Police Armed with Tasers break into Quaker Meeting House in UK and Arrest People

LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
edited March 29 in Purgatory
'20 uniformed police, some equipped with tasers, forced their way into Westminster Meeting House' breaking down the door and arresting six people.

Paul Parker, recording clerk for Quakers in Britain, said: “No-one has been arrested in a Quaker meeting house in living memory.

“This aggressive violation of our place of worship and the forceful removal of young people holding a protest group meeting clearly shows what happens when a society criminalises protest.

“Freedom of speech, assembly, and fair trials are an essential part of free public debate which underpins democracy

https://www.quaker.org.uk/news-and-events/news/quakers-condemn-police-raid-on-westminster-meeting-house

Also concerningly, apparently this hasn't so far been being reported in most of the main British media at time of posting, but foreign outlets are reporting saying 'six women attending a meeting on climate change and the war in Gaza' were arrested.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/28/europe/quakers-arrests-london-intl-latam/index.html

There may have been some informal agreement from the media not to report ( that wouldn't affect us - were not part of any such agreement and they're unenforceable anyway)

As somebody said, people being arrested after a raid on a Quaker meeting house sounds like news from the 17th century... but it's not.

Do we think this is a Metropolitan police problem, or a problem with anti- protest legislation going too far or both?

My first thought is fat chance getting a reactionary like Keir Starmer who is chasing the Daily Mail reader vote and the Reform vote and the motorists' vote - and his Home Secretary - to do anything about it (which shows you how much good a Labour government is these days), but perhaps people concerned about it could try anyway?

Comments

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    I saw this on Facebook I think. I suspect it is over interpretation of the anti-terror legislation. Can't say I am surprised, there's been huge over reach for a while.

    (It reminds me of that time the US government bugged a Quaker meeting around gulf war issues - must have been quite confusing for them.)
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    It's being reported by both GB News and the Morning Star. Not "normal press" I suppose, but I do find it interesting that outlets from further and opposite reaches of the political spectrum are reporting it.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited March 29
    Yes there's currently a big missing middle for some reason.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    I assume there must be a very good reason why this took place. Perhaps we will learn the reason in the near future.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    Probably pointless, but I have emailed the BBC to ask why they aren’t covering it.
  • RockyRogerRockyRoger Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    I assume there must be a very good reason why this took place. Perhaps we will learn the reason in the near future.

    Please tell the rest of us when this happens.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    edited March 29
    Ironic that this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyg0jyjnxwo came out on the day of the raid.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    I saw this on Facebook I think. I suspect it is over interpretation of the anti-terror legislation.

    Except this is a feature rather than a bug, over-interpretation of anti-protest legislation was an entirely desirable and predictable consequence of the manner in which the laws were drafted by the previous government.
  • Telford wrote: »
    I assume there must be a very good reason why this took place. Perhaps we will learn the reason in the near future.

    Because obviously you are going to need tasers when dealing with a group noted for their non-violence.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    edited March 29
    The people who were arrested were from a group called Youth Demand, who had hired a room.
  • agingjbagingjb Shipmate
    If this event is not, or only partially, reported, then the - incorrect - assumption that it was Quakers who were attacked will become the general belief.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    The people who were arrested were from a group called Youth Demand, who had hired a room.

    Plus, I can think of at least one Quaker group who took up arms against the state, the amusingly named Children Of Peace, in the Upper Canada Rebellion of 1837.

    Not that they probably weren't justified in their actions(a tory I am not), just saying that you can't automatically assume that every group with an overall policy of non-violence will consistently adhere to it.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    We don’t have an overall policy of non-violence though it is true many Quakers are pacifists. Many but not all.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited March 29
    agingjb wrote: »
    If this event is not, or only partially, reported, then the - incorrect - assumption that it was Quakers who were attacked will become the general belief.

    To the extent that anyone is examining the details of the story, beyond "a buncha activists got arrested for allegedly planning illegal activities."
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    The Guardian has the story on its website.
  • We don’t have an overall policy of non-violence though it is true many Quakers are pacifists. Many but not all.

    Now that is interesting, because that is not the impression I got from two years in a Quaker school!
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited March 29
    Up at 18.20 tonight in The Guardian for something that happened on Thursday night - still better late than never!
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    We don’t have an overall policy of non-violence though it is true many Quakers are pacifists. Many but not all.

    Now that is interesting, because that is not the impression I got from two years in a Quaker school!

    Which aspect of Doublethink's description contradicts your school experience?

    Quakers don't have an overall policy of non-violence, or...

    ...many Quakers are pacifists?
  • stetson wrote: »
    We don’t have an overall policy of non-violence though it is true many Quakers are pacifists. Many but not all.

    Now that is interesting, because that is not the impression I got from two years in a Quaker school!

    Which aspect of Doublethink's description contradicts your school experience?

    Quakers don't have an overall policy of non-violence, or...

    ...many Quakers are pacifists?

    Ah, you are correct, in my surprise I mangled what I intended to say. It was the lack of an overall policy of non-violence that startled me so.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 29
    Here's a link to the Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/29/met-raids-quaker-meeting-house-and-arrests-six-women-at-youth-demand-talk

    (It's unfortunate, to say the least, that it's the Quakers who appear at first sight to be the group being targeted, as the people concerned could just as well have hired a village hall, or something similar, IYSWIM).
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    stetson wrote: »
    We don’t have an overall policy of non-violence though it is true many Quakers are pacifists. Many but not all.

    Now that is interesting, because that is not the impression I got from two years in a Quaker school!

    Which aspect of Doublethink's description contradicts your school experience?

    Quakers don't have an overall policy of non-violence, or...

    ...many Quakers are pacifists?

