Royal Police State

It’s the Big Day and the Establishment doesn’t want anyone putting a spanner in the works. So they have arrested people and locked them up for crimes they may commit – in fact, not even crimes – on charges of “conspiracy to cause a public nuisance”. Charlie Veitch of the Love Police is one who has been locked up, even though he has famously hugged police officers.

Paul Joseph Watson writes,

Veitch was in contact with police before the arrest, reassuring them that his plans were completely peaceful and merely centered around voicing his free speech, which evidently no longer exists as a human right in the United Kingdom.

This has been evident for a few years now.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Royal Police State

  1. Dilettante says:

    Pre-arresting people without evidence is suspect, but I doubt the police are acting without evidence as this isn’t V for Vendetta we live in. I’d also rather they took preventative measures than have another instance of the ever-present “violent minority” hijack a supposedly “peaceful protest” and ruin the wedding. If violence did break out at such a high-security occasion somebody could be killed.

  2. English Viking says:

    The police and MI5 have a responsibility to protect the Royal family and the public from scruffy soap-dodgers with load mouths and no brains. Conspiracy is a crime, and arrests cannot be made without evidence. We don’t want to see a repeat of people ‘expressing themselves’ and their ‘right to free speech’ in the manner they did recently, attacking Prince Charles’ car and assaulting Camilla P.B. do we?

    BTW Freedom of speech is exactly that. I should be allowed to speak whatever nonsense I like, and I frequently do. It does not mean, nor has it ever, that hundreds, perhaps even thousands of people should be permitted to spoil someone else’s wedding day by shouting and screaming, encouraging open displays of dissent to royalty or worse still, inciting unrest and violence, which these ‘demonstrations’ usually do.

    God bless HRH Prince William, his lovely bride Catherine, the House of Windsor and the lands and peoples they reign over. Amen.

  3. bb says:

    You reap what you sow. The ever increasing erosion of citizens’ rights and freedoms is a consequence of nanny state intervention on the back of deliberate, yet often groundless, scaremongering and, worse, in the wake of decisions made that have incited acts of terrorism and created public dissatisfaction. For example, we shouldn’t have to ring fence parliament with steel barriers manned by armed police, let alone spend £35m on security for one just one wedding.

  4. Vee says:


    I speak as a retired police officer to suggest there are some fuzzy thoughts here.

    Yes, the police are scared of Muslims in the same manner the Government is. Outside of the English Defence League, so is the common man on the Clapham omnibus. It results from a collective delusion that induces fear that more violence would follow if the police cracked down on Muslims who break the law. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

    The basic police function is to maintain the “Queen’s Peace” without fear or favour. At times this can be riddled with controversy more especially when the law itself is ambiguous and has to be translated into real terms to meet real situations in double-quick time.

    A legal opinion on law states:-

    “Behaviour which is likely to provoke a violent reaction falls within the concept of a breach of the peace, even if it is not itself violent.”

    Planning publicly to behead effigies of members of the royal family near the wedding venue may not be intended to incite violence, but that is the likely outcome.

    They deserve to be arrested to the same extent that they should also be handcuffed which serves to restrain potential violence or its threat to themselves or others. It is as much a safety measure as a security one.

    And yes, the police would be acting wisely in searching their premises in pursuit of any evidence of illegality.


    This troublesome professor holds extreme political views espousing anarchy. It is right that the law upholds his right to do so. Translating personal views into incitement to violence is not.

    Oh by the way, the other man was not arrested simply for being in fancy dress. This group had sinister motivations that were likely to result in a breach of the peace.

    Watch the professor spouting his twisted views here

    To suggest this is the end of free speech is simply over the top.

    The problem with today’s police is that they have become politicised by the last government that continues with the present one. Corrupted by political correctness, this arrest is a refreshing change.

    These people can dissent, disagree and even hate if they wish. But any provocative behaviour that is likely to stir up the public peace is rightly to be condemned and dealt with.

    Police robustness here, was tempered by a unique civility, conditioned by a fear of upsetting the chattering classes.


  5. lionheart says:

    Bravo English and Vee well said, if the probable end result would have been a breech of the peace (as inevitably someone would have taken serious offence at what they had planned if the reporting is correct and it could well have resulted in them being attacked as a result).then to arrest them was completely justified.

    It was plain they expected this sort of action and had invited the press there to observe and I thought the officers handled themselves in an exemplary fashion from what I saw.

  6. Stewart Cowan says:

    Dilettante – I understand that Charlie Veitch had contacted the police to say he was going to peacefully demonstrate. He told them he wasn’t going to break the law, but they locked him up anyway.

  7. Stewart Cowan says:

    English – Charlie Veitch has a loud mouth – at least, when he puts his megaphone up to it – but I don’t doubt his mind or personal hygiene.

    Two people have a right to a happy wedding, but these particular two people had millions spent on them, so I think that makes a big difference.

    Do you think that QE is a traitor for allowing her governments to sell us out?

  8. lionheart says:

    Stewart what do you think the police would do if the pope was visiting and they where informed by a group of devil worshippers that they wanted to enact a small ceremony to protest at his presence ??

    Its not WHAT they where doing its WHERE and WHEN that makes the difference and thats what could lead to a breach of the peace in response. If Stonewall said they where planning to have 100 men kissing to protest gay rights in a church during a speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury they would be arrested before they did so, not because their actions are illegal in themselves but because of the intended consequences (and I presume you’d agree with that course of action Stuart?) it really isn’t any different in the eyes of the law.

