Not only are the royal family an undemocratic national disgrace, continuously devouring increased taxpayer money year on year (up 17 percent this year at £102.4m), have hereditary  powers in which they are praised for the act of birth and with recent evidence suggesting a strong influence in public affairs, the royals have now ventured into supressing the peoples’ right to freedom of speech in the UK, creating a draconian environment with chilling hints of fascistic undertones.

​

On coronation day The Metropolitan Police arrested 64 protestors, six of which pertain to anti-monarch group Republic, bundling its chief Graham Smith into a police van as they prepared for a peaceful protest at Trafalgar Square. This would prove to be the first momentous act enacted by the police under the new Public Order Act 2023, setting up chilling waves across democracy in the UK.

​

Who knew it took a spoilt rotten king having a big day out to show us that freedom of speech is under major duress.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

Ronnie losing his temper over a pen at the accession ceremony.

​

Murmurs of the atrocities to follow appeared a week prior when protest groups such as Republic received intimidatory and ominous letters from the Home Office warning peaceful protestors of new criminal offences passed into law to prevent disruption had been
established. The Home Office were quick to claim the implementation of these laws were not rushed and the timing purely coincidental, a highly improbable coincidence however and an even sinister lie.

​

The laws, given royal assent by none other than Charles himself, were described by policy and campaigns officer, Jun Pang, as: “Worrying to see the police handed so many new powers to restrict protest, especially before a major national event." She added, "When the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (expanded police powers by allowing widespread access to private education, health care records, and suspicion less stop and searches) came into force, the police repeatedly misused them – in part because they simply did not understand them.”

​

Once again, the police stayed true to their worth and understand them, they did not, but to give them credit, no one can truly understand the meaning of Braverman’s new bill.

​

The passing of this law, which UN Human Rights Chief, Volker Türk, called ‘deeply troubling’, impedes on human rights and gives police unprecedented and limitless powers to restrict the right to protest, however its extensive broadness allows individual officers near
total discretion to decide what is and is not applicable to the law, lowering the threshold for what serious disruption can be. A peaceful march, a protestor waving signposts or even raising of voice has been classed as serious disruption, imposing disproportionate charges to
the noncriminal act of peaceful protest.

 

This unequivocally destroys the right to protest, how
can you have a protest while banning disruption, it’s completely contradictory. The purpose of a protest is to disrupt and garner attention for the cause and in a society that increasingly shuns the poor, protests are more important than ever in giving the voiceless a voice.

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demonstration to end homelessness in Glasgow.

 

Despite only one Tory MP, David Davis, voting against the legislation, describing it as ‘crude’ and ‘improperly defined’ the rest of the Conservative suppressors struggle to define what they voted for. Speaking on BBC Radio 4, Home Office minister, Tom Tugendhat, said
protesters were free to demonstrate, but 'they don’t have a right to … disrupt others'. When he was asked to describe exactly what protesters could and could not do, he was unable to do so.

​

His failure to do so will be seen as a success for government, by making the point, at which criminal charges become activated, so extensive and broad under nebulous definitions it will be impossible for protestors to know whether they are breaking the law and easy for ministers to alter and bend the meaning of ‘serious disruption’ to whenever the definition is scrutinised
or needing changed it to their benefit and as this power comes from a statutory instrument, under law, Braverman’s power does not need to be held to account, hence dangerously consolidating it.

​

Tugendhat continued: “I’m not going to go through the details of what you can and can’t do for fear of encouraging people to find loopholes in it.” A very foolish comment akin to not telling people the speed limit otherwise they might go over it. The very fact he is aware of loopholes blatantly shows the inconsideration and incompetence gone into this scrambled Act of Parliament.

​

At present the definition is a baffling ‘hindered to a more than minor degree.’ Adam Wanger, a barrister with Doughty Street Chamber told the Guardian: “The threshold would be so low that it could lead to police imposing conditions on protests which would breach the rights of
protesters.”

​

This gives the police a much wider ability to decide what is lawful and unlawful based on the judgement of an individual officer. As there are no clear definitions, authority devoted officers have the decision to do what they want, allowing them the freedom to treat citizens
impartially, a rise in minority groups being stopped on unsuspicious grounds will most certainly rise, given access by this right-wing government that believes more in laboriously tackling eco-protestors and republicans than it does feeding children.

​

Despite The Met and Republic having consistently conducted briefings together for four months prior to the coronation, in which Republic were repeatedly reassured that all their plans were acceptable and well within the parameters of the law, however on the day, it transpired that the police had been actively deceiving them, swiftly intervening with the protest. They confiscated signs portraying ‘not my king’ and then arrested head of Republic, Graham Smith, along with six other members of the organisation.

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

Smith being arrested near Trafalgar Square.

