Met Police smash down door of Quaker meeting house to arrest activists(thetimes.com)
thetimes.com
Met Police smash down door of Quaker meeting house to arrest activists
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/society/article/met-smash-down-door-of-quaker-meeting-house-to-arrest-activists-jhhchrtlt
118 comments
https://archive.is/Ndh1z
“The only resistance I could put up was to make tea and drink it in front of them without offering them any.”
The most British thing I’ve read this year
The most British thing I’ve read this year
To add additional context, Quakers are also famously non-violent, even when met with violence against themselves:
> Quakers are one of the three historic peace churches and therefore have taken seriously the call to loving enemies and the practice of non-violence.
https://quaker.org/peace-and-nonviolence/
> Quakers are one of the three historic peace churches and therefore have taken seriously the call to loving enemies and the practice of non-violence.
https://quaker.org/peace-and-nonviolence/
One notable exception to this was Jeremiah Dixon, of the Mason-Dixon line. From Wikipedia:
> "Jeremiah Dixon, happening upon a slave driver mercilessly beating a poor black woman. 'Thou must not do that!' he shouted. 'You be damned! Mind your own business,' came the reply. 'If thou doesn't desist, I'll thrash thee!'
> Tall and powerful, Jeremiah seized the slave-driver's whip and gave him a soun thrashing. When he returned to Cockfield, the whip came too, and was one of the Quaker family's treasured possessions."
> "Jeremiah Dixon, happening upon a slave driver mercilessly beating a poor black woman. 'Thou must not do that!' he shouted. 'You be damned! Mind your own business,' came the reply. 'If thou doesn't desist, I'll thrash thee!'
> Tall and powerful, Jeremiah seized the slave-driver's whip and gave him a soun thrashing. When he returned to Cockfield, the whip came too, and was one of the Quaker family's treasured possessions."
I shall not say a word without the accompaniment of my barrister, unless you and I are properly introduced.
That's brutal
"The women, aged between 18 and 38, were sitting in a circle eating hummus and bread sticks on Thursday evening as part of a “welcome meeting” for Youth Demand, which calls itself a non-violent protest group."
Eating hummus and bread sticks.
Eating hummus and bread sticks.
You dip bread sticks to hummus, if anyone is having hard time to visualize this…
UK breadsticks are also not typically like the Olive Garden ones Americans probably imagine. They're pencil-thin and crispy.
How to radicalize a generation, in just a few easy steps.
Europeans like to look down on the rise of fascism in the US but even a superficial analysis shows that the US is simply Europe in 5-10 years.
For the UK in particular, people may point to how Labor swept the elections last year but they'd be wrong to say that there was left-wing momentum in the UK or even that it was another example of people voting against incumbent governments. Neither is true.
All that happened in the UK is the right-wing vote got split between the Conservatives and the even more right-wing Reform party. That's it. Come next election, that won't be the case. At the current rate, Conservative/Reform will merge or ally and sweep in a landslide. Starmer actually got fewer votes than Corbyn did in his previous two elections by a substantial margin.
The UK Labor party is playing the same role as the US Democratic Party. That is, they make occasional meek noises about institutional norms but they really don't oppose fascism at all. In fact, both parties are way more concerned with the rise of leftism than they are with fascism.
We've seen this exact same scenario play out in France. You have grooming victim [1] Macron who has tried to occupy some mythical "center" with Le Pen's National Front, the brainchild of leaders of Vichy France, playing the role of fascist party. But in France there's actually some leftist opposition. And what does Macron do? Routinely side with the fascists to keep the leftists out of power.
In the US, the role of Gestapo is being played by ICE. They take their marching orders from the Canary Mission to black-bag people who simply opposed Israel's genocide. This is quite literally picking up political dissidents and putting them into concentration camps.
The UK, France and Germany are well on their way to the same fate.
[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/06/politics/emmanuel-macron-wife...
For the UK in particular, people may point to how Labor swept the elections last year but they'd be wrong to say that there was left-wing momentum in the UK or even that it was another example of people voting against incumbent governments. Neither is true.
All that happened in the UK is the right-wing vote got split between the Conservatives and the even more right-wing Reform party. That's it. Come next election, that won't be the case. At the current rate, Conservative/Reform will merge or ally and sweep in a landslide. Starmer actually got fewer votes than Corbyn did in his previous two elections by a substantial margin.
The UK Labor party is playing the same role as the US Democratic Party. That is, they make occasional meek noises about institutional norms but they really don't oppose fascism at all. In fact, both parties are way more concerned with the rise of leftism than they are with fascism.
We've seen this exact same scenario play out in France. You have grooming victim [1] Macron who has tried to occupy some mythical "center" with Le Pen's National Front, the brainchild of leaders of Vichy France, playing the role of fascist party. But in France there's actually some leftist opposition. And what does Macron do? Routinely side with the fascists to keep the leftists out of power.
