London Police Have Had Enough Of Extinction Rebellion, Ban All Protests

The Metropolitan Police have had quite enough of these unhinged people creating problems in the streets

British police issue a city-wide ban on climate change protests in London

British police have ordered Extinction Rebellion activists to stop their demonstrations immediately or face arrest, issuing a London-wide ban on the group’s climate change protests.

In a statement issued on Monday evening, the Metropolitan Police said that anyone who ignores the ban would be detained and face prosecution.

“Any assembly linked to the Extinction Rebellion ‘Autumn Uprising’… must now cease their protest(s) within London,” the police said, marking 21:00 London time on Monday evening as the cut-off for protesters to stop what it called “ongoing serious disruption to the community.”

Activists based in Trafalgar Square, which until Monday had been specified by the Metropolitan Police as the only legitimate protest site in the city, were ordered to remove their tents and clear the area almost without warning.

Extinction Rebellion’s London branch described the move as an “outrage,” before calling on the police to “respect the law.”

The decision comes after more than a week of civil disobedience in London, with activists targeting government buildings and major financial institutions.

The protests, which began last Monday and were due to last two weeks, have resulted in more than 1,400 arrests.

Now, Britain is not the United States. They do not have the same 1st Amendment that we do. But, remember, our 1st guarantees the Right to protest peaceably (along with petitioning for redress of grievance and Free Speech), which we should all support. With 1,400 arrests, with the blocking of streets, with causing problems for so many other Brits just trying to go about their daily lives, gluing themselves to doors and trains and streets and planes, etc and so on, this is not peaceable.

I will say that I feel that the Met Police are being a little heavy handed here. They could have set the terms of protest, saying to stay out of the streets and do not do things that interfere with the Rights of other Londoners and visitors. Instead, they just said “go home. Now.”

“After nine days of disruption we felt it is entirely proportionate and reasonable to impose this condition because of the cumulative impact of these protests,” Laurence Taylor, deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said in a statement on Tuesday.

“A significant policing operation continues and we will take robust action against anyone engaged in unlawful protests at locations targeted by Extinction Rebellion. However, I want to be absolutely clear. This does not mean people are banned from protesting in London. The condition applies specifically to the Extinction Rebellion ‘Autumn Uprising.’”

“If Extinction Rebellion, or any other group, come to us with a proposal for lawful protests then of course we will discuss that with them,” Taylor said.

It’s still a bit heavy handed, but, then, the Met Police are surely tired of these unhinged climate cultists, who waste their time when they could be dealing with real crime.

*Photo from this James Delingpole article. The Met Police just have this look like “good grief, the smell!”

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

16 Responses to “London Police Have Had Enough Of Extinction Rebellion, Ban All Protests”

  1. “British police have ordered Extinction Rebellion activists to stop their demonstrations immediately or…” they will order them to stop a second time.

    “London Police have had enough” isn’t what it used to be. London police didn’t used to be shy about applying the club to the heads of rioters to keep the Queen’s peace.

  2. Professor Hale says:

    Notice the police cameraman in back? Documenting that no protesters were harmed in the apprehension. What a bunch of sissies. So sad to see them fall so far.

  3. John says:

    Why are you keeping that rascal Surrender Monkey locked up ?
    Shouldn’t he be warning us about surrendering our allies to the Turks?

    • formwiz says:

      The only monkey is the one in the John.

      Doubtless, he called our guys coming back from ‘Nam baby killers.

    • Kye says:

      The Turks ARE our ally idiot, they’re part of NATO. WE are obligated to side with the Turks if they come under military threat so we should be fighting the Kurds.

      You’re real big on the “surrender monkey” crap John, how many tours have you done and how many battles have you fought?

      • Kye,
        That NATO alliance isn’t as black and white as all that. We can comply with the treaty by sending Turkey a case of Hallal MRE’s. The level of support required by participating members is undefined in the treaty. What is defined is that no treaty member needs to assist in a fight that another member starts. So, we can rightly claim Turkey is on their on in this one. and we can continue supplying the Syrian Kurds with arms/ammo/Hallal MREs, just as we have been since 2016.

        But let’s face it. Democratic party activists couldn’t care less about the Kurds. This is just their latest attempt to write a “trump is an idiot” narrative prior to the 2020 elections. So, no credible analysis or discussion are required.

        • Dana says:

          The Professor wrote:

          Democratic party activists couldn’t care less about the Kurds. This is just their latest attempt to write a “trump is an idiot” narrative prior to the 2020 elections.

          Donald Trump’s great triumph is turning all of the Democrats into neoconservatives.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        He’s fought at least as many as tRump.

        • Kye says:

          And yet oddly Trump is the Commander In Chief of our military and he was actually elected to be so. Who elected John for ANYTHING?

