New Met police video

[Member of public 1 + 279]

Furious motorists left stuck in gridlock by Just Stop Oil protesters in London's rush hour were warned by police they could be charged with assault if they push the demonstrators off the road.  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12010487/Moment-furious-motorist-tears-Just-Stop-Oil-banners-zealots-road-blockade.html      What side is the police on as they should be arresting then and keeping the roads clear and taking them to court and hand them a prison sentence like they did the last two.  

[sierragolf95 + 56]

"They won't change unless disruptive pressure from ordinary people forces them to"

Somehow they don't get that this is only giving people an EXTREME hatred for them and their movement. The police in that video are in a rubbish position. They can't witness what's technically an assault and not do anything, they can't do anything to the JSO protestors, so the only person that'll get screwed for it is the ordinary working person just trying to get to their job, both in either time delay or criminal charges if they take the law into their own hands.

 

Edited April 26 by sierragolf95

[Zulu 22 + 4,642]

Have you any idea of your powers, Sorry but they can, and should be arrested for Obstruction and are failing badly in failing to take action. The Met are doing absolutely zero to enhance their, sadly, tarnished reputation.  They have a duty and are failing badly. Just out of interest, what do you think would happen if they did that on the Coronation route. Their conduct of the protestors towards the general public is also causing a Breach of the Peace.

Why are the senior officers in the Met not having these prote4stors dealt with.

[Reasonable Man + 1,259]

1 hour ago, Zulu 22 said:

Have you any idea of your powers, Sorry but they can, and should be arrested for Obstruction and are failing badly in failing to take action. The Met are doing absolutely zero to enhance their, sadly, tarnished reputation.  They have a duty and are failing badly. Just out of interest, what do you think would happen if they did that on the Coronation route. Their conduct of the protestors towards the general public is also causing a Breach of the Peace.

Why are the senior officers in the Met not having these prote4stors dealt with.

Someone who’s not policed a protest for 20 years and has forgotten what a breach of the peace is. 
Professional protesters are well versed in the threshold of legality. Storming in with your size 12s and dragging people out of the way will cost your force a small fortune in compensation and maybe you your job. 

[Zulu 22 + 4,642]

46 minutes ago, Reasonable Man said:

Someone who’s not policed a protest for 20 years and has forgotten what a breach of the peace is. 
Professional protesters are well versed in the threshold of legality. Storming in with your size 12s and dragging people out of the way will cost your force a small fortune in compensation and maybe you your job. 

I don't know where you get that from. The Protestors are committing offences and they are just annoying people going about their business and they are committing behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace, in fact they are causing a breach of the peace.  Should they try anything like this on the Coronation route then, are you saying they will not be arrested. or are you one of those on the side of the protestors.  The officers ion the Met over the last year have allowed Extinction Rebellion and Stop Oil Protestors to get away with so much by their total inaction.  Is it any wonder why the public are losing faith in a Police Service which vowed to uphold the law, without Fear or Favour.

For once look outside the Police Ivory Towers and ask the public what they want. The answer would be that the laws of the land be enforced which is, selectively, not happening.

[Reasonable Man + 1,259]

1 hour ago, Zulu 22 said:

I don't know where you get that from. The Protestors are committing offences and they are just annoying people going about their business and they are committing behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace, in fact they are causing a breach of the peace.  Should they try anything like this on the Coronation route then, are you saying they will not be arrested. or are you one of those on the side of the protestors.  The officers ion the Met over the last year have allowed Extinction Rebellion and Stop Oil Protestors to get away with so much by their total inaction.  Is it any wonder why the public are losing faith in a Police Service which vowed to uphold the law, without Fear or Favour.

For once look outside the Police Ivory Towers and ask the public what they want. The answer would be that the laws of the land be enforced which is, selectively, not happening.

The law is the law, not what the public want. Or rather what the section of the public who you agree with want.  
Get your law books out of the loft and explain how a peaceful protester is causing, or likely to cause a breach of the peace. Someone walking slowly, or sat passively is not likely to harm a person, or in his presence his property. In fact it is the protester who is more likely to be harmed by those annoyed by the protest. 

