Heavy handed police action at Quaker Meeting House.

The Quakers have probably been used unknowingly as a cover, too.

I am more and more inclined to think this is a set-up to show the police in a bad light.

The police would not have done this without prior inside information, perhaps from the Security Services, and an indication that violent protests were possibly being planned.

That in itself, of course, may have been a set-up by the group to show the police in a bad light as a protest against Serious Disription Prevention Orders.

As regards letting out rooms, here is the official Quaker guidance

"Principles"
The letting of rooms in Friends House is undertaken to raise income and to help pay the running costs of the work of Quakers in Britain. It is also a means of introducing Quakerism and Quaker work to a wider audience.

The hirers of rooms are expected to:

I *Respect the Quaker commitment to truth, equality, simplicity, peace and sustainability, and in particular:
not advocate in any circumstances for the use of violence,
not make any statement that denigrates or undermines either the dignity of an individual, group or nation, or the actual or perceived identity pertaining to an individual, group or nation (including, but not limited to, racial and ethnic identity, sex or gender identity, and sexual orientation)*

*Respect the long-held Quaker belief in the importance of people coming together to hear opinions across divides, expressed with due care and consideration for other people’s rights and dignity.

*Respect the aim to manage and operate the building in the most sustainable way.

It's not police v Quakers, I couldn't care less about the Quakers, its about the right to protest, the right to speech, etc.

To be fair from what I have seen the Quakers seem to be in as much a mess on freedom of speech as anyone else.

Grammaretto

I sent the link from the Quakers in Britain website. Surely that is the genuine article?
20 police officers with tasers broke in to the buiding without ringing the bell first, arrested 6 young women who were discussing Gaza and climate change in a room within the building.
Is that good enough for you?
www.quaker.org.uk/

20 police officers with tasers broke in to the buiding without ringing the bell first, arrested 6 young women who were discussing Gaza and climate change in a room within the building.
Did they break in or walk in without ringing the bell?

Is that good enough for you?
No, not really, it is obviously reported from one side.

This thread is so much police v Quakers

nanna8

In 1933 the same sort of things were happening in Germany. Please don’t ignore the warning symptoms. I think it is very, very bad and fear for the future when a mass police presence like this attacks a small group of people. Ok, we tend to play things down because they don’t immediately affect our own lives but this is serious.

In the 1930s Oswald Mosley and his Blackshirts were holding rallies and protests on the streets of London, espousing anti-semitism.

"I’m sad that Quakers are supporting those who who cause harm to other people".
You mistake the nature of the organisation.

It's not a political party. It's a faith organisation. It doesnt have a structure like a political party.

Although many views are held in common, actions that constitute civil disobedience like the Just Oil Protesters who sat down in the road are completely individual or small group decisions based on conscience.

I disagree with the use oil decisions of those individuals but you need to know its not "Quaker policy".

Churchview

Have you got this wrong Oreo? The group were just having a quiet meeting. It was the police who used aggressive and destructive behaviour, breaking down the door and arresting those inside. The Quakers are condemning the police action, not that of the group.

Yep...the police are indeed the ones being condemned here.

Anyone who knows the Quakers well knows that a (very very) basic tenet they hold to is "freedom of speech and freedom of conscience" and the fact they let a meeting room to a group does not imply either agreement or disagreement with the group.

What it does do is fit in with a policy formed from a very strongly-held belief in "freedom of speech" and, from that, comes letting out rooms to pretty much any group (religious or otherwise) that wishes to do so for a meeting basically.

This church has held to these tenets for centuries.

Grammaretto

I sent the link from the Quakers in Britain website. Surely that is the genuine article?
20 police officers with tasers broke in to the buiding without ringing the bell first, arrested 6 young women who were discussing Gaza and climate change in a room within the building.
Is that good enough for you?
www.quaker.org.uk/

They arrested 6 people who were part of a larger meeting.

