Please check THIS article out... Here's a bit from the linked article:Adam Moniz's lawyer Sarah McSherry said the Metropolitan Police had apologized to Moniz for arresting him at Victoria train station on April 29 after they were threatened with legal action.
Moniz had been on his way to a peaceful, authorized demonstration run by the anti-monarchy group Republic in central London when he was stopped by police. McSherry said Moniz had no criminal record and no intention of committing a crime, but was held in a police cell for "anticipated breach of the peace." He was released without being charged six hours later after the royal wedding was over.
He had no intention of committing a crime? Really? Are they mind reading now? And, do all peaceful, authorized demonstrations go off without a hitch? Did they "promise?" :-) If there's going to be trouble, do they announce it? Of course not!! Here's the problem: There was tons of talk that terrible threats had been made toward London's Royal Wedding a couple of months ago........Does law enforcement err on the side of the guy with 'no intentions of committing a crime' or do you err on the side of safety for thousands of people? There must have been some reason they arrested the guy, gazillions did not get arrested.........nobody wants police willy-nilly arresting people, but this whole thing struck me as odd.
What do you think?
z
88 comments:
I think in America, we feed, clothe, house, and finance our chronically non-productive welfare consuming population and that in Britain they do all that AND give them crowns and pay for their weddings.
It's hard to hold third world Islamic countries like Britain to the American standard, but they don't have freedoms we enjoy. Heck, you even have to have a license to operate a TV set in your home over there.
There are quite a few anti-monarchists in the UK.
Sure , let the stinking cops gin up probable cause. Anything to make the frightened among us feel safe.
I hate to inform the man of this, but assembly w/o a permit for the purpose of performing an unlawful act of civil disobedience IS a crime. It's called "conspiracy".
Here is the "reason" why the police were wary of the group. ABd as for his claim to have been going to a "peaceable" authorized demonstration, I'd simply ask him WHERE he was headed? Was he on his way to Red Lion Square, or was his freak show headed somewhere ELSE when arrested at the train station?
Good morning. I'm somewhat confused. How did the police know to single him out? Were there other participants with him on the way to the rally? Did he say something which may have caught the attention of the police? Again, I'm confused.
Blessings
IHS brings up some interesting questions, they didn't just randomly grab this guy off the street.
As to the anarchists, they have a helluva track record for violence, err on the side of caution IMHO. If you don't want to be viewed as a criminal, don't hang with others who are.
Anything to make the frightened among us feel safe.
Don't worry Duck, the cops even protect libs.
Ducky, PLEASE read the posts and THEN comment...I said very clearly "There must have been some reason they arrested the guy, gazillions did not get arrested.........nobody wants police willy-nilly arresting people."
"gin up"? Why not gin up the probable cause of everyone there? They just picked on him for nothing?
What Britain should be nervous about now is how the apparently careful police work dissolves because the guy threatens a lawsuit.
Speedy, I believe the article said the group did have a permit, and maybe that was the cops' faulty reasoning; to give a permit to the people you expose here? I can't find a lot of fault with those 'anti royal' park events, can you?
Chuck "Err on the side of caution" is exactly my point. WHY NOT?
When did the Western world let political correctness and lawsuits stand before doing the right thing? We see this in so many situations lately and it feels like this is what's really weakening us.
IHS: I thought of you about 3 days ago and was stunned to see you suddenly appear. As you can see in the post, I agree with your questions....why him? Did he say something threatening? Probably.
Should they take that seriously? of course.
I can't find a lot of fault with those 'anti royal' park events, can you?
If his train ticket wasn't marked for "Holborn", then the police had every right NOT to believe his story, as the group's permit was for "Red Lion Square", an infamous meeting place for regicides on what was once considered the "outskirts" of Old London, NOT a place where royal wedding celebrations might be taking place.
The Victoria train station where the man was arrested is next to Buckingham Palace... and Buckingham Palace is at least a mile (and four train stops) away from Red Lion Square.
The article says the demonstration was authorized, so I'd say, unless this man was making threats, or behaving in a violent manner, he was wrongly arrested.
Britain doesn't have a Bill of Rights as far as I know, and it looks to me like the police have a fair amount of flexibility to judge who's ok and who isn't.
I think they overreacted, since the man did nothing he could be charged with.
