Environmental protestors interrupt Chancellor's speech

[landsurfer]

And possibly, you're completely and utterly wrong.
Usually am ... too some degree ....

PS,did you check on what constitutes as assault in UK law?

No, why are you unsure ?

[pete75]

I imagine WMAWMs are the biggest group on these fora

But who will admit to being wealthy? People are notoriously loath to admit that their pile of lucre makes them one of the rich.

What makes a person wealthy? I'd say assets into seven figures not including the house they live in and a income tax bill of £50,000 plus.

[Mike Sales]

I imagine WMAWMs are the biggest group on these fora

But who will admit to being wealthy? People are notoriously loath to admit that their pile of lucre makes them one of the rich.

What makes a person wealthy? I'd say assets into seven figures not including the house they live in and a income tax bill of £50,000 plus.

I guess that by those criteria you are not wealthy?

[Mike Sales]

I imagine WMAWMs are the biggest group on these fora

But who will admit to being wealthy? People are notoriously loath to admit that their pile of lucre makes them one of the rich.

What makes a person wealthy? I'd say assets into seven figures not including the house they live in and a income tax bill of £50,000 plus.

I guess that by those criteria you are not wealthy?

[pete75]

But who will admit to being wealthy? People are notoriously loath to admit that their pile of lucre makes them one of the rich.

What makes a person wealthy? I'd say assets into seven figures not including the house they live in and a income tax bill of £50,000 plus.

I guess that by those criteria you are not wealthy?

As an individual I'm not.

[mattheus]

ve certainly screwed things up with their unsustainable lifestyles is a proven fact, but arrogant direct action is surely not the correct way to go. By all means point out the hypocracy of the wasteful facts, but try a more appropriate way of going about things.
Too many people believe they should be allowed to have instant personal gratification, fly to a remote civilisation, thereby ruining it, driving the must have vehicle which is very inappropriate, because their choice is paramount, never dream of walking or cycling a short distance instead of using the vanity machine!

So what IS this "more appropriate way"? [I did ask earlier]. You seem happy to rant to us on this forum, do you think that's achieving anything? Are you getting as much publicity as this activist?

Show me the better way, and show me that it has worked.

[reohn2]

And possibly, you're completely and utterly wrong.
Usually am ... too some degree ....

PS,did you check on what constitutes as assault in UK law?

No, why are you unsure ?

I'm not
PS, you've misquoted me I didn't write that

[Carlton green]

Actually it's probably down to her and the police to call it between them. It certainly isn't down to any of us here to decide! (of course it's fun to discuss it - but I do rather feel this one is in a grey area ... )

It all pivots on "unlawful force" - there's a reason he's claiming she might have been a terrorist, it's about the only defence he's got.

By disrupting a private event on private land (and intending to do so - the wearing of evening dress shows that) she and the other 40 odd demonstrators committed aggravated tresspass.

A lawyer who acts for environmental campaigners said as much on BBC radio earlier. It has to be balanced against free speech and the right to demonstrate. And on Field's side the belief that an intruder may potentially pose a real threat cannot be discounted in today's environment.

Good call.

Having read the bulk of the thread the bottom line is that, RIGHT or WRONG, a planned and deliberate act of trespass was committed.

I have sympathy with environment groups but to wilfully intrude on what is a private event does, I think, step into a grey area of what is and is not socially acceptable. If I had been in that event, as a guest, I would have been both concerned and unhappy about the presence of ‘gatecrashers’; that (a multifaceted reaction with various elements of concern including personal safety) is something that the protesters could reasonably have expected and therefore to do it anyway is surely a form of abuse - not nice.

To put the gatecrash in a different light who would be pleased to have a similar action at their wedding reception? A load of people descending on your private event to protest because meat was on the menu or because some of your guests had flown to the event. I predict that the overwhelming majority of guests and hosts would be pretty upset by such a wilful abuse.

[kwackers]

By disrupting a private event on private land (and intending to do so - the wearing of evening dress shows that) she and the other 40 odd demonstrators committed aggravated tresspass.

A lawyer who acts for environmental campaigners said as much on BBC radio earlier. It has to be balanced against free speech and the right to demonstrate. And on Field's side the belief that an intruder may potentially pose a real threat cannot be discounted in today's environment.

I could be wrong but I believe they had tickets, if so how can it be trespass?

Further, I can't find anything that gives you the right to use force to remove a trespasser, in fact until asked to leave by the owner of the property I'm not even sure that even if they didn't have tickets they'd have been committing trespass. Did such a person ask them to leave?

Section 69 of the UK gov site says: "Powers to remove persons committing or participating in aggravated trespass.
(1)If the senior police officer present at the scene reasonably believes—"

Senior police officer??

Was there one present? Did he authorise their removal? Did he hand over police powers to a member of the public?

You can argue all you like. The guy's a bully, there's no doubt at all he lost his rag and hit out and he hasn't even got a pair big enough to admit it.
And tbh that's as far as I care to take it, we can argue finer points of law all we like I don't really care enough.

