There's a previous video of an incident from about a week ago where a few of them went into a church and started verbally abusing the vicar (and causing distress to the parishoners) because his church was allegedly helping refugees. The police did turn up on that occasion.
I suspect that when you cross the literal threshold into extended trespassing in privately owned buildings, the police are gonna view that as more in the realm of violating ye olde sanctity of the castle, whereas assholish parking violations are more just an abuse of the commons of the type people are more accustomed to tolerating on an everyday basis(*).
(*) And this is not neccessarily an outrageous double standard. If some drunks from the local pub all puke on my lawn one night, I'm gonna be pissed off, but still perceive it as much less a magnitude of threat than if they wander into my kitchen to puke in the sink and refuse to depart when asked.
Interestingly but irrelevantly, one church in Cardiff continued to meet for worship during the Covid lockdown and had its worship interrupted by the Police!
There's a previous video of an incident from about a week ago where a few of them went into a church and started verbally abusing the vicar (and causing distress to the parishoners) because his church was allegedly helping refugees. The police did turn up on that occasion.
I suspect that when you cross the literal threshold into extended trespassing in privately owned buildings, the police are gonna view that as more in the realm of violating ye olde sanctity of the castle, whereas assholish parking violations are more just an abuse of the commons of the type people are more accustomed to tolerating on an everyday basis(*).
I'm not sure what your point is in this context, the latest episode saw them blocking roads and ports (which on previous occasions has been interpreted as 'blocking critical national infrastructure').
I understand the police in Kent acted under Public Nuisance powers. Public Nuisance is a criminal offence and a Civil tort.
The concept of a Breach of the Peace isn’t of itself a crime: it’s used for the most part to prevent crimes, ie by moving people on or breaking up a protest or demonstration.
I’m not a lawyer, but I have been on the receiving end of both (didn’t get charged but it was stated via a megaphone!)
There's a previous video of an incident from about a week ago where a few of them went into a church and started verbally abusing the vicar (and causing distress to the parishoners) because his church was allegedly helping refugees. The police did turn up on that occasion.
I suspect that when you cross the literal threshold into extended trespassing in privately owned buildings, the police are gonna view that as more in the realm of violating ye olde sanctity of the castle, whereas assholish parking violations are more just an abuse of the commons of the type people are more accustomed to tolerating on an everyday basis(*).
I'm not sure what your point is in this context, the latest episode saw them blocking roads and ports (which on previous occasions has been interpreted as 'blocking critical national infrastructure').
Well, I was speculating why the police responded to the trespassing at the church, but not to the automotive mobbing outlined by Hope Not Hate.
FWIW, I was basing my comments on the Hope Not Hate Link in @Louise's post, which AFAICT didn't mention anything about the national-infrastructure issue.
Did the church invasion happen in the same police jurisdiction as the parking fiasco?
In English and Welsh law interrupting worship in church is a criminal offence.
Similar laws in Canada as well. There was a case in the 1980s where a Catholic bishop in the maritimes used them against a group of Trad Caths who had repeatedly entered his churches trying to get Communion on the tongue. The Trad Caths won.
There's a previous video of an incident from about a week ago where a few of them went into a church and started verbally abusing the vicar (and causing distress to the parishoners) because his church was allegedly helping refugees. The police did turn up on that occasion.
I suspect that when you cross the literal threshold into extended trespassing in privately owned buildings, the police are gonna view that as more in the realm of violating ye olde sanctity of the castle, whereas assholish parking violations are more just an abuse of the commons of the type people are more accustomed to tolerating on an everyday basis(*).
I'm not sure what your point is in this context, the latest episode saw them blocking roads and ports (which on previous occasions has been interpreted as 'blocking critical national infrastructure').
Well, I was speculating why the police responded to the trespassing at the church, but not to the automotive mobbing outlined by Hope Not Hate.
FWIW, I was basing my comments on the Hope Not Hate Link in @Louise's post, which AFAICT didn't mention anything about the national-infrastructure issue.
You mentioned "assholish parking violations", but the main complaint via Louise's link:
"On Saturday evening, hours after 300-400 far-right activists, dressed in black and wearing balaclavas, blocked roads around the port of Dover"
(The port would count as national infrastructure).
Churches Together in England have put together an excellent study guide with the title, "Kingdom over Nation". It includes these paragraphs: "There is a danger when love of nation begins to compete with loyalty to the Kingdom of God. When national symbols, political power or cultural identity become objects of ultimate allegiance, they can quietly take the place that belongs to God alone. At that moment, something subtle but serious happens: flags can begin to function like altars. What was once a symbol of shared civic identity risks becoming something sacred, unquestionable and defended at all costs".