How do they come to a conclusion of "anticipated breach of the peace", and apply it to one man, when the group had authorization to demonstrate?
I can't get excited either way. That's Britain where supposedly legitimate protesters are detained. If you are a Muslim no cop in the UK would dare slow you down.
He wasn't at the site of his "authorized" protest gathering, he was at Buckingham Palace a MILE away.
Speedy, we know that....
The fact that they didn't arrest many but he was arrested shows me that he did something that tipped the cops off to trouble and I think six hours of his time is worth peace and safety for hundreds of thousands of people.
He's getting about $7500.00 for those six hours. not bad.
Why must there have been some reason, z? The police always act correctly?
The verdict indicates otherwise.
Really, Ducky?
We jump from this to "the police always act correctly?"
No, I don't think they always act correctly but I think they usually do. I also think there are a lot of them maligned because they're supposed to be a super breed who puts their family at home behind them and offers to die for others while keeping peace in the streets. Ya, sometimes I think they act very incorrectly because of sheer human fear, and I rarely condemn them for that.
In this case, why pick on this guy? It's odd to think he was just minding his own business and they put him away for the duration of the wedding. They're scared, they've been told to keep something from happening..they're probably more scared more than he is, and I'll err on the side of peace and safety for others every time..absolutely.
Sue, sure, we all have that thought........I'm just saying that they don't just arrest someone for nothing.
And, that I'd rather err on the side of the safety of thousands and thousands of people if there's a possibility that the guy looked up to something. That's all!
Sue, I believe in eye witnesses before the death penalty...at least 3. Nothing less.
And I like your new Don Quixote avatar! Very meaningful!
I heard a few days ago, that the NFL want's to pat down everyone who enters a stadium because some guy at a football game had a taser the other day.
So, here we go, what's next a pat down when we enter a mall? A department store? Grocery store? Theater? Where does it all end?
Before you know it, our freedom is no more. Soon, better safe than sorry becomes "anticipated breach of peace", and anyone could be a suspect.
"NFL want's to pat down everyone who enters a stadium"
Not if they have any business smarts they won't. Playing to empty stadiums or having their income cut in half would be the result.
It's be easier & cheaper to deport every muslim instead. That's why we do these pat downs anyway, right?
"Pris - About patting down everyone before they enter the stadium - would there even be time for the game?"
Sue, that occurred to me too. I'm repeating what I saw on the news. Let's say they want to do random pat downs, as they do at airports. Which is probably what they're considering. And they are!
However they'd do it is not the point. The point is, how much freedom are we willing to lose for the "feeling" of safety. When is enough, enough?
It was obvious to me, that when this was done at airports, it wouldn't be long before this would come into play at other venues, and in places where people gather.
It seems to me, that jihadists want to hold us hostage to their threats, and what better way than to change our way of life, and to cost us our freedom. They win, we lose.
The line between safety and freedom, is a delicate balance. Safety can become oppressive if it's carried too far. Then, it isn't safety anymore, but control. It's a slippery slope into a police state.
At that point it's no longer a threat from outside, but a threat from within. I'd rather be free, wouldn't you?
" better to make sure a man really is guilty before putting him to death."
Anybody convicted of murder in the past 15 years and gets the death penalty, deserves to be there and are guilty. DNA has come a long way in proving who the guilty are.
Then they get 20 extra years of life through the screwed up appeals process, while their victims become compost.
But you think it better to let a few hundred death row inmates get off because one might have not deserved it?
Give me a break.
"Not if they have any business smarts they won't. Playing to empty stadiums or having their income cut in half would be the result."
Imp, I agree. Why go to a game when we can watch it on TV? We may have to fly sometimes, but we don't have to go to a game.
The NFL does stand to lose money if they do this. But, they are considering it. I can't see them going through with this, but there are alot of things today, I never thought I'd see. At this point, nothng would surprise me.
"I never miss the first ten minutes of SNL! :=)"
Of course not. Where else would you get "unbiased" world news and your presidential picks from?
"and that in Britain they do all that AND give them crowns and pay for their weddings."
LMAO Beamish. Dave Barry couldn't have said it better. Maybe George Carlin?
Impy,
I dislike the British almost as much as I dislike the French. But at least the French were forward-thinking enough to behead their "royals" out of existence.
It's bad enough Brits mangle the American language without us having to stop everything to hear about one of their inbred welfare twits marrying another one of their inbred welfare twits.
