Sunak And British Government Plan To Grant Police Much Greater Force To ‘Stop Disruptive Protests’

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and the British Parliament are looking to grant additional powers to police forces to quell protests that they deem are “disruptive” to common everyday life, “to tackle the highly disruptive protests that the British public have been increasingly subjected to over the last few years.”

For the last several months climate activists across the U.K. and other parts of Europe have been making plenty of televised protests. These protests include things like walking into stores and dumping out the milk on store floors, throwing soup and food on famous works of art, gluing themselves to cars, and much more. All of this was to protest animal abuse and to go vegan, while also protesting against the use of fossil fuels.

In many cases most people just stand there watching, walk around them trying to take no notice, or there are are cameraman ready to film the incidents. On rare occasions do security and police get involved.

Some examples of these highly-publicized, “disruptive” protests can be viewed below:

These protests and many more have been occurring a lot these past months and the now British government is looking to mitigate protests all together.

According to a press release published by the U.K. government yesterday, amendment tacked on to the Public Order Bill broadens their definition of what they and law enforcement consider a “serious disruption,” which the government says gives “police greater flexibility and clarity over when to intervene to stop the disruptive minority who use tactics such as blocking roads and slow marching to inflict misery on the public.”

The police have now been granted three new clear directives to deal with protests:

• Police will not need to wait for disruption to take place and can shut protests down before chaos erupts
• Police will not need to treat a series of protests by the same group as standalone incidents but will be able to consider their total impact
• Police will be able to consider long-running campaigns designed to cause repeat disruption over a period of days or weeks

The U.K. government further clarified some of the things police will be asked to examine more carefully and prohibit if it occurs:

Through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, the Government introduced a statutory offence of public nuisance and created powers for the police to place conditions on unjustifiably noisy protests and increased the sentences for obstructing the highway.  Measures already announced in the Public Order Bill include creating a new criminal offence for interfering with key national infrastructure and for ‘locking-on’.

The Prime Minister also sat down with the Home Secretary and police chiefs in December to give a clear message that the Government expects protesters who disrupt the lives of others to be swiftly removed and arrested.

The press release added

Furthermore, The College of Policing also noted that they will procure new guidance that outlines the additional powers given to officers over the last year. The National Highways force is also reviewing something similar, learning from past protests to make sure the roads remain safe and traffic can be restored quickly.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had this to say per the announcement:

The right to protest is a fundamental principle of our democracy, but this is not absolute. A balance must be struck between the rights of individuals and the rights of the hard-working majority to go about their day-to-day business.

We cannot have protests conducted by a small minority disrupting the lives of the ordinary public. It’s not acceptable and we’re going to bring it to an end.

The police asked us for more clarity to crack down on these guerrilla tactics, and we have listened.

SEE: British PM Rishi Sunak Considers Implementing Universal Basic Income, Tied To Central Bank Digital Currencies

Sir Mark Rowley, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, also praised the move, noting that he and forces were not so much as looking for increased force but increased clarification on how they can respond to protests that may spill-over too much in their eyes.

The Met has a long history of policing protests, responding quickly and effectively to incidents involving crime and where serious disruption is caused, often in challenging situations. We have specialist officers trained to deal with a range of tactics, but this is complex, time-consuming work.

It is clearly understood that everybody has the right to protest. Increasingly however police are getting drawn into complex legal arguments about the balance between that right to protest and the rights of others to go about their daily lives free from serious disruption. The lack of clarity in the legislation and the increasing complexity of the case law is making this more difficult and more contested.

It is for Parliament to decide the law, and along with other police chiefs, I made the case for a clearer legal framework in relation to protest, obstruction and public nuisance laws. We have not sought any new powers to curtail or constrain protest, but have asked for legal clarity about where the balance of rights should be struck.

I welcome the government’s proposal to introduce a legal definition of “serious disruption” and “reasonable excuse”. In practical terms, Parliament providing such clarity will create a clearer line for the police to enforce when protests impact upon others who simply wish to go about their lawful business.

Chief Constable BJ Harrington of the National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Public Order and Public Safety, said:

We welcome the constructive conversations with government over more clearly defining serious disruption. This will support officers in confidently and quickly taking action and making arrests where appropriate.

Policing is not anti-protest, but there is a difference between protest and criminal activism, and we are committed to responding quickly and effectively to activists who deliberately disrupt people’s lives through dangerous, reckless, and criminal acts.

Police have a responsibility to appropriately balance the rights of the public who are going about their daily business lawfully and the rights of those protesting.

Matthew Scott, Kent’s Police and Crime Commissioner said, “This new clarity is welcome and should mean no more excuses from any agency for not clearing up disruption effectively.”

---

AUTHOR COMMENTARY

Classic Problem. Reaction. Solution.

These protests were so obviously staged, and cameras were ready to roll as these paid-off, bread-dead vegans and eco-warriors vandalized property, helped destroy business and produce, and obstructed traffic on many occasions. It’s the same thing that happened in 2020 with the George Floyd nonsense and all the useless idiots they suckered in with that, causing police to be defunded across the country, as they burned and looted businesses and homes; while the media called them “peaceful,” as Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and sickos at CHAZ pillaged the streets.

Now the government is using these scripted protests to essentially to only further blur the line as to what is acceptable.

Based upon the verbiage used by the government, if the police so much as SAY they think what protestors could be doing could be “disruptive,” they have been given the greenlight to use brutal force and quick to arrest protestors.

This is timely, of course, as British and Europeans citizens are at their wits end with the government, as prices of everything continue to explode to astronomical levels, coupled with the energy catastrophe they are facing – which mainstream press has conveniently decided to not talk about anymore…

In August of last year I reported on some of the statements made by U.K. energy executives who said “civil unrest” will incur over ever-rising bill costs. And indeed, the bills British business owners and citizens are being forced to pay are astronomical.

Moreover, this announcement comes a week after millions of Brazilians stormed the federal government buildings. The Swiss Army has also been called in recently to secure the World Economic Forum in Davos this week, over potential fears that protestors could get antsy. Furthermore, protests abounded last year in Europe and many other parts of the world, Canada being the most notable.

The point is, as best described by Gerald Celente of the Trends Journal: “When people lose everything, and have nothing else left to lose, they lose it.”

People are about ready to collectively lose it this year, all over the world. 2023 will be a violent year indeed.

For this cause it is easy to see what the British government is now basically instructing the police to be rid of the protests and protestors they don’t want to happen.

But hey, if the people wanted oppression, God granted it to them:

[8] Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: [9] That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: [10] Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: [11] Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us. [12] Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel, Because ye despise this word, and trust in oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon: [13] Therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant. [14] And he shall break it as the breaking of the potters’ vessel that is broken in pieces; he shall not spare: so that there shall not be found in the bursting of it a sherd to take fire from the hearth, or to take water withal out of the pit.

Isaiah 30:8-14

---

[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).

The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE