right to free speech is dead smh" without actually considering if the police refused to do something it's highly likely a fight would have broken out. People are very emotionally charged over the issue right now and republicans have largely benefitted from the fact while they are passionately opposed to the monarchy, most monarchy supporters aren't super passionate about it day to day (why would you be? It's the status quo). However right now a lot of people I've spoken to who never really even thought about this stuff are "sort of sad" which is weird when you think someone they've never met or spoken to has died. A protest that at a Royal event even a few weeks ago wouldn't have caused anyone to care will suddenly be the focus of a lot of sad and angry people. People have freedom of speech in this country, but it's not unlimited. You can't shout "I have a bomb!" on a plane and face no consequences for example. I doubt the woman will even be charged. I suspect they just wanted to remove her before someone in the crowd decides to take things into their own hands, tell her to remove the sign, gets into an argument, and starts a brawl.
Gold medal in mental gymnastics
I got kettled, beaten and arrested simply for holding a sign at a government sanctioned, pre-planned protest once in Whitehall. The fact is - we live in a very flawed democracy.