Ya ask me, the guy deserves more than $7500 for being falsely detained by police. He deserves a chance to drag "Queen" Elizabeth out of her public housing and flog her with a tow chain.
Here we have an example of logic from Duck:
Why must there have been some reason, z?
Sheesh. That kind of thinking -- that things happen chaotically -- gins up fear. And Duck decries ginning up fear.
One reason that the police in the UK were wary before the royal wedding: the attack on Prince Charles's vehicle a while back.
They arrested these protestors in London for the same reason they arrested these protestors in New York. If you have a permit to protest, do it WHERE your permit PERMITS!
If you have a permit to protest, do it WHERE your permit PERMITS!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What does your permit say? Where does it apply?
Your permit tells you where and when you can peacefully petition the government for redress of your grievances.
btw - The Constitution also says...
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I would draw your attention to the words "insure domestic Tranquility".
If the Klan wants to counter protest a Civil Right's march, it behooves them to do so ONLY where their "permit" allows, else the police cannot "insure" their safety and "domestic tranquility".
See how it works, beamish. BOTH knights get to ride the Constitutional horse.
...and if regicides want to protest the Royal Wedding, like the Klan, they, too, must do so only at the times and places permitted in their PERMITS. Buckingham Palace wasn't one of those locations.
...but by all means, beamish, please feel free to go to Wall Street and join the protestors there. The cops could use some more melon-bashing practice outside the "permit" zones.
Arguing for the right to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is not a "winning" one for "free speech."
btw, Beamish - when are you going to argue FOR allowing Muslims to blast their calls to prayer out from minarets at Ground Zero... today or next year when the new mosque opens?
Evidently in England, as in America, it IS still possible to regulate "poor taste." You may not be able to win in court, but you can always still try.
I would draw your attention to the words "insure domestic Tranquility".
I would draw your attention to Bull Connor's firehoses.
Getting up close and personal with pepper spray mace isn't even a cosmetic improvement.
...but by all means, beamish, please feel free to go to Wall Street and join the protestors there. The cops could use some more melon-bashing practice outside the "permit" zones.
The Wall Street protests run counter to my personal and political beliefs. But not as much as sanctioned thugs, er, police officers willy-nilly picking and choosing who they'll manhandle and douse with pepper mace (i.e. barely 100 pound college girl twits instead of firebomb throwing union railyard strikers....) Nothing puts pubes on a sissy boy like a gun and a badge, you know.
Arguing for the right to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is not a "winning" one for "free speech."
What fire? What theatre? Now I know its illegal to possess table salt in a restaurant in NYC, but is it theatre?
btw, Beamish - when are you going to argue FOR allowing Muslims to blast their calls to prayer out from minarets at Ground Zero... today or next year when the new mosque opens?
As soon as the church bells stop ringing.
Besides, the Ground Zero mosque might be the only place to go to get away from gay weddings.
I wonder why those cops are taking guns into Mexico?
(to get them "re-upholstered" get it?)
Viva bad taste! ;)
beamish said...
"Besides, the Ground Zero mosque might be the only place to go to get away from gay weddings."
Okay.. a new one for Z's sidebar...i'm still giggling.
By the way, I can safely advise you that The Missouri Synod Lutheran Church is a pretty damned good place to count on for that, too.
The ELCA Lutheran Church is stepping to the PC crowd...sad. Luther would be rolling in his grave; probably is.
Beamish, your disdain for Europeans gives me pause; The BRITS, who had English before we ever thought of it, mangle English? :-) ANd the Queen's family can't be beat for debauchery (other than Di's kids who seem to be cleaning up well), but to slam the Queen is something I'd never consider; that's a LADY and that should be recognized; though it is hard to recognize a real lady anymore, I'll admit.
I feel so much the richer for having lived in France and Germany and traveled to England so often; it's a lifestyle I wish we could have here; the people are people...we can hate their governments...Europeans hate ours but they do NOT hate the American people, except the really jealous ones, MANY of whom I did encounter; hiding their jealousy with the MOST ridiculous insults while they can't get their hot little hands fast enough on LEVI STRAUSS JEANS, of course (and the disgusting habit of American chewing gum, Mr. Z used to lament).
