Arrested for holding a banner - can't ruin a big day, can we...

[cakeorwine]

'Not My King' protesters unfurl flags and shout anti-monarchy slogans on Coronation route | Daily Mail Online

Looks like the police are taking full advantage of their new powers.

Protestsxare not fair on those yesterday have travelled huge distances or camped out to see the coronation procession. What about their rights?

God knows how many times we have to repeat this. They were in a designated area not blocking anyone's views. It was agreed in advance with the Police.

Your 'rights' as a Royalist are 100% protected.

Especially as they arrested people for nothing.

God knows how many times we have to repeat this

How's your personal bet/wine consumption, Roussette? Plastered yet?

How would protestors, in a defined area with placards agreed ahead of time with police, infringe anyone’s rights? Please explain you point. Can you give an example?

@fUNNYfACE36 you do not have an inalienable right to not bere disturbed by protests. If there are protesters nearby, you can move. Because they have just as much right to be there and express their opposition to the monarchy as you do to be there and express your support. Fair doesn't come into it, the law does.

I have a teensy headache I will admit! We got past the 20 times of repeating but it was on other threads too and not sure it would count, but decided it did as I hadn't stipulated!
It was a very nice pale Rosé ....glug

Sorry about the headache Roussette, but I admire your choice ... I'm a bit of a rose fan myself, only find it's best drunk somewhere sunny

Protesters were in the minority, they were drowned out by the Royal supporters and their noise and litter

Defiant statement by Republic at the travesty of justice meted out yesterday.

These arrests were not about protecting people from harm, but about protecting the King from embarrassment. It was the state wanting to stamp down dissent in order to present an image of a grateful and consenting public at the time of the coronation.

Rather than a puppet-king, doing the bidding of the government, we need an independent elected head of state, there to stand on the wall and guard our constitution and our rights from government power.
^^
Republic has a strong track record of peaceful and lawful campaigning and protests. We will not be deterred from further protest. We will protest on Trafalgar Square, we will protest on The Mall, outside Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace. We will protest outside Downing Street and parliament, in Windsor and around the UK. As much as possible we will continue to protest wherever Charles goes, wherever William goes. We will continue to protest with one simple message: Charles is not our king, it is time to abolish the monarchy."

https://www.republic.org.uk/arrests_of_peaceful_protesters_republic_s_response

Well done Republic. Their right to protest was taken away from them yesterday.

Graham Smith CEO of Republic was released after 16 hours in custody. A couple of the others have not been released yet.

He is a reasonable man who knows what he can do, and what he can't.

From one of Republic.... ('They' is the Met)
“They said ‘slogans. chanting - go for it - but if you start saying Andrew and the sex stuff we will start arresting,” he told The Independent.

Great video from Times Radio. A corner has certainly been turned.

Why can’t you say the sweaty nonce stuff? Only saying what we’re all saying etc.

The BBC were told by KP under no circumstances were they to mention Andrew in their Coronation coverage to which they complied. As to the Met's 'proscription' - that may have just been the interpretation of one policeman who was videoed rather than official policy.

It's a thorny problem. Rght to protest versus right to go about my lawful business....
People aren't allowed to stand quietly outside abortion centres, either, but I don't remember anyone on Mumsnet shouting about loss of liberty when that was brought in! (Please - no arguments about that - it's just the first example that jumped into my addled brain!). Personally, I'm beginning to think that there should be a large area in every town where protests can be held. ....

And I don't want a president or anyone else above parliament. I understand that the Queen could have vetoed bills and acts and perhaps she did, but she kept out of public arguments. I'm hoping that Charles will follow her example.

The protesters yesterday weren't confronting the people celebrating

@Snippysocks

No Elizabeth didn't veto bills . She looked at a bill , got an expert to point out any part which would be to her financial or other detriment and promptly excluded herself
Charles did this too and will obviously continue
It is called royal consent

And it's an utter disgrace

@Novella4
I always like actual data / proof because if I was being accused publicly of something, I'd want all the facts to be put out there.
Please can you back up this statement?

Yep she didn't veto bills but made it so they didn't affect her which is pretty disgusting.

@Snippysocks your abortion clinic analogy is very poorly chosen. Protesters at abortion clinics are there with the intention of intimidating (whether silently or otherwise) women into abandoning their perfectly legal chosen course of action.

The protesters at the coronation were not preventing or intimidating, they were expressing their opinion that there should not be a monarchy.

The anti Brexit protests would have been a far better comparison. I suspect those would now not be permitted.

@Snippysocks

This a documented fact . There is royal assent and royal consent

Is this really news to you ?

Do you know that their wills are secret ? Every other person must have public willls .
Why are 'royal ' wills secret ? Because if they weren't, their massive wealth would be clear and the tax payer would refuse to pay for their coronations etc
They rely on ignorance

There so much that the general public are encouraged not to know or ask about .
That's how the Windsors continue .

Thank god for the guardian

"The investigation uncovered evidence suggesting that she used the procedure to persuade government ministers to change a 1970s transparency law in order to conceal her private wealth from the public"

amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

But the Royalists were quite vile in their confronting of those protesting... telling them to fuck off and all of that.

I can and have already done so today. Maybe not on this thread but on another one.

You need to read the whole article to get the full understanding
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

Ooops sorry @novella4 !

@Roussette
No problem
I'm surprised I haven't posted on the wrong thread - so many open at once !