[Richhamdo + 878]

@Reasonable Man +I tend to agree, “real and imminent” are two words that stick in my mind regarding the case of Trevor Foulkes and a certain police force 
Whenever I come across  the words “Breach of the Peace”  my mind goes back to a story that I’ve told before about that freezing, very snowy night back in the early eighties sometime. This young lad was having a great time throwing snowballs in the market place at at all and sundry who were coming out of the pubs at turning out time.  Of course sooner or later Murphy’s law inevitably came into play, one snowball   hit this guy’s  girlfriend and she was very upset about it.
Watching all this from the passenger seat of the big van I could see what was about to happen, ie this lad  was going to get thumped.  Wishing to keep paperwork to a minimum as I had had a very long day (with the day job)I jumped out pretty quick and ushered him away from the scene quick sharp and into the the back of the van about twenty yards away  ( no cages then, just long seats down either side) and told this other guy and his girl I would speak with him. To cut a long story short  the couple seemed happy with this idea they then then got in a taxi  on the rank and went.

We passed some pleasantries with each other  in the back of the van and I then sent the young lad on his way, job sorted. The point of all this story is that his behaviour at that particular time was likely to cause such harm, to the young lad throwing snowballs and in this case it was real and it was imminent , the harm you spoke about. 

I digress,back to the matter in hand, pretty  sure no one wants to prevent the protesters  their right of  expression/ association etc as long as they are reasonable about it, but they are not being reasonable, in my opinion anyway. Having said that  I would just like to bring the argument of Highway obstruction ( as defined) back into the discussion if I may.
 I read or heard somewhere that  law on this matter was recently changed with regard to this. I don’t know anything at all about it but a question to those in the know, Is the change going to have any impact on this type of behaviour?. This behaviour that causes no end of  wasted fuel/time, general upheaval and missed hospital/work appointments, flight connections etc,etc. Rich.

[Zulu 22 + 4,642]

Obstructing the free passage of the highway without lawful authority or excuse is an arrestable offence. The term "highway" includes the road, pavement, grass verges, and private property used as a public thoroughfare. "Obstruction" includes anything that prevents passing and re-passing along the highway. The offence is recordable, meaning that fingerprints and DNA must be given at the police station if arrested1. A constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he sees committing an offence against this section. The maximum penalty is up to 51 weeks imprisonment.

The protestors are obstructing the highway, Highways Act 1980.  Speak to the public and ask them if the action of the protestors is likely to cause a Breach of the Peace and you would find a very affirmative reply.

[Indiana Jones + 1,103]

If the actions of the protesters cause someone else to commit a BoP then it's someone else who's liable to arrest, not the protesters. 

[Reasonable Man + 1,259]

1 hour ago, Zulu 22 said:

Obstructing the free passage of the highway without lawful authority or excuse is an arrestable offence. The term "highway" includes the road, pavement, grass verges, and private property used as a public thoroughfare. "Obstruction" includes anything that prevents passing and re-passing along the highway. The offence is recordable, meaning that fingerprints and DNA must be given at the police station if arrested1. A constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he sees committing an offence against this section. The maximum penalty is up to 51 weeks imprisonment.

The protestors are obstructing the highway, Highways Act 1980.  Speak to the public and ask them if the action of the protestors is likely to cause a Breach of the Peace and you would find a very affirmative reply.

You’re just making yourself look silly now. 

[Reasonable Man + 1,259]

59 minutes ago, Indiana Jones said:

If the actions of the protesters cause someone else to commit a BoP then it's someone else who's liable to arrest, not the protesters. 

But not in Zulu world 😵‍💫

[Sceptre + 2,710]

1 hour ago, Zulu 22 said:

Obstructing the free passage of the highway without lawful authority or excuse is an arrestable offence.

There's no such thing as an arrestable offence.