[Hosts/admins: I think that's a brief enough excerpt to be permissible].
There's a previous video of an incident from about a week ago where a few of them went into a church and started verbally abusing the vicar (and causing distress to the parishoners) because his church was allegedly helping refugees. The police did turn up on that occasion.
I suspect that when you cross the literal threshold into extended trespassing in privately owned buildings, the police are gonna view that as more in the realm of violating ye olde sanctity of the castle, whereas assholish parking violations are more just an abuse of the commons of the type people are more accustomed to tolerating on an everyday basis(*).
I'm not sure what your point is in this context, the latest episode saw them blocking roads and ports (which on previous occasions has been interpreted as 'blocking critical national infrastructure').
Well, I was speculating why the police responded to the trespassing at the church, but not to the automotive mobbing outlined by Hope Not Hate.
FWIW, I was basing my comments on the Hope Not Hate Link in @Louise's post, which AFAICT didn't mention anything about the national-infrastructure issue.
You mentioned "assholish parking violations", but the main complaint via Louise's link:
"On Saturday evening, hours after 300-400 far-right activists, dressed in black and wearing balaclavas, blocked roads around the port of Dover"
(The port would count as national infrastructure).
Thanks. But that kinda makes the discrepancy between the police response to the church invasion, and the police response to the road-blockages, all the more odd, assuming we factor out my positing of brick-and-mortar trespassing as the salient difference.
There's a previous video of an incident from about a week ago where a few of them went into a church and started verbally abusing the vicar (and causing distress to the parishoners) because his church was allegedly helping refugees. The police did turn up on that occasion.
I suspect that when you cross the literal threshold into extended trespassing in privately owned buildings, the police are gonna view that as more in the realm of violating ye olde sanctity of the castle, whereas assholish parking violations are more just an abuse of the commons of the type people are more accustomed to tolerating on an everyday basis(*).
I'm not sure what your point is in this context, the latest episode saw them blocking roads and ports (which on previous occasions has been interpreted as 'blocking critical national infrastructure').
Well, I was speculating why the police responded to the trespassing at the church, but not to the automotive mobbing outlined by Hope Not Hate.
FWIW, I was basing my comments on the Hope Not Hate Link in @Louise's post, which AFAICT didn't mention anything about the national-infrastructure issue.
You mentioned "assholish parking violations", but the main complaint via Louise's link:
"On Saturday evening, hours after 300-400 far-right activists, dressed in black and wearing balaclavas, blocked roads around the port of Dover"
(The port would count as national infrastructure).
Thanks. But that kinda makes the discrepancy between the police response to the church invasion, and the police response to the road-blockages, all the more odd, assuming we factor out my positing of brick-and-mortar trespassing as the salient difference.
Although given that this kind of thing keeps happening, it's hard not to draw the conclusion that it's by intent rather than accident.
A group of people reached the hotel floor where members of the Pakistan under-19 cricket team were staying after protesters wrongly believed they were migrants, the Pakistan Cricket Board has said.
Hampshire Police said officers found no offences had been committed, and the crowd dispersed by about 21:00 BST.
She said: "It's completely unacceptable that misinformation has led to young cricketers visiting our city being wrongly targeted and mistaken for people seeking asylum.
So presumably if they had been seeking asylum it would have been just fine to target them in this manner.
Side note; there's currently an ongoing inquiry into police infiltration of activist groups and from all indications they tended - when left to their own devices - to target the left rather than groups like NF, the BNP etc.
She said: "It's completely unacceptable that misinformation has led to young cricketers visiting our city being wrongly targeted and mistaken for people seeking asylum.
So presumably if they had been seeking asylum it would have been just fine to target them in this manner. ...
I can see that if you are looking for that interpretation, it is possible to find it, but, unless there is some factor here which you know about and I do not, I very much doubt that that was what she intended.
She said: "It's completely unacceptable that misinformation has led to young cricketers visiting our city being wrongly targeted and mistaken for people seeking asylum.
So presumably if they had been seeking asylum it would have been just fine to target them in this manner. ...
I can see that if you are looking for that interpretation, it is possible to find it, but, unless there is some factor here which you know about and I do not, I very much doubt that that was what she intended.
What a shame she couldn't find the correct form of words in that case, what a shame that the government seem unable to condemn fascist pogroms unequivocally without giving at least a nod to 'legitimate concerns'.
(FWIW she was centrally imposed by Starmer's leadership-- i.e exactly the form of candidate selection you have supported vocally in the past).
She said: "It's completely unacceptable that misinformation has led to young cricketers visiting our city being wrongly targeted and mistaken for people seeking asylum.
So presumably if they had been seeking asylum it would have been just fine to target them in this manner. ...
