Coronation protests: did the Met overreact?

For many of us, the coronation will have passed by in a rainy blur of “pomp, quiches and bunting”, said Sonia Sodha in The Observer. But for members of the campaign group Republic, “things took an altogether more sinister turn”.

Its chief executive Graham Smith had spent months liaising with police over arrangements for a coronation day protest against the monarchy in Trafalgar Square. But when he arrived with other protesters at 7.30am last Saturday to unload placards, Smith and five others were arrested – apparently because police suspected that the straps they had brought to secure their signs might be used for a “locking on” protest.

They were handcuffed, bundled into the back of a police van, and held in custody for 16 hours. In total, 52 people were arrested on suspicion of planning to disrupt the event. Suspected offences included planning a breach of the peace, and conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.

The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

‘We are not Russia, are we?’

In arresting the members of Republic, the police were making use of authoritarian new powers under the recently passed Public Order Act, said Suzanne Moore in The Daily Telegraph. The measures are aimed at countering the “guerrilla tactics” of groups such as Extinction Rebellion: blocking roads, “locking on” to buildings and so on. Some will be in favour of “disrupting the disruptors”. I would say: “be careful what you wish for”. This pre-emptive crushing of a respectable protest was a “stain” on the coronation, and a sign of a worrying new intolerance towards dissent. “We are not Russia, are we?”

The Act bans “disruption”, which it defines very broadly and vaguely, said Ian Dunt in The i Paper. This is absurd, because the purpose of protest is, to a large extent, disruption. It is “a direct attack on freedom of speech”.

‘Not a police state’

Freedom of speech and the ability to protest are “precious features of democracy”, said Melanie Phillips in The Times. But so, too, is the freedom for people to go about their own business – enjoying the coronation, say – without interference from others. The Metropolitan Police said they had “serious and reliable” intelligence that protesters planned to disrupt the processions by, for instance, using rape alarms to panic horses and sow havoc. That nothing of this kind took place is “a triumph”.

With hindsight, it’s clear that some of the police activity “was over the top”: in the case of Graham Smith and his Republic colleagues, the Met has admitted its error and apologised. But the police had a difficult balance to strike. And the fact that they got it wrong in a few cases does not mean that Britain has “turned into an incipient police state”.