In the US, the role of Gestapo is being played by ICE. They take their marching orders from the Canary Mission to black-bag people who simply opposed Israel's genocide. This is quite literally picking up political dissidents and putting them into concentration camps.
The UK, France and Germany are well on their way to the same fate.
[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/06/politics/emmanuel-macron-wife...
Social media is probably a major catalyst for hatred. Hatred is driving people to vote against their own interests.
I really dislike this idea that social media is somehow to blame. It's too superficial.
Right-wing hate speech dominates social media because it's the normative position of our society. All of that existed long before social media. The only reason people think otherwise is probably because they were too young to observe it.
Segregation only officially ended ~60 years ago. Even after that we have had, and even continue to have, economic segregation.
Slavery might've been officially abolished ~160 years ago but it exists to this day in the form of convict leasing.
Queer people were criminalized and persecuted up until the late 20th century.
Women only really gained bodily autonomy in the 1960s and 1970s (and lost some of it in 2022).
Social media simply reflects how popular all of these ideas still are.
Right-wing hate speech dominates social media because it's the normative position of our society. All of that existed long before social media. The only reason people think otherwise is probably because they were too young to observe it.
Segregation only officially ended ~60 years ago. Even after that we have had, and even continue to have, economic segregation.
Slavery might've been officially abolished ~160 years ago but it exists to this day in the form of convict leasing.
Queer people were criminalized and persecuted up until the late 20th century.
Women only really gained bodily autonomy in the 1960s and 1970s (and lost some of it in 2022).
Social media simply reflects how popular all of these ideas still are.
> Even after that we have had, and even continue to have, economic segregation.
A lot of real-world economic segregation is directly linked the housing market, and then the leftists actively support it. When policy choices are adopted such that the market threatens to reduce the amount of segregation that a city or neighborhood is subjected to, leftists call that development "gentrification" and scream in protest against it.
A lot of real-world economic segregation is directly linked the housing market, and then the leftists actively support it. When policy choices are adopted such that the market threatens to reduce the amount of segregation that a city or neighborhood is subjected to, leftists call that development "gentrification" and scream in protest against it.
Gentrification doesn't reduce segregation, it just moves the boundaries of the segregated areas.
Poor people mostly rent because they can't afford or can't get a mortgage. When an area gentrifies those people are forced out because the rents rise, and wealthy people move in. If you just look at the income distribution in the area it looks like "the population" became wealthier, but if you look at the individuals you find that the old residents have been forced out, and generally wind up poorer because of this (social networks disrupted, work further away etc).
Poor people mostly rent because they can't afford or can't get a mortgage. When an area gentrifies those people are forced out because the rents rise, and wealthy people move in. If you just look at the income distribution in the area it looks like "the population" became wealthier, but if you look at the individuals you find that the old residents have been forced out, and generally wind up poorer because of this (social networks disrupted, work further away etc).
> A lot of real-world economic segregation is directly linked the housing market
Yes.
> ... and then the leftists actively support i
No, they don't.
Liberals (which really means neoliberals) support it. Here's a helpful diagram:
Leftists also generally believe in "personal property" not "private property". That is, you can own your own home but you can't hoard housing.
How successful NIMBYism is in the US just shows you how normative right-wing attitudes are. done
Yes.
> ... and then the leftists actively support i
No, they don't.
Liberals (which really means neoliberals) support it. Here's a helpful diagram:
<--------- Left ------ Center ------- Right ------------->
+-------------------------+------------------------------+
} Cares about People | Cares about Property |
+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| Leftists/Progressives | (Neo)liberals |
+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| Socialism | Capitalism |
+-------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| Materialism | Idealism |
+-------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| | Democrats | Republicans |
+-------------------------+--------------+---------------+
Leftists also generally believe in "personal property" not "private property". That is, you can own your own home but you can't hoard housing.
How successful NIMBYism is in the US just shows you how normative right-wing attitudes are. done
Oh, absoltuley. And basically inviting any external propaganda machine direct access to people attention
Social media is a tool of corporations.
All Russia needs to do is bribe corporations.
It is that easy.
All Russia needs to do is bribe corporations.
It is that easy.
With social media you don't even need to bribe. As long as your content is engaging enough and drives ad impressions, the social platform will promote it for free.
No. These people aren't "voting against their own interests." They're prioritizing their non-economic interests over their economic ones.
zozbot234(5)
More than 20 uniformed police, some equipped with Tasers,
forced their way into the Westminster meeting house [of worship]
and arrested six people at the meeting
on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.
[police] arrested five other people for the same offence on Friday
If we assume the best of the Met police, they first considered sending an officer over to talk to the Quakers and maybe offer some counsel.
And being the Met police and being faced with the potential of a non-violent resolution to a non-violent issue, the police instead opted for an approach that mirrors violent police raids.
That's if we assume the best of the Met police. They might not have ever considered a non-violent solution for Quakers.
On the plus side their protest is already enormously successful and it hasn’t even happened yet.
Dey didn’t have their noosence loicence.