  9. Stewart Cowan says:

    Vee – thanks for those comments. When I wrote these posts I hadn’t known that a working guillotine was going to be used, but in a broader sense, is it the job of the police to stop a demonstration in case someone takes offence and becomes violent? Surely the violent party is the lawbreaker?

    The danger is that the police and government have a say in what are and are not “acceptable” things to protest about. Just like in so much of the world.

    To suggest this is the end of free speech is simply over the top.

    I would say that it ended some time ago.

    Are you suggesting that if the TV cameras hadn’t been there that the police would have acted differently?

  10. Stewart Cowan says:


    We are beginning to reap many harvests thanks to putting up with bad government for so long. If they hadn’t messed up the country then I suspect fewer people would have been concerned about the cost, which is a drop in the ocean compared to the money we give to the EU, or even Cameron’s pressie to Pakistan.

  11. Stewart Cowan says:


    As I said to Vee, is it the job of the police to stop a demonstration in case someone takes offence and becomes violent?

    You want me to play devil’s advocate. If we have religious freedom and freedom of speech then who can legally stop them? The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster protested the Pope’s visit as they had every right to do. You can’t get more provocative than that in some parts of the country!

    I think that 100 men kissing on someone else’s property is a separate matter. Of course, once upon a time the law would have deemed this to be lewd/obscene behaviour or whatever the legal term might have been.

  12. lionheart says:

    Well thats the point really isn’t it Stewart, once upon a time a demonstration against the monarchy would have been considered treason and the street actors would have been heading for the chop but that isn’t the law these days the same way that it isn’t for two men or two women to kiss in public but it would be an offence it the same way this was given the right circumstances.

    If the gay protest was lining the streets outside the church it still would be stopped in all likelihood. I know you understand the concept Stewart and in this case it was exasperated by the numbers of police on duty and with fixed locals to watch, having to protect people who where deliberately trying to provoke a reaction and fully aware of what it could be would have been an unnecessary extra stretching of the resources on the day.

  13. Stewart Cowan says:

    I was a Royalist once, LH. I would have been of the same opinion as you for Chuck and Di’s wedding. As for treason, as I asked English, isn’t the Queen guilty? How can I, as a patriot, support a monarch who has not intervened in the business of successive treasonous governments?

  14. English Viking says:


    I admit a quandary, but not so much of one that would allow this socialist/anarchist/toss-pot filth a voice on such an important day.

    Don’t let your inherent hatred of those which rule you to cloud your judgement.

    Your Jockishness is showing.

    Would you rather William on the throne, or Swampy? (Not Bonnie, surely?)

    ERII is not long for this world. and then, perhaps, a change for the better. Do not suppose that Charles will succeed, it is far from a done deal.

    Kneel before your betters, as I have done, and as scripture commands you.

  15. Stewart Cowan says:



    HRH Swampy would be a nightmare. Wills, I imagine, would go for the quiet life. I can’t see either being of benefit.

    Kneel before my “betters??” I’m a Jock; I have no betters!!

    Wha daur meddle wi’ me!

    1 Samuel 12:12, “And when ye saw that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me, Nay; but a king shall reign over us: when the LORD your God was your king.”

  16. English Viking says:


    Your rhetoric is stronger than the truth.

    The Jocks have been systematically raped, not once, not twice, not even thrice-EVERY time you stand up, we knock you down. If this is not true, how come we govern your ‘assembly’?

    You are strong, of that there is no doubt. You are brave, obviously.

    But you lack numbers, and that will always be your weakness.

    There is no nice way of saying it:

    You stood on the field, as did we. You faced our men, as did we. You charged, we laughed.

    When all was said and done, you were brave, but we won.

    When all is said and done, you lost, we won.

  17. Stewart Cowan says:


    I was being a little bit sarcastic, but anyways, what battle is this you are describing? Not Bannockburn or several others where we sent ye hamewards tae think again.

    The Scots joined the English in Union after we nearly bankrupted ourselves over the Darien scheme. Gordon Brown’s forebears were probably involved. We just needed the English to sort us out economically.

    Should we be laughing at the English? Perish the thought!

  18. English Viking says:


    Bannockburn was a battle won more by the terrain than the Jocks. A victory it was though, nevertheless.

    All was decided at Culloden, hence the amalgamation of your flag in ours, and not vice versa.

    Just to give you a direct answer to your question: Yes, HRH ERII is guilty, in my opinion, of breaking her coronation oath and is therefore guilty of treason, for signing away British sovereignty to the EU on no less than 6 occasions. But what shall we do? David thought better of removing Saul, even though he was the anointed one. The best we can hope for is that God will replace her with someone after his own heart, as he did Saul with David.

  19. Stewart Cowan says:

    We’ll call it a draw then, for now. Yes, St George has the upper hand in the Union Flag.

    Frankly, I don’t see the Almighty blessing us with a righteous monarch because we don’t deserve one.

  20. English Viking says:


    Sad, but probably true.

  21. English Viking says:


    You’re not sulking in your porridge, are you?

    You know I love you really, don’t you?

  22. Stewart Cowan says:

    Sulk. Moi?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>