Royal wedding hysteria

Posted on Posted in Uncategorized

The parasites’ big day is nearly upon us and the rhetoric coming from the Met becomes more disturbing by the day with a benign but sinister state message warning us no protest will be tolerated but also advising supporters to monitor the weather! Human rights appear to have been suspended, civil liberties no longer matter and it’s all okay because we have 364 other days of the year to protest.

Meanwhile the media has gone into hysterical overdrive over a non existent anarchist threat with very similar themes to the crap which was written last time there was a royal event, the golden jubilee in 2002. Then,41 anti monarchists were arrested for sitting in a pub and the Met were forced to apologise and pay an 80k compensation bill.

Whilst many activists feel we shouldn’t give the royals our time or headspace, and the wedding should be ignored, it is also not surprising that many people find such a public display of wealth and pageantry at a time of austerity offensive and want to express these views. However, with the Met stating they will take ‘robust’ action against anyone even holding a banner, things are looking very bleak for freedom of speech and protest on Friday.

The Met have claimed protest on the day is not ‘appropriate’, and it “is a day of celebration, joy and pageantry”. It is not the role of the police to tell us what we should be feeling and it is deeply disturbing that the police feel it is their duty to decide when protest is appropriate. There has also been a deliberate blurring of the lines between protest and criminal activities. In a statement most dictatorial states would be proud of, the Met have asked the crowd to be their ears and eyes and report anything suspicious. It is clear they view any protest activity as criminal regardless of the intent of the participants.

Following the success of the black bloc on 26th March, it is clear the police are using the wedding as an excuse to clamp down on protesters. All those arrested have been giving bail conditions banning them from the wedding, and there have been several arrested in the last week, including raids taking place in Brighton today.

Anyone turning up in the vicinity of the wedding who is known to the police, or looks like they have the potential of being a dodgy protester is likely to be arrested. However every cloud has a silver lining and we could view this as a massive fundraising/investment opportunity for the protest movement. Turn up, do nothing, spend a few hours in a cell and rake in the compensation money in a couple of years time. After all, there’s nothing more satisfying than a Met sponsored protest!

13 thoughts on “Royal wedding hysteria

  1. Fantastc post, thank you!

    I have been saying for AGES now that we’re living in a police state & that it’ll get worse… yet almost everyone I speak to thinks I’m crazy!

    I think your statement regarding compensation from the Met is really good, but as a long time protester who’s NEVER been arrested the Met have yet to get my DNA & fingerprints. I’m gonna do my utmost to not become yet another statistic for the Met’s huge (Big Brother) database.

    What I would like to see is a massive anti Met/Police protest, to show that we won’t take their oppression/thuggery anymore!

  2. Police have already done dawn raids in Brighton … 3 places hit … 5 arrests … from what I have been told if anyone who was arrested or ‘spotted’ at either student or anti cuts demo have been targeted

  3. I’m so happy we got rid of “our” monarchs about 100 years ago…
    at least this article stays free of any hysteria, what a nice difference to almost all the mainstream media

  4. Mounting a protest amid crowds of pro-monarchy people is probably futile. It’s a great idea for protesters to turn up in pairs and do nothing, except perhaps wear an anti-monarchy badge; a third member of the team can film the arrest. The purpose would be to draw attention to the restrictions on protest in Britain today

  5. As well as an opportunity to crack down on protest, this is also a way for the Met to pretend they can still keep a lid on those pesky anarchists. They got slagged so much after the M26 demo for not being able to stop the smashy smashy, even though the media and the cops had been hyping it loads and they should of known it was going to happen. Far easier than actually stopping black blocs is to pretend they’ll happen and then say that you stopped them from happening. They might as well start saying they’ll take robust action against Dragons and pretend they were successful….

    I like the idea of going and getting nicked then taking them to court. If I was in London I;d be tempted….

  6. I’m a little concerned about your advice on Twitter – “If you’re offered a caution/final warning for violent disorder it means they haven’t got enough evidence to charge – so best not to accept.”

    You do realise a caution is only offered if the offence has been admitted?
    If you are suggesting that people elect for a trial having admitted the offence on interview then I look forward to the trials.

    1. Correct in theory, incorrect in practice.

      Picture this:

      COP: “Now, we know you want to get out of here, so we’ll give you a caution if you just admit to the criminal damage in your interview?”

      Now, on a protest, they will charge if they have enough evidence to secure a conviction. They also charge, alot of the time, when they DONT have enough evidence to secure a conviction. Given that, when it comes to fledgling street-based political movements, the use of deterrent sentencing is a key tool of the police, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY THEY WILL EVER OFFER YOU A CAUTION BEFORE THE INTERVIEW, ON THE CONDITION THAT YOU ADMIT TO THE ‘CRIME’, IF THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEY HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CHARGE AND CONVICT.

      However, where you are right, is that if the arrestee has admitted to something in the interview anyway (without being offered a caution before the interview on the condition that they admit to the offence) then it is probably wiser to just take the caution. I have never know this to happen, though. People tend to be charged when they admit to things in the interview and there is evidence to support them doing it.

  7. turn up and demonstrate at your peril tomorrow. I think the thousands of decent law abiding citizens might take the law into their own hands if you attempt to spoil their day

  8. Definitely going. I wasn’t quite sure, but when the Met police implied protesting would become illegal that completely cemented my view.

  9. Bluebottle, that will be the “law-abiding” citizens who regularly break the speed limit and other motoring laws will it?

    Anyway, to attempt to engage you in intelligent debate, can you not see that it is wrong that certain people get to live a life of luxury simply for having been born into a particular family?

  10. bluebottle you contradict yourself first you call them ‘law abiding citizens’ then you say they ‘might take the law into their own hands’ – which one is it ‘law abiding’ or ‘law breaking’?

    In any case I am sure these Royalists would prefer that you referred to them as subjects not citizens, you naughty republican, you. Maybe you should be arrested for your views too, can’t have you talking against the crown!

  11. Presumably the magazine doesn’t do deals with each source that it reproduces, so how does copyright law allow them to re-print editorial content that they don’t own without paying royalties?. . Also, can this law be applied internationally?.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *