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.
Hypocrisy still a thriving industry in The People’s Republic of Krankie.
Coming soon south of the border…..
Living in Sturgeon’s one party state is shit, (even though only about 30% of the electorate vote for her).
We wish we could win the lottery and move to a more normal part of the UK
Though not as bad as Krankieland, don’t expect too much from the rest of the UK.
Don’t care. We want out of this.
So her freedom of speech could lead to a ballot where freedom of choice is extinguished. I agree with freedom of speech but I do not agree with her aim. Religious beliefs should not be forced on others.
All laws are meant to reduce somebody’s freedom to do something, hence, this doesn’t make a good argument (a property it shares with bleating — a neutral verb would be more appropriate here — about costs or public health). The lady can only be a menace to society if she’s actually a witch, ie, a person capable of speaking words of power (etc) which cause undesirable effects on their own. This is a ludicrous proposition.
Further, what she proposes would need to be a menace to society and whether or not or under which specific conditions unwanted pregancies may be legally terminated certainly doesn’t qualify for that. People getting children is not a menace to society, rather the opposite. Pregnancies also don’t occur accidentally: Without casual sex, an option available to everyone, there won’t be unwanted pregnancies (corner cases intentionally ignored).
Lastly, when she’s free to make her argument, this offers an opportunity to refute it. People who believe their different opinion on the matter would be correct should certainly be able to do that without resorting to bleating about abstract concepts like choice, extremism or personal autonomy. Especially if the same people are all for their personal autonomy but not so much about the personal autonomy of others. SNP members can be regarded as principally in favour of forced injections of experimental medical products without clear benefits (if any).
While I decidedly disagree with the notion that people’s consensual sexual habits should be regulated by the state using the pretext that they’d be public health issues — especially after two years of flagrant abuse of them same pretext by members of the other political faction — (apparently an ADF position) arguments ought to be addressed with arguments and not with guilty-by-association based prohibitions.
The Scottish parliament doesn’t exist by the grace of God and hence, its members have no authority over other people’s consciences or sins.
“Why is the Scottish Government Trying to Silence Me?”
Because they’re a National Socialist Party, and that’s what they do.
They’re never happy unless they’re oppressing someone.