 

Scotland Yard released a statement on the Monday after the coronation, stating that it believed items found alongside a large number of placards could be used as 'lock-on devices'. However, the Met later admitted: “The investigation team have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest." Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.

​

Lock-on devices are where protestors literally lock-on and attach themselves to things in protest. In fact, lock-on devices are one of the new criminal offences central to the new Public Order Bill and were the only reason The Met could give for their unlawfulness. Shami Chakrabarti, former shadow attorney general, told the Guardian: “During the passage of this illiberal and headline-grabbing legislation, ministers admitted that the new offence of ‘locking on’ is so broad as to catch peaceful protesters who link arms in public."

​

As it turns out, despite The Met indicating they found items which at the time gave them reasonable grounds to believe could be used as lock-on devices, Smith from Republic said the devices were actually luggage straps to strap placards to trolleys and were physically impossible to lock-on because of their length. He also stated that the police hadn’t found them at the point in which they were arrested but found them later after they searched the van.

​

Smith said: “These arrests are a direct attack on our democracy. We’ve had two face to face meetings with police, we’ve had various conversations with the
liaison office. We’ve been very clear what our plans are. They’ve been very clear they’re OK with those plans.
 

"And then the Home Office letter arrived. It is intimidatory, they stopped us because the law was introduced, rushed in last week, to give them the
powers to stop us on any flimsy pretext.

“That law means we no longer in this country have the right to protest, we only have the freedom to protest contingent on the permission of senior police officers and politicians and it’s my view that those senior police officers were under immense pressure from politicians,” he added.

​

So, the police lied to the face of protestors for months and then on the day of the protest arrested them. If this isn’t sinisterly akin to a fascist police regimes, then what is.

​

The Met also made yet another ‘mistake’ in their unlawful endeavours by unbelievably arresting women safety volunteers, volunteering for ‘Night Stars’, an organisation looking out for women’s safety and the safety of those out at night, run in conjunction between The Met and Westminster City Council, on the eve of the coronation. The volunteers, doing essential work in the community and literally doing the police’s job, were deliberately targeted and arrested without charge or apology, after even being recognised by police as
volunteers. The excuse, volunteers were handing out rape alarms to promote women’s safety.

​

The MailOnline received a tip indicating rape alarms would be used to frighten horses during the parade, however the coveted source for the MailOnline turned out to be The Met themselves, and guess who the Head of Media for The Met is? A former MailOnline journalist, Chris Greenwood.

​

Volunteer for Night Stars, Sue Melvin, told a committee of MPs that before being stopped and searched during their Soho patrol, she and her colleagues provided emails and leaflets specifically from Westminster City Council and the Night Stars website. Ms Melvin said they pointed to the high visibility vests they were wearing which 'display the Met Police logo as well because we are in partnership with the Met.'

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

     

Sue Melvin speaking to the committee post coronation.

 

As the government becomes more authoritarian, willingly or unwillingly, so does society, and history is keen to show that in times of oppressions of liberty, only small groups are courageous to act, but courageous in the face of persecution, standing up for what they believe is right, no matter the consequences. These new powers will create an abused society, when a campaign group receives a tiresome Home Office letter and decides against holding a demonstration, beliefs will be silenced for honourable causes bringing attention to helping those in need and bettering society, all for the sake of staying quiet in the face of state power. People cannot peacefully protest against the government in an impactful way, if you protested against the Nazi party you would be arrested, if you protest against the Russian government you will be arrested, the same is true for today.

​

These new laws are a draconian assault on freedom of speech that the likes of Putin and Xi Jinping would be pleased with, in a conscious and concerted attempt to silence protest in this country. Furthermore, the fact that these groups are not universally popular does not make it illegal for them to share their views in a way that causes disruption, as without disruption, there is no protest, this is what it means to live in a free society in a liberal democracy.

​

UK director of Human Rights Watch, Yasmine Ahmed, described the police’s actions as alarming and 'something you would expect to see in Moscow, not London.'

​

30p Lee, commonly known as Lee Anderson Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party, tweeted: “Not My King? If you do not wish to live in a country that has a monarchy the
solution is not to turn up with your silly boards. The solution is to emigrate.” To which Jonathan Harris, a Lib Dem councillor in West Northamptonshire, tweeted: “30p Lee – Idiot on display. You took the rights away for British people to live and work across the EU and
forget that great democracies are built on and absolutely allow the right to peaceful protest.”

​

Of course, it is widely known that police love enforcing and demonstrating their assumed authority, made even more evident during lockdown in which overzealous policing saw
officers go on moral crusading tangents which saw them slapping fines on people for taking coffee on a walk and using drone footage to shame people for exercising outdoors. Combine that inclination with the potential this law provides them to become ideologically captured,
and there are serious implications for democracy. This law will gift them the capability to realise their enforcement dreams.