[Ben@Forest]

I could be wrong but I believe they had tickets, if so how can it be trespass?

Further, I can't find anything that gives you the right to use force to remove a trespasser, in fact until asked to leave by the owner of the property I'm not even sure that even if they didn't have tickets they'd have been committing trespass. Did such a person ask them to leave?

Section 69 of the UK gov site says: "Powers to remove persons committing or participating in aggravated trespass.
(1)If the senior police officer present at the scene reasonably believes—"

Senior police officer??

Was there one present? Did he authorise their removal? Did he hand over police powers to a member of the public?

You can argue all you like. The guy's a bully, there's no doubt at all he lost his rag and hit out and he hasn't even got a pair big enough to admit it.
And tbh that's as far as I care to take it, we can argue finer points of law all we like I don't really care enough.

Well apart from caring enough to post about it. I can't find anything to say they had tickets and Greenpeace described it as 'gatecrashing' but if someone really gave 40 tickets to environmental protesters then fine.

I merely reported what a lawyer who represents environmental campaigners said when interviewed on radio. His tenor was definitely pro the protesters but when pressed he said they had committed the offence.

[bovlomov]

To put the gatecrash in a different light who would be pleased to have a similar action at their wedding reception? A load of people descending on your private event to protest because meat was on the menu or because some of your guests had flown to the event. I predict that the overwhelming majority of guests and hosts would be pretty upset by such a wilful abuse.

I think upsetting the guests and host was the purpose. The history of the world would be very different if protesters had eschewed annoyance as a tactic. In any case, a Mansion House dinner can't be reasonably compared with my wedding reception. For one thing, we invited no guests. For another, we have no influence over national environmental policy.

[kwackers]

Well apart from caring enough to post about it. I can't find anything to say they had tickets and Greenpeace described it as 'gatecrashing' but if someone really gave 40 tickets to environmental protesters then fine.

My comments were the idle tapping of an amateur (i.e. quick google) lawyer, pretty much the same as everyone here.
Hence my comment about not caring - other than as a passing interest and a quick read of what the government website claims - which if nothing else does seem to be slightly at odds with what you say our learned friend says.

My only real interest in it is my interpretation of his actions. Pondering what he would have done had a real terrorist entered the room and finally what I'd have done had I been there and a mob of women in evening dresses shouting that they were from Greenpeace entered - I'm pretty sure I'd have settled down and looked for some popcorn.

[Ben@Forest]

I think upsetting the guests and host was the purpose. The history of the world would be very different if protesters had eschewed annoyance as a tactic. In any case, a Mansion House dinner can't be reasonably compared with my wedding reception. For one thing, we invited no guests. For another, we have no influence over national environmental policy.

The issue becomes what is or is not 'right' or 'suitable' for disruption. Would the the state funeral of the Queen be suitable for protesters? Or a conference about suitable cladding for residential buildings?

The problem is one person's valid opportunity is another person's heinous crime or disruption of something that really requires issues addressing and cooperative working.

Protesting in a public place is entirely valid. Believing you have an agenda which is more important than someone else's event smacks of self righteousness.

[bovlomov]

I think upsetting the guests and host was the purpose. The history of the world would be very different if protesters had eschewed annoyance as a tactic. In any case, a Mansion House dinner can't be reasonably compared with my wedding reception. For one thing, we invited no guests. For another, we have no influence over national environmental policy.

The issue becomes what is or is not 'right' or 'suitable' for disruption. Would the the state funeral of the Queen be suitable for protesters? Or a conference about suitable cladding for residential buildings?

The problem is one person's valid opportunity is another person's heinous crime or disruption of something that really requires issues addressing and cooperative working.

Protesting in a public place is entirely valid. Believing you have an agenda which is more important than someone else's event smacks of self righteousness.

All protesters could be accused of self righteousness, or dismissed as virtue signallers. I suppose it's a matter of personal taste, but I think the Chancellor's Mansion House speech is quite a long way from being an ordinary private event, and the protesters would say, with some justification, that needs must.

[slowster]

The issue becomes what is or is not 'right' or 'suitable' for disruption. Would the the state funeral of the Queen be suitable for protesters? Or a conference about suitable cladding for residential buildings?

The problem is one person's valid opportunity is another person's heinous crime or disruption of something that really requires issues addressing and cooperative working.

Protesting in a public place is entirely valid. Believing you have an agenda which is more important than someone else's event smacks of self righteousness.

The Mansion House Speech is an official event, to which I believe only rich, powerful and influential people are invited, and with probably a high ticket price. If access to politicians could not be bought by the rich and powerful, then I might agree with you. Until then, political events (which the Mansion House Speech is) are reasonably fair opportunities for the not rich and not powerful to protest. Poor analogies with non-political events like a royal funeral, the Grenfell Inquiry, or someone's wedding are indicative of the weakness of your argument.