    • Professor Hale says:

      We aren’t surrendering our allies since the Kurds haven’t surrendered and they don’t belong to us. Words actually mean things and John seems to be just randomly throwing things together. The USA was in Syria under a congressional resolution to counter ISIS. ISIS is defeated in every sense of the word. It would be illegal for Trump to keep Americans in Syria any longer. Congress hasn’t authorized “defense of the Kurds”. Though, it seems now would be the time to ask for it. That would put the Democrats in a tizzy of inactivity between demanding war against Turkey and siding with Trump.

    • Interesting. Democrats used to be against putting boots on the ground in Syria, and had to suck it up when Obama sent some over. Now that Trump is pulling them out, Dems are suddenly for boots on the ground.

      • Dana says:

        The Kurds live in an area encompassing eastern Turkey, northern Syria, northern Iraq, western Iran and a tint sliver of Armenia. Other than the Armenian bit, their area in Syria is actually the smallest piece of land in which they live. Their biggest geographical areas are in Turkey and Iran.

        The elder President Bush quit the first Persian Gulf War too soon, believing that the defeat would lead to the Iraqis overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Somehow, it didn’t work out that way. The US imposed no fly zones which included the Kurdish areas, but President Hussein’s ground forces went in and ‘punished’ the Kurds. The younger President Bush promised the Turks that he would not set up an independent Kurdistan in Iraq in order to get their support for the second Persian Gulf War.

        The Kurds want their own country, but to get it would require land from five existing nations. The only way they’ll get what they want is if they fight for it and win.

  4. Kye says:

    I think “that NATO alliance” is pretty darn black & white.

    Today, Kurds continue to occupy southeastern Turkey, northern Syria, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran. They refer to these areas as Northern Kurdistan, Western Kurdistan, Southern Kurdistan, and Eastern Kurdistan. The truth is, there is no Kurdish territory. The Kurds do not, nor have ever had —in the modern sense— a LEGALLY RECOGNIZED STATE OF THEIR OWN.

    Whether they like it or not, they live in Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran —much like the Basques live in Spain and France— and much like equally distinct ethnic minorities live throughout the United States.

    Have the Kurds been US allies against ISIS? In a fashion, yes —but they were not fighting for American ideals; they were fighting ISIS for their own purposes —with US aid— provided to the Kurds because it served the United States’ interests to provide it. We must remember, however, that according to US law, the PKK and YPG are designated foreign terrorist organizations. Remember too that despite actions taken by the US government, private American citizens have been prosecuted (and convicted) for supporting these Kurdish organizations.

    Why has the United States designated the PKK and YPG terrorist organizations? The answer is that the Kurdish insurgencies have opposed Turkey, a NATO ally, for over 30 years. Irrespective of the policies of Turkish President Erdogan, Turkey remains an important strategic ally of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Erdogan’s recent threats to adopt Russia as his new best friend would not serve the interests of the United States (or NATO).

    In 2014, President Barack Obama brought the United States into the Kurd-Turk conflict by authorizing the transfer of arms and munitions to the Kurds. He then (without congressional approval) complicated the matter further (in his opposition to Bashir Al-Assad) by involving the United States in a multi-layered war in Syria —one that involved not only Turkey and the Kurds, but Russia as well.

    In effect, Obama’s intervention ended up benefitting both Syria and Russia. Presidents Putin and Al-Assad must be having quite a laugh at our expense. This was the mess left on Trump’s plate on his first day in the White House.

    Of course, there were humanitarian reasons for arming the Kurds, but in doing so, it seems unlikely that anyone in the Department of State or Defense considered the likely consequences of such actions. At the outset, the United States undermined its own anti-terrorism laws, alienated a NATO ally, bolstered Russia’s diplomatic credibility in the Middle East, pushed Turkey toward Iran, and encouraged Iranian support for ISIS.

    Second, at no time did the United States seriously consider endorsing Kurdish autonomy. The novella serves as a poignant reminder that our government’s incompetence in foreign relations is nothing short of astonishing. While the blowhards in Washington seek to condemn President Trump for pulling out of Syria, he at least does have an exit strategy.

    • Dana says:

      Kye wrote:

      I think “that NATO alliance” is pretty darn black & white.

      Remember that huge sigh of relief that a previous, pro-Russian President of Ukraine had put the kibosh on his country’s application for NATO membership? Every national leader in NATO were giving thanks to God that had happened, after President Putin sent the tanks rolling into eastern Ukraine and the Crimea.

      If Vladimir Vladimirovich sends his soldiers and tanks into Latvia and Estonia, will NATO go beyond a sternly, sternly! worded letter of protest?

      • Kye says:

        An honest answer to your question is no I don’t think NATO would go beyond sternly worded letter of protest. That does not mean the alliance itself isn’t black and white, rather it means participants don’t have the balls to enforce it depending on who the transgressor is. I think the Bill of Rights is black and white also but it seems the courts disagree with me but ONLY when somebody steps on leftists toes.

Pirate's Cove