Mr. Z, who I'll now admit remained a German citizen till his death, was more patriotic to America than 75% of the Democrats I know personally.......when he was dying, I saw him come alive at the one Tea Party event we attended because our friend and fellow blogger HeidiAnn was going to be there and it was near us. He who couldn't walk 20 feet without having to stop (my 6'4" husband who was healthy every day of his previous 67 years and strong as an OX), finally arrived at the crowd and was walking around as if he'd just been shot with steroids; he had, AMERICAN PATRIOTISM STEROIDS..it was fabulous. I know MANY MANY French who feel like that about AMerica..here and in France.
Beamish, your disdain for Europeans gives me pause; The BRITS, who had English before we ever thought of it, mangle English? :-) ANd the Queen's family can't be beat for debauchery (other than Di's kids who seem to be cleaning up well), but to slam the Queen is something I'd never consider; that's a LADY and that should be recognized; though it is hard to recognize a real lady anymore, I'll admit.
I think the US Constitution should be promoted at home and abroad, specifically the section about becoming annexed as a state in the United States. United States of Earth has a nice ring to it, and it's not so hard to pronounce that even three-headed snake people from other planets can't be taught to say it after a few generous gigaton bombs up their hoo-hoos.
We've been making the sales pitch for over 200 years. Let's see who's buying.
Anyway, nothing against the Brits per se, I just find the concept of "royalty" abhorrent. Even in figureheads and pantomimes there's something disturbing about personally belonging to a "head of state." Especially if you risk getting your skull cracked if you choose not to be a participant in the charade.
Get the duct tape out for your skull after this one...
Why are most of us opposed to union card check legislation yet all for corralling political protesters into heavily policed zones?
How do we get the Westboro cultists to protest a cop's funeral?
As soon as the church bells stop ringing.
lol! Just call me Quasimoto... ;)
I don't think we have any right to tell any Western country they should follow our constitution.
And I think nobody was cracking anybody's skull for just not loving the monarchy.
Sue, sometimes commenters just don't make it back; but some certainly can be 'hit and run', like the trolls here are. Bd very rarely can back anything he propounds so he just insults and leaves...and Ducky throws a bomb then disappears for a day or two to cower. Or I'll say "WHat country to you think IS more exceptional than AMerica?" when he's been slamming the USA...and he won't come back hoping I forget he hasn't answered. He's never answered that and I've asked him probably 20 times.
Those are 'hit and run' types.
Even the Conservatives have lives and can't always get back; I never click on that option by which you can find out if anybody commented to your comment at another site, so I very rarely get back to sites to see what people said about my comment, I have to admit.
Nice of you to apologize and not take Imp personally; he's a great guy and I like how you both handled this.
FJ...is there something interesting under QUASIMOTO or am I going to be led to a definition of who he was, which I KNOW ALREADY? OH, God...okay, I'll look.
It had better NOT be WIkipedia's QUASIMOTO entry :-)
FJ: PARDON ME FOR DOUBTING YOU :-)
I had never heard that song or seen that video (it's part of a show, isn't it?)
That might be THE most sexy and beautiful lyric I have ever heard..
"The entrance to Esmaralda's garden.." WOW...what a great way to express 'that' :-)
"Her movements promise him the earth" GAD...that's gorgeous!
Each male singer was SO intense and my heart bled for the priest! How difficult that must be and what temptations they face by a beautiful girl.
I LOVED that, thank you for such a beautiful experience. I smiled as I heard each new gorgeous line...merveilleux...
"I'm sorry."
Thanks Sue....likewise and ditto.
And no...you can't call me old hit n run either!! LOL
I always take my time. ;-)
And Z - just for the record, I think Ducky is a great guy.
Sue, good for you! But you think Bill Maher's a great guy even though he just said that Sarah Palin would F*** Rick Perry "if he was black", so.....you're consistent!
Z - When I respect and admire someone - such as Ducky and yes Bill Maher - I stand by them.
But that shouldn't mean that I can't respect and admire someone who doesn't respect and admire them, also.
imp - We all have the right to respect and admire the people we wish to respect and admire.
Please - you respect and admire those you wish to respect and admire and I will respect and admire those who I wish to respect and admire.
I do not criticize the people you respect and admire, so why do you criticize the people I respect and admire.
If you despise me because I respect and admire Bill Maher - so be it.
But why can't we all just respect and admire each other without worrying about who the other person respects and admires.
Know what I mean, imp?