​

Not solely limited to protestors, the police have been given ideological powers. Orwell’s 1984 came to fruition when police arrested and detained a feminist activist on displaying ‘threatening writing’ such as putting up stickers of slogans that said, ‘no men in women’s
prisons' and ‘humans never change sex’, and upon police raiding her house they confiscated a gender critical book, evidence of wrongthink perhaps.

​

Another indication of police hindering ideology through force, is the case of ex police officer Harry Miller, who despite being a former chair of Laurence Fox’s reclaim party and, in my opinion, has extraordinarily misguided views, should still be at liberty to state them. Whether
you agree with them or not, liberals should be wary not to fight fascism with fascism. Miller’s controversial tweets were recorded by the police as a non-crime hate incident that may show up on criminal record checks. Upon taking the police to court, judges made it clear: “In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or Stasi.” The courts ruled in 2021 that both the specific police action against Miller and the College of Policing guidance used to justify it were unlawful.

​

It is this guidance from the college of policing law that apprises police forces to record all non-crime hate incidents reported to the police in which the person reporting the ‘crime’ feels they have been insulted or been a victim of ‘unfriendliness’. This is open to wide
manipulation by those looking to threaten those they want to silence, with the police perpetuating and promoting these ‘social media crimes’, while giving individual police officers the ability to take the law - in terms of how they feel it should be – into their own hands. A good sign is that at least judges, who actually have the mental capacity to recognise justice, are not siding with the police in these sort of cases, such as their refusal in Miller’s case.

​

If you thought arresting protestors was bad, the police have raised the stakes, a significant increase in the unjust arrest of journalists in the UK is significantly more menacing. Documentary producer, Rich Felgate, was simply filming a Just Stop Oil protestor holding a banner when he was arrested by befuddled officers who stopped him filming and tore a lanyard holding his press pass from his neck.

​

Felgate said: “We were all stopped and searched and the police said they were looking for ‘articles to commit criminal damage’ – they didn’t find anything. As soon as they approached me, I showed them my press card and started filming.

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Felgate being arrested at a Just Stop Oil protest as a protestor defends him.

​

“Despite not finding anything to commit criminal damage, they proceeded to arrest everyone anyway for conspiracy to commit public nuisance. In my circumstance, the officer was kind of hesitant initially to arrest someone with a press pass.

 

“It seemed like they contacted higher-ups in their chain of command and had direction from above to arrest me anyway. He stopped my filming, they handcuffed me behind my back and they proceed to rip off my press pass lanyard, I presume because they didn’t want it to be visible that they were arresting a journalist.

 

“I got taken into police custody, held there for 18 hours, interviewed and then got released under investigation. They haven’t dropped it, they’re still investigating me and I have to report to a police station in August.

 

“The protesters and myself were targeted just by being there, by being people who are known to be associated with climate activism, which is not illegal.”

 

This is just one mere case in hundreds of journalists being arrested and then released without charge over the last few years. The UK can no longer distinguish itself as a free nation and can no longer portray countries such as Russia and China as ‘the bad guys’. The only difference is that Russia and China are professionals in the silencing game, the UK still shows up with a few confused officers in hats who have to call their boss to arrest and then release.

 

Journalist Mic Wright told Sky: “The law was not applied evenly, accurately or correctly and the new laws are framed in such a way that anything can be seen as protest and for us as journalists it’s a problem because I was a nuisance to the metropolitan police this weekend and if the police deemed me a sufficient nuisance, they could arrest me and they did arrest journalists." 

 

Free speech is under threat, it’s not under threat from trans people or leftists its under threat from the government and The Metropolitan Police. The Prime Minister wrote: “I am determined not to let selfish protesters get away with causing disorder and misery.” Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, went a step further, suggesting that protesters were seeking 'to attack our ways of life'. Ken Marsh, Chairman of The Met, said: “The police had done an incredible job and individuals that intend to cause an incident which will affect others near and around them or part of their actions then we take action.”

 

However, in this case all evidence strongly suggests that the action was of a peaceful protest. Furthermore, the government’s crackdown may be fraught with realisation that institutions such as the monarchy are inept and the Conservative government will be no more come the  impending election. This is the last straw the conservatives and the royal family have before their abolition, and censorship is their response to sedate their downfall.

 

At least one good thing came from the coronation, that being the manifestation of how authoritarian the UK has become. Without the coronation the government’s devious schemes would not be so prevalent, allowing us to consider and act before it’s too late.

 

It also depicted the extent to which the Home Office shamelessly conducts itself. There is no democracy without freedom of expression. People have a choice to peacefully advocate for what they believe is right with potential for arrest with no charge or remain soundless at the expense of eroding freedom.

 

As the government and police endeavour to unlawfully shut down legitimate political and societal debate in 21st century Britain, it serves to remind us that even in mature democracies, freedom of expression and basic human rights are persistently under threat.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

A protest outside parliament against the Policing Bill.

​

​