    Ah, you are correct, in my surprise I mangled what I intended to say. It was the lack of an overall policy of non-violence that startled me so.

    We’re non-creedal. The meeting I attend used to have someone come regularly in military uniform, before my time though. It is rare though.
  • It's looks to me like purposely heavy handed police action to inhibit people hiring out their places to Youth Advance.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    The people who were arrested were from a group called Youth Demand, who had hired a room.

    Plus, I can think of at least one Quaker group who took up arms against the state, the amusingly named Children Of Peace, in the Upper Canada Rebellion of 1837.

    Not that they probably weren't justified in their actions(a tory I am not), just saying that you can't automatically assume that every group with an overall policy of non-violence will consistently adhere to it.

    I wonder if there was any violent resistance from Quakers against persecution during the whole Cromwellian/Restoration thingamabob.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    edited March 30
    I don’t think so, but that may have been pragmatism. At one point George Fox wrote a pamphlet supporting a specific military campaign.

    At one point we used to walk around naked “for a sign” walk in to churches and try to get people out of the pulpit.

    And whilst Quakers got involved in abolition of the slave trade, Quaker slave owners were a thing. I don’t think you can enslave people peacefully.
  • ChastMastrChastMastr Shipmate
    You can get arrested for planning a non-violent protest?? :open_mouth:
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    Conspiracy to commit a crime, is a crime - so if you criminalise non-violent protest …
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited March 30
    I don’t think so, but that may have been pragmatism. At one point George Fox wrote a pamphlet supporting a specific military campaign.

    At one point we used to walk around naked “for a sign” walk in to churches and try to get people out of the pulpit.

    And whilst Quakers got involved in abolition of the slave trade, Quaker slave owners were a thing. I don’t think you can enslave people peacefully.

    Both those links go to the same article, about slavery. What was the military campaign Fox supported?
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Conspiracy to commit a crime, is a crime - so if you criminalise non-violent protest …

    Which, it should be noted, is far from new. Aggravated trespass has been used to attack peaceful protest for decades. The recent change is to extend that to public places as well as private land (and massively hike the punishments).
  • ChastMastrChastMastr Shipmate
    Either the laws are different in the US or they haven’t been enforced or I’m just ignorant of this happening here—I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anyone being arrested here for planning a non-violent protest in my lifetime at least. (Though God knows what Trump will come up with.)
  • I saw this on Facebook I think. I suspect it is over interpretation of the anti-terror legislation. Can't say I am surprised, there's been huge over reach for a while.

    This.

    It is a law that desperately needs repealing. It is one of those things that the government has not prioritized. Whilst I understand that, it's wrong. Especially as there's a lot of things like this and the protest laws (for example) that could be repealed very easily. In general, governments should not legislate in haste. Careful scrutiny of legislation is vitally important. However, in the case of the most recent anti-terror laws and the anti-protest laws the status quo ante (the law before these bills were passed) is a reasonable starting point.* Therefore each of them could be repealed with a single line bill. My dream scenario is that the government introduces something like a 5-7 line bill repealing each of the most stupid things, the last government did.

    I'll keep dreaming.

    AFZ

    *I would agree with anyone who says we need to go back to the laws passed in the early 2000s and change them as well. I don't disagree but that would take substantial parliamentary time. However, I do believe we could reset to something like where we were in 2015. Not perfect but achievable in a day in Parliament. (OK, probably a couple of weeks in reality but you see my point). This gets round the legitimate argument of the government that they have so much to do. They do indeed and they shouldn't write another stupid bill on terrorism or protest or whatever and to do this properly would take a lot of time. Hence my view that we can simply go back a step or two as a short term improvement, accepting that there is more to do later.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    stetson wrote: »
    I don’t think so, but that may have been pragmatism. At one point George Fox wrote a pamphlet supporting a specific military campaign.

    At one point we used to walk around naked “for a sign” walk in to churches and try to get people out of the pulpit.

    And whilst Quakers got involved in abolition of the slave trade, Quaker slave owners were a thing. I don’t think you can enslave people peacefully.

    Both those links go to the same article, about slavery. What was the military campaign Fox supported?

    Apologies - the link about the peace testimony is here.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    edited March 30
    The raid on the Westminster meeting house has made the front page of the Sunday Times, but last time I looked, still no separate story on the BBC.

    Instead they have Justin Welby failing to read the room again.
  • HeronHeron Shipmate
    edited March 30
    From the youth demand website: https://youthdemand.org/take-action/

    'In April Youth Demand will shut London down with swarming road blocks day after day after day'
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    I saw this on Facebook I think. I suspect it is over interpretation of the anti-terror legislation. Can't say I am surprised, there's been huge over reach for a while.

    This.

    It is a law that desperately needs repealing. It is one of those things that the government has not prioritized. Whilst I understand that, it's wrong.

    The reason they haven't prioritised it is because they find the legislation convenient now they are in government, it coheres with the messaging they've previously given out about protests (specifically JSO and XR) and they are prioritising keeping and attracting Tory voters because that's the chosen strategy of McSweeney et al (remember that they only voted against the 2022 legislation because of the public reaction to the policing of the Sarah Everard protests).
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    The BBC are finally carrying the story.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited March 30
    stetson wrote: »
    I don’t think so, but that may have been pragmatism. At one point George Fox wrote a pamphlet supporting a specific military campaign.

    At one point we used to walk around naked “for a sign” walk in to churches and try to get people out of the pulpit.

    And whilst Quakers got involved in abolition of the slave trade, Quaker slave owners were a thing. I don’t think you can enslave people peacefully.

    Both those links go to the same article, about slavery. What was the military campaign Fox supported?

    Apologies - the link about the peace testimony is here.

    Thanks. Guess he was cheering on the Roundheads against the Inquisition.
Sign In or Register to comment.