I can see that if you are looking for that interpretation, it is possible to find it, but, unless there is some factor here which you know about and I do not, I very much doubt that that was what she intended.
What a shame she couldn't find the correct form of words in that case, what a shame that the government seem unable to condemn fascist pogroms unequivocally without giving at least a nod to 'legitimate concerns'.
It does strike me as the kinda thing you say because you know only about 30% of the voting public cares whether asylum seekers have their rights violated, but that there's also another 30% who'll be upset if they think the national image was harmed by visiting cricketers getting dealt an injustice.
But that's politics in a fallen world. The pro-asylum people will be in agreement with you no matter which victims you emphasize, so it's only the support of the national-pride brigade that's in play.
But that's politics in a fallen world. The pro-asylum people will be in agreement with you no matter which victims you emphasize, so it's only the support of the national-pride brigade that's in play.
None of whom are likely to vote for Labour anyway, so all you've done is coarsened the public realm for no gain whatsoever ...
In fact it's worse than that; disorder is not popular, and even centre-right types are turned off by a government failing the 'are you even a state?' test. Meanwhile the fascists are emboldened.
Comments
I suspect that when you cross the literal threshold into extended trespassing in privately owned buildings, the police are gonna view that as more in the realm of violating ye olde sanctity of the castle, whereas assholish parking violations are more just an abuse of the commons of the type people are more accustomed to tolerating on an everyday basis(*).
(*) And this is not neccessarily an outrageous double standard. If some drunks from the local pub all puke on my lawn one night, I'm gonna be pissed off, but still perceive it as much less a magnitude of threat than if they wander into my kitchen to puke in the sink and refuse to depart when asked.
I'm not sure what your point is in this context, the latest episode saw them blocking roads and ports (which on previous occasions has been interpreted as 'blocking critical national infrastructure').
The concept of a Breach of the Peace isn’t of itself a crime: it’s used for the most part to prevent crimes, ie by moving people on or breaking up a protest or demonstration.
I’m not a lawyer, but I have been on the receiving end of both (didn’t get charged but it was stated via a megaphone!)
Well, I was speculating why the police responded to the trespassing at the church, but not to the automotive mobbing outlined by Hope Not Hate.
FWIW, I was basing my comments on the Hope Not Hate Link in @Louise's post, which AFAICT didn't mention anything about the national-infrastructure issue.
Did the church invasion happen in the same police jurisdiction as the parking fiasco?
Similar laws in Canada as well. There was a case in the 1980s where a Catholic bishop in the maritimes used them against a group of Trad Caths who had repeatedly entered his churches trying to get Communion on the tongue. The Trad Caths won.
You mentioned "assholish parking violations", but the main complaint via Louise's link:
"On Saturday evening, hours after 300-400 far-right activists, dressed in black and wearing balaclavas, blocked roads around the port of Dover"
(The port would count as national infrastructure).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/sep/10/fascism-on-the-rise-in-the-uk-anglican-bishop-says
[Hosts/admins: I think that's a brief enough excerpt to be permissible].
Thanks. But that kinda makes the discrepancy between the police response to the church invasion, and the police response to the road-blockages, all the more odd, assuming we factor out my positing of brick-and-mortar trespassing as the salient difference.
Although given that this kind of thing keeps happening, it's hard not to draw the conclusion that it's by intent rather than accident.
Here's another episode: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0klnjmgpm6o
The Labour MP's response was predictably terrible (via https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly479nzpepo )
So presumably if they had been seeking asylum it would have been just fine to target them in this manner.
Side note; there's currently an ongoing inquiry into police infiltration of activist groups and from all indications they tended - when left to their own devices - to target the left rather than groups like NF, the BNP etc.
What a shame she couldn't find the correct form of words in that case, what a shame that the government seem unable to condemn fascist pogroms unequivocally without giving at least a nod to 'legitimate concerns'.
(FWIW she was centrally imposed by Starmer's leadership-- i.e exactly the form of candidate selection you have supported vocally in the past).
It does strike me as the kinda thing you say because you know only about 30% of the voting public cares whether asylum seekers have their rights violated, but that there's also another 30% who'll be upset if they think the national image was harmed by visiting cricketers getting dealt an injustice.
But that's politics in a fallen world. The pro-asylum people will be in agreement with you no matter which victims you emphasize, so it's only the support of the national-pride brigade that's in play.
None of whom are likely to vote for Labour anyway, so all you've done is coarsened the public realm for no gain whatsoever ...
In fact it's worse than that; disorder is not popular, and even centre-right types are turned off by a government failing the 'are you even a state?' test. Meanwhile the fascists are emboldened.