Joani Walsh was at Accenture, says no trouble beforehand

I do wonder why they were filming before the police showed up, if they had no prior indication that their presence was causing or likely to provoke an issue.

The statement from Accenture is damage limitation. Also known as a big fat lie.

And yes, Yambabe's point is the pertinent one; one side (the TRAs) claim that Julia et al. were asked to leave before the police were called, the other side (Julia's) says the first they knew about it was when the police arrived. One side has to be lying. I know who my money's on.

Sorry, my quote marks weren't a dig at you (I know how mobile phones misbehave); I was simply repeating the scare quotes in Pam's post.

It obviously should have been kettling

I don't think Pam's trying to say it's the same thing in terms of the way events unfolded, just that the same legal precedent is involved (with a strong suggestion - though I don't want to put words in her mouth - that in this instance the law is an ass.)

We've got another thread going on "Regulatory Capture" at the moment, where I raised the issue of "mission creep". What Pam's alluding to is an instance of this in action, I think. Law starts with situation where previous cases have led to violent breach of the peace, and gives police powers to act pre-emptively (miners' strike). Then gets extended to "kettling" at political demonstrations (which many of us found a really unsettling authoritarian over-reach at the time). Now extended to women peacefully munching pizza at an event for which they had quite legitimately obtained tickets.

theOtherPamAyres
Your comparison of women with tickets at an inclusive event to the miners strike and Kettering is risible

There doesn't have to be "trouble" before the police can use their powers to PREVENT a breach of the peace. (See case law involving the miner's strike, the 'kettling' of protesters and so on and so on and so forth)

The police spokesperson and the Accenture spokesperson both say that the group had been asked to leave AND refused. Presumably they then sat on chairs, ate pizzas and continued as though they were determined to remain.

The refusal was enough for the police to make a reasonable assumption that the group would have to be forcibly removed if they continued to refuse (and sit on chairs, eating pizzas).

Political rights activists KNOW this part of the common law and know how far they can go. In this instance, there was a positive result - no detention but maximum publicity.

That was my impression from the video I saw - the first time they were asked to leave was when the police arrived?