Just Stop Oil protesters were arrested up to seven times each during a month of road-blocking chaos in London this year. MailOnline has more.
Some members of the eco-zealot group, which brought the capital the roads around it to a standstill, were arrested multiple times this autumn as part of their uproarious demonstrations.
Official figures show that of the 755 people arrested between October 1st and November 4th, 155 were detained by police more than once – just over one in five.
The Metropolitan Police has said those arrested are not able to be charged quickly as officers have to trawl through CCTV and take statements from witnesses before the matter goes through the courts.
Official figures from the force show that some protesters were able to take part in multiple protests, with one person being arrested a remarkable seven times, The Times reports.
The Met detained two people on five occasions, 25 people on four, 28 on three and 99 protesters on two demonstrations.
Of the 755 people arrested during their demonstrations in October and at the start of November, 112 have since been charged.
It told the publication that most arrests in the first five weeks were for obstructing the highway, a lesser offence that can only receive a maximum sentence of six months in prison.
While police investigated many of these offences, the protesters were released on bail, meaning they were free to join other demonstrations taking place.
A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police told the Times: “We are determined to bring to justice all of those who have acted unlawfully and gone beyond protest into causing serious and criminal disruption to the public of London.
“To date over 12,500 officer shifts have been needed to deal with Just Stop Oil activity, and hundreds more will be needed to process all of the suspects through to a court outcome.”
The eco-zealots brought large parts of London and the South East to a standstill earlier this year after they embarked on more than 30 days of continuous protests.
This included blocking roads in the capital and climbing gantries on the M25 to force the closure of the ring road on multiple occasions.
One pair of protesters forced the closure of the Dartford bridge for more than a day, causing chaos on one of the U.K.’s busiest roads.
They also targeted some of world’s most recognisable cultural sights, with a pair of activists throwing soup at Vincent Van Gogh’s masterpiece Sunflowers.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
So essentially, she turned the bank into a vehicle for her own vanity, and to counter personal perceived grievances against society. Splendid work.
You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.
I do have a heart of stone, and I’m still laughing
It caused share prices to fall. So no, I’m not laughing.
Share prices go up and share prices go down.
Well, if you think the shares are now undervalued, then you should BUY BUY BUY, TonyRS!
Oh, wait, svb collapsed already.
Question is, was the share price fall cause or effect?
I think we can all agree it was an effect.
Except, once again, I expect “the little people” will have their pockets picked in order to bail out the Banksters and Regulators who failed to do their jobs.
Capitalise the profits; socialise the losses.
Point taken.
A useful reminder of the limit to compensation from the BoE if your bank folds; £85K, I think.
I believe that the FDIC will try to recover most if not all of depositors money
It is reported the losses on the fixed interest investments exceed the capital of the bank. The fact they have closed the doors suggests it has gone through their capital ratios. If that is so there is simply not enough there to pay off the depositors in full.
Besides, it will take months to unravel once the big law firms and accounting firms get involved and their fees will be eye watering.
Up to $250,000
Delusional. Completely detatched from reality.
Jay Ersapah…said I “feel privileged to help spread awareness of lived queer experiences, partner with charitable organizations, and above all create a sense of community for our LGBTQ+ employees and allies.”
A bit more attention to the job she was paid to do as opposed to her extracurricular activities might have paid dividends. Assuming of course that she was up to the job in the first place.
Sorry – but I would say rising interest rates and holding a lot of fixed income securities is what done it.
Failure to hedge for this risk shows poor financial accumen.
To paraphrase Warren Buffet.It’s only when the tide goes out that you see who’s not wearing a swimming costume.
Yes, and this “living queer” was more interested in the rainbow, signalling virtue and seeking attention.
So, maybe they should have picked someone who could run a large banking business sooner than someone whos best credential is just being gay!
Lefty idiots deserve all they get!
The FT has a sober analysis of what went wrong on the business side.
The age old banking nemesis: asset/liability mismatching.
Here by ‘Unnecessarily eating chicken but thereby risking to sh*t elephants’.
Should be accessible without Paywall through this link.
A bit of insider knowledge/trading on the large customers side also seems to be present. Plus ça change….
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2023/03/12/the_spectacular_unravelling_of_silicon_valley_bank_593578.html?utm_source=rcp-today&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mailchimp-newsletter&mc_cid=673e4aec10
The FT article is not consistent with what has been reported. A temporary solvency problem would be supported by the authorities as that is one of their principal roles. Being a forced seller of that much government bonds would not have seriously upset the bond markets where daily traded volumes are enormous. Some commentators suggest that the losses realised on a sale are in some way different from losses booked when prices fall. That is not really true as bank solvency is a day to day hour to hour issue based on market values.
Management must have known they were bust quite a while ago.
Playing to the gallery of left wing friends is not what they are paid to do and their corporate and regulatory obligations make such activities secondary, to the extent their Directors permit it at all.
Their primary role is to run a compliant, financially secure business. They seem to have invested too much in fixed interest government bonds. I accept the rules do tend towards that but the over-riding obligation is to protect the depositors and the business.
It has been suggested elsewhere that the volume of deposits were so high they were unable to profitably lend (media wrongly calls this “investment”) so they stashed the funds in government securities. Any fool knows that excessive money causes inflation and the principal way of controlling that is for the central banks to raise interest rates. That they have done: too late and too little, I would say, but they did it.
Higher interest rates on all but short term bonds causes a fall in their value. Any bank employee should know that, especially the Risk Officer and whoever decides on investment and liquidity policy within the bank. To get caught out so badly and so suddenly is a disgrace for which heads should roll; disciplinary action should be taken and, I doubt not, litigation will ensue.
As central bank interest rates and guidance has been on a rising trend for so long, and inflation shows no sign of abatement (except in President Biden’s speaches), the falling value of bonds must have been apparent in the management reports at SVB for months. How come no one noticed and adjusted the book accordingly?
I expect that banks around the world will suffer share price drops tomorrow and the sorts of start-ups SVB lent to will also suffer. For most this ought to be short term but the mood of the market is to hammer any stock with any question marks and they generally do not recover quickly. Some VC investment funds and their invested businesses will not survive, no matter how good their underlying businesses. From interviews in California many of them apppear to have had all their surplus cash and all their credit lines with SVB which is unforgivable concentration of risk.
Maybe the FED and FDIC can induce commercial banks to take over SVB but with the likely litigation in prospect, I would be surprised if they thought it worthwhile. Maybe they will agree to take over the balances but not the buisiness; I doubt it.
No tears for Jay please. NHS Trusts will be queuing up to employ her/it/them/whatever
Halifax are you listening?. I withdrew my money because of insisting on pronouns for staff members. They’re the next domino. Get Woke, Go Broke.
It was an asset grab – nothing to do with wokery.