Obstructing the highway cannot simply be used at the drop of a hat, but must be balanced against the protestors' Article 10 and 11 rights which still apply to disruptive protest: DPP v Ziegler and others (2021) UKSC 23. Arresting protestors is a decision for the silver commander to decide with POPSA advice, not for individual cops to act independently. 

A breach of the peace must involve the risk of a person or his property in his presence coming to harm through an assault, affray, riot or other disturbance. A power of arrest only exists for the person causing the breach of the peace, not someone provoking others into it, Bibby v CC Essex (2000), and where there is some imminence to the threat of violence, McGuire v CC Cumbria (2001). You can't just use it to lock people up for being inconvenient. 

[Equin0x 169]

2 hours ago, Richhamdo said:

Having said that  I would just like to bring the argument of Highway obstruction ( as defined) back into the discussion if I may.
 I read or heard somewhere that  law on this matter was recently changed with regard to this. I don’t know anything at all about it but a question to those in the know, Is the change going to have any impact on this type of behaviour?. This behaviour that causes no end of  wasted fuel/time, general upheaval and missed hospital/work appointments, flight connections etc,etc. Rich.

I'd like to know this too. Happy to be corrected on the finer points of law but I thought obstruction of the highway was an offence. If it is, why aren't these protesters dealt with for breaking the law? If it's not a crime, can anyone just decide to shut down all transport on a road by holding their own sit down protest on it?

  

15 hours ago, sierragolf95 said:

"They won't change unless disruptive pressure from ordinary people forces them to"

Somehow they don't get that this is only giving people an EXTREME hatred for them and their movement.

People today don't, in general, realize that less is sometimes more. In the age of social media and "going viral" everything has to be so extreme, and impactful now. In the old days you might stand on a street corner politely greeting people walking by and offering them a leaflet which outlines what cause you are protesting for and why you believe in it. Those days seem long gone, and instead it's all about the shock value because that is what will sell/get more clicks. Footage of a protester calmly handing out leaflets would never go viral, but I that approach would often be more successful in getting some people interested.

Edited April 27 by Equin0x

[Equin0x 169]

19 minutes ago, Sceptre said:

Obstructing the highway cannot simply be used at the drop of a hat, but must be balanced against the protestors' Article 10 and 11 rights which still apply to disruptive protest: DPP v Ziegler and others (2021) UKSC 23. Arresting protestors is a decision for the silver commander to decide with POPSA advice, not for individual cops to act independently. 

So can I shut down a road in my city as part of a protest and not be arrested because of my Article 10 and 11 rights? Can anyone do it for any cause they believe in? If United get a dodgy penalty decision can City protest it by blocking all the roads to Old Trafford? Being a bit silly with that last one but you appear to be saying that it would in fact be allowed, at least in theory.

Fully support disruptive protest, to a point. There does have to be a balance and I just don't see how allowing protesters to obstruct the highway is the correct balance. That surely means anyone can shut down all transport on a road whenever they feel like?

Edited April 27 by Equin0x

[Richhamdo + 878]

24 minutes ago, Equin0x said:

I'd like to know this too. Happy to be corrected on the finer points of law but I thought obstruction of the highway was an offence. If it is, why aren't these protesters dealt with for breaking the law? If it's not a crime, can anyone just decide to shut down all transport on a road by holding their own sit down protest on it?

 

@Equin0x, I have just now had a very quick look on Google to see if I can find out what’s going on. I may be mistaken but it seems there was a Supreme Court ruling about protesters and roads in another case, something to do with a gun fair and people blocking the road to people attending but I didn’t spend long reading about it so could have got details wrong. Better for people to read it for themselves, it only took me less than a minute to find it.  I wish I knew how to put links on here about the ruling but have forgotten how because I’m getting old,😀.
In a nutshell it has to be deemed “necessary” to infringe on articles ten and eleven  (human rights act) ie are other routes available, have there been  a lot of complaints from people using the Highway .
I am also quite happy to be corrected on any of this if I am wrong, in fact I would very much appreciate it so we can get to the bottom of this. Clearly the inspector on scene doesn’t want the hassle of having the force sued for shifting them unlawfully. It does all seem a bit strange to me though. Rich.