Some more context https://x.com/youth_demand/status/1905635104057425922
",Only sustained mass resistance can put an end to genocide."
That doesn't sound very peaceful does it
That doesn't sound very peaceful does it
Which part of this suggest violence to you?
Kristallnacht writ small.
What hapoened is bad. Bad analogies are also bad. This is nothing akin to Kristallnacht.
It certainly doesn't compare to the scale of Kristallnacht (hence "writ small"). And Kristallnacht was just government-sponsored vandalism whereas in this case people were also arrested, so in that respect this was actually worse. But all that is neither here nor there. Kristallnacht was a harbinger of much worse to come, and that was what I intended to convey: I was making a prediction that this is a harbinger of much worse to come.
I think yd have been better off going with harbinger and no analogy here. This was a government agency acting on behalf of the government in a targeted arrest, not the government saying to citizens it's a free-for-all on targeting an entire group's businesses and homes (which is why "writ small" still fails here).
There's real levels of Naziesque behavior happening in the US and UK right now, but it's also not exactly the same and bad comparisons make it easier for many people to dismiss genuine concerns as hyperbolic (especially when one is in a targeted group, which i am, and trying to point out how bad things are getting).
There's real levels of Naziesque behavior happening in the US and UK right now, but it's also not exactly the same and bad comparisons make it easier for many people to dismiss genuine concerns as hyperbolic (especially when one is in a targeted group, which i am, and trying to point out how bad things are getting).
Fair enough. Thanks for the feedback.
Why did this country bother issuing a travel advisory against going to the USA?
I mean, worth pointing out this group is pretty explicitly focused on conducting unlawful civil disobedience, and plenty of the members have previous convictions for doing just that. This is hardly the police just rounding up your local reading group.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/met-police-arrest-act...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/met-police-arrest-act...
So? Were they conducting "unlawful" civil disobedience when raided?
Planning one, hence the conspiracy charges. Seems pretty Orwellian to me though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle: not having evidence is not a justification for not taking action.
[deleted]
Are police only allowed to arrest a rapist when he is raping? Are they only allowed to arrest a murderer in the middle of a murder?
You're saying the prior arrests failed to be a deterent, so presumably these arrests won't work either.
Given that the goal of the group is to draw attention to their causes, and police action caused them to recieve a huge amount of attention, the whole thing seems rather self defeating.
Given that the goal of the group is to draw attention to their causes, and police action caused them to recieve a huge amount of attention, the whole thing seems rather self defeating.
I don't see how that information can be complete without https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating.
The Quakers are fairly heavy politically invested, and most of them aren't even theists any more. There's no right of sanctuary in the UK, and if a group is sheltering criminals or providing them with premeses to plan criminal actions, it's damned right they should have their door busted in.
Why does it matter if they are theists or not? Would you afford more leniency to a catholic church?
Yes they absolutely would.
I'm suggesting that the organisation is not the one that existed 100 years ago, even by a very large stretch of the imagination. The title is emotive largely because of the reputation of the organisation.
If the headline was "police raid house to arrest criminal activists", it wouldn't have made a blip.
If the headline was "police raid house to arrest criminal activists", it wouldn't have made a blip.
No organization is the one that existed 100 years ago, not even the catholic church, which famously had the second vatican council 60 years ago.
> If the headline was "police raid house to arrest criminal activists", it wouldn't have made a blip.
If you’re willing to lie, the headline could be whatever you want.
If you’re willing to lie, the headline could be whatever you want.
It's just indicative of a wider trend in some western countries to punish and threaten people protesting their complicity in genocide.
Same thing or perhaps worse is happening in Germany, US, etc.
One can just as well ask why would a democratic country arrest and threaten young people for protesting actions of a foreign country, when such actions include things like mass killings of children, or targeted attacks on healthcare and rescue workers, where said country sometimes just murders 15 of them while on a rescue mission (destroying 5 ambulances and a fire engine, basically killing all of the teams), like recently.
It's a worthy question that such an article can elicit regardless of who's being arrested for activism.
Same thing or perhaps worse is happening in Germany, US, etc.
One can just as well ask why would a democratic country arrest and threaten young people for protesting actions of a foreign country, when such actions include things like mass killings of children, or targeted attacks on healthcare and rescue workers, where said country sometimes just murders 15 of them while on a rescue mission (destroying 5 ambulances and a fire engine, basically killing all of the teams), like recently.
It's a worthy question that such an article can elicit regardless of who's being arrested for activism.
If you give police the right to invade and arrest any group that is "sheltering criminals", and you define "crime" broadly enough to include "suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" i.e. encouraging protest, then you have given up on living in a free society.
[deleted]
Yes. Hardened criminals being sheltered.
> A Met spokesman said six women had been arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance, amid fears of a sit-down protest in the capital. None have been charged.
> A Met spokesman said six women had been arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance, amid fears of a sit-down protest in the capital. None have been charged.