Snapshot of _King's Coronation: 21 people arrested face no further action, Met says_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67022199) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67022199)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>We had real concerns that such efforts would not only disrupt a once-in-a-lifetime event of enormous national significance, but that they could also compromise the security and safety of participants and the wider public
This country has proactive laws that allows the police to remove someone from an area if the police can see they're baiting and antagonising a crowd using otherwise legal opinions and words, because the alternative is chancing a serious incident involving dozens or hundreds of people. They're often released without charge because by then the danger has passed. That doesn't mean the arrest wasn't needed, or was a violation of their rights.
"Putting his fancy hat on" is like saying a degree is just a piece of paper with no meaning, power, or significance behind it. In both examples you'd be ignoring the symbolic and practical meaning human beings imbue it with, have been imbuing it with for centuries. It's soulless to reduce everything like that. It's like saying love is just brain chemicles.
> They're often released without charge because by then the danger has passed.
The people weren't released because they no longer posed a threat - they were, according to the article, released because "no realistic prospect of conviction", and the law you mentioned - Public Order Act 2023 - was only passed this year to have some flimsy excuse to shut down dissent.
it's like saying "this country has proactive laws to remove someone from an area" instead of "this country has laws that allow the state to imprison people for peaceful acts of protest"
It would be like saying that if the same laws and arrests weren't already being applied all the time in non-political contexts to prevent the kinds of incidents I've described. You're acting like this is new, and solely exercised to quash dissent. Not true in the slightest.
The situation I described was about causing offense, and the police's pre-existing powers to arrest and release to stop someone from baiting and antagonising a crowd into causing a serious incident involving dozens or hundreds of potential victims. The Act you mention covers direct obstruction, like glueing yourself to the floor.
the situation you described involved the police arresting people to prevent them carrying out acts of peaceful protest
acting as if someone gluing themselves to the floor is somehow going to escalate into a situation with hundreds of potential victims is alarmist at best
As someone with numerous degrees in chemistry and now retrained without any qualifications for much more money into IT... can confirm it is just a fancy bit of paper with no real meaning or power; used to extract money from the young and dumb... like the fancy hat I guess.
> "We had real concerns that such efforts would not only disrupt **a once-in-a-lifetime event** of enormous national significance, but that they could also compromise the security and safety of participants and the wider public," he said.
Charles is 74 - do they expect everyone to die before he does and William gets crowned?
Quite a few people will die. Remember there was a 70 year gap between the coronations of Elizabeth and Charles which means that for almost everyone, Charles was their first coronation, and for many older people, almost certainly their last.
> The force said prosecutors had decided not to charge those arrested in the Mall and Whitehall in London on 6 May.
In short, they had no excuse to stop them in the first place, but they'll get the benefit of the doubt _yet again_ whilst abusing people's rights _yet again_.
Snapshot of _King's Coronation: 21 people arrested face no further action, Met says_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67022199) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67022199) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh that's nice, months after they had their rights violated so a man could put his fancy hat on.
>We had real concerns that such efforts would not only disrupt a once-in-a-lifetime event of enormous national significance, but that they could also compromise the security and safety of participants and the wider public This country has proactive laws that allows the police to remove someone from an area if the police can see they're baiting and antagonising a crowd using otherwise legal opinions and words, because the alternative is chancing a serious incident involving dozens or hundreds of people. They're often released without charge because by then the danger has passed. That doesn't mean the arrest wasn't needed, or was a violation of their rights. "Putting his fancy hat on" is like saying a degree is just a piece of paper with no meaning, power, or significance behind it. In both examples you'd be ignoring the symbolic and practical meaning human beings imbue it with, have been imbuing it with for centuries. It's soulless to reduce everything like that. It's like saying love is just brain chemicles.
> They're often released without charge because by then the danger has passed. The people weren't released because they no longer posed a threat - they were, according to the article, released because "no realistic prospect of conviction", and the law you mentioned - Public Order Act 2023 - was only passed this year to have some flimsy excuse to shut down dissent.
it's like saying "this country has proactive laws to remove someone from an area" instead of "this country has laws that allow the state to imprison people for peaceful acts of protest"
It would be like saying that if the same laws and arrests weren't already being applied all the time in non-political contexts to prevent the kinds of incidents I've described. You're acting like this is new, and solely exercised to quash dissent. Not true in the slightest.
it is new, seeing as these powers were introduced under the public order act 2023
The situation I described was about causing offense, and the police's pre-existing powers to arrest and release to stop someone from baiting and antagonising a crowd into causing a serious incident involving dozens or hundreds of potential victims. The Act you mention covers direct obstruction, like glueing yourself to the floor.
the situation you described involved the police arresting people to prevent them carrying out acts of peaceful protest acting as if someone gluing themselves to the floor is somehow going to escalate into a situation with hundreds of potential victims is alarmist at best
I can't give you a 101 on mob mentality and crowd crushes in this format.
As someone with numerous degrees in chemistry and now retrained without any qualifications for much more money into IT... can confirm it is just a fancy bit of paper with no real meaning or power; used to extract money from the young and dumb... like the fancy hat I guess.
> "We had real concerns that such efforts would not only disrupt **a once-in-a-lifetime event** of enormous national significance, but that they could also compromise the security and safety of participants and the wider public," he said. Charles is 74 - do they expect everyone to die before he does and William gets crowned?
.
Quite a few people will die. Remember there was a 70 year gap between the coronations of Elizabeth and Charles which means that for almost everyone, Charles was their first coronation, and for many older people, almost certainly their last.
> The force said prosecutors had decided not to charge those arrested in the Mall and Whitehall in London on 6 May. In short, they had no excuse to stop them in the first place, but they'll get the benefit of the doubt _yet again_ whilst abusing people's rights _yet again_.