Sue, the point Imp makes is a good one; how can a woman respect and adore a man as much as you do who would allow guests on his show to be as horrid about Michele Bachmann and her husband as Maher's guests were 3 weeks ago...and then to say THIS about Palin?
To talk about Michele's sex life with her husband and then to say that about Palin is reprehensible.
I don't believe anybody dislikes you for it...I don't like or dislike YOU because you admire Maher but I sure question your thinking and so does Imp, I think.
I'm as loyal a friend or admirer as can be, but if someone said anything like Maher has recently said, I simply couldn't stand by him anymore.
By the way, I used to be a fan of his humor, I really was. I also liked Chris Matthews very much, and Joe Scarborough, but they've turned into people with values I loathe and so I can't stand by them anymore.
Frankly, Z, I don't care who likes or dislikes me.
People will like or dislike you no matter what you do.
There comes a time when you have to stand up for what you believe, and not be bullied by others who may not care what they are saying.
I like Bill Maher, and if you took the time to really listen to what he says, you might see what I'm taking about.
Yes, he bashes Republicans.
Yes, he says outrageous things, but after all, his show is on HBO and that's what you do on HBO.
I have been following Bill Maher for three years, watching him carefully, scrutinizing his every move - that I am aware of - and I have based my opinion of him on that.
I really don't care for Michelle Bachman at all, and perhaps that is why I don't criticize what he says about her.
I cringe to think that she and her husband might live in the White House.
But, Z, I do like and respect you, and most of your commenters.
Whether you like and/or respect me is up to you.
Sue, let me just say I'm going to try to ignore that comment. And I'm this blog's OWNER, and all my commenters can say ANYTHING THEY PLEASE to anyone else, and always have, especially me, TRUST me, Sue.
By the way...all of our blogs are visited by people with other things to do. We don't need to know how long you'll be here or what time you're turning in.........Imp'll be back when he has the time.
Please be respectful of me and my commenters; you demand it for yourself. Trust me, we deserve it,too.
"I will respect and admire those who I wish to respect and admire."
Great...just when I attempt to take a stand in defense of a woman's virtue as a man who generally places women on a pedestal...I get a smack-down from a woman who who doesn't care if the one she respects...doesn't respect her or any other women.
I guess good manners and sterling character are character traits you don't admire / "respect" in men anymore?
BM...bowl movement Maher...has neither. Nor does SNL.
Please...think before you spout such inanities. At least as much as BM does to elicit the howls of laughter from his demented admirers. Most of whom are probably pedophiles, rapists or wife beaters.
Sleep tight.
Sue:
"I'm waiting for you to respond."
Time is running out for tonight."
Now...you're... scaring me. I think I'll probably have a nightmare about watching a BM episode where he slices and dices another woman with his panel of perverts.
Z,
Glad you enjoyed that. It's from the French musical "Notre Dames de Paris" and I made a playlist out of the entire musical, if you're interested...
And I posted the link only to play off the words "Belle" and bell. ;)
The play has a political "open borders" theme, but other than THAT, it's a pretty delightful piece of theatre.
As an ex-Mariner, I especially enjoyed the Val d'Amour segment.
sue, 'hard feelings'? Why should anybody? Wouldn't any blog owner feel flattered when a commenter said they were honored to banned from their blog? Do you hear what you say?
And, to talk about my commenters couldn't in a billion years mean I don't view you as yet another commenter.
Sue, you are not my ONLY commenter, believe me! There are others here who could, TOO (notice the TOO, so you don't feel badly).
I don't have hard feelings because I don't take a lot of this too seriously, but to say what you do and then simply apologize for it is ......odd.
Fj...am going to be gone much of today; I thought that was the name of the show and I will look into your list. thanks. I ADORED that lyric...and the music.
"Cause if you are, I am never going read your blog again - let alone comment on it."
I only wish that could be my decision.
Impertent - Let's just say that it is your decision and you just made it.
"Cause if you are, I am never going read your blog again - let alone comment on it."
Who said that? I'd love to know the context, please.
What is going on here? Sue's telling Imp what time to comment, telling him how late she's going to be up and practically daring him not to as if he doesn't have the nerve to respond to her? This is ridiculous and unseemly...please stop, Sue.
There's a tone I like to keep here...this isn't it. Please stay advised. thanks.
Post a Comment