What has young women to do with it except to imply a degree of harmlessness and vulnerability.

Discussing climate change and Gaza.
Discussing pretty harmless isn’t it? Planning protests that will disrupt and distress others doesn’t sound quite so peaceful does it?

Like I said, it’s the way it’s written. Spin,

I’m sad that Quakers are supporting those who who cause harm to other people.

Again I am able to hold a view on issues without being led by the hand by the media, my concerns are based on numerous incidents of the police intervening in protest, speech, social media posts. This isn't even a complaint about the police as such it is a societal problem we need to thrash out. Again my view of middle class environmental protesters is not generally favourable so I am not particularly going to bat for them. In fact I think it is interesting the 'outcry' about this particular group compared to the parents who have just been arrested for WhatsApp posts in relation to a school. We don't know the full story in either case but past cases have raised people's concerns. There is an increasingly authoritarian approach to speech etc which we need to be wary of.

Yes The BBC headline to todays' run through the from page of the newspapers said "police raid Quaker meeting" which is an incorrect lazy assumption by an editor.

I don't think you can read anymore to than that given that further down on the summary of the article it just says it was at the meeting house

"The Sunday Times leads with the arrest of six women at a Quaker meeting house in London, who had met, it says, to discuss "climate change and Gaza".

It reports that more than 20 officers from the Met "broke down the front door" of the building to make the arrests on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.
The Times says it's the latest accusation against the force that it's over-policing the "right to protest and free speech".

A spokesman for the Met said its officers "have a responsibility to intervene to prevent activity that crosses the line from protest into serious disruption".

In answer to your last question Annie its been clear from the O/P onwards that it was a rented room

But to clarify for you in Quaker meeting houses rooms are not rented only to Quakers.

(if they were Quakers it would not be a rented room it would be an internal meeting)

I think the Times is right on its focus about where the boundaries lie in terms of police powers and how they are used.

It reads “police broke into a Quaker meeting house. without warning or ringing a bell

I still question , was the room rented out ?

“took their possessions, hand cuffed them and in some cases searched their homes”

You see this is the thing about how people read something and then rephrase it in their own minds.

When anybody is arrested the police will take and log their possessions-in front of them to agree what there is- hold the possessions securely and return them on release - again in front of them. It’s a standard protective measure for both police and the arrested.
But rephrase it ‘They took their possessions” and it becomes something quite different.

The police have said homes were searched. We don’t know whose homes exactly only that the police acted on information that they were the homes of those connected to the organisation.
But here we have a post that says it was the homes of those arrested.

And before you know it the rephrasing becomes a belief.

I sent the link from the Quakers in Britain website. Surely that is the genuine article?
20 police officers with tasers broke in to the buiding without ringing the bell first, arrested 6 young women who were discussing Gaza and climate change in a room within the building.
Is that good enough for you?
www.quaker.org.uk/

I am sure there were female police officers there

www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/police-batter-down-door-of-pacifist-quaker-meeting-to-arrest-activists/ar-AA1BVbxn

A link to the Daily Mail article. It wasn't a Quaker meeting so that is false news. Also, was the door battered down or was it unlocked and the police opened it? Who was handcuffed? It is difficult to make a judgement without the full facts. I am not outraged at women being arrested or at meeting places being entered. There have been enough warning signs missed to allow terrible things to happen so I am in favour of police vigilance when law breaking is suspected. However, it is good publicity for the youth group so did they set it up? I have no idea as I wasn't there.

Question

Do police handcuff when arresting ?

Did police know how many were in the room , and male/ /female?
Was the room rented out to this meeting ?

Is the room only let to Quakers ?

I've just written to my MP (Labour) asking her if she agrees with this police action?

Fair enough not to exclude places of worship, but my goodness, is there any reason to use such force and to handcuff women who, by all accounts, were posing no threat.

The forced their way in, they took their possessions, handcuffed them and in some cases searched their homes.

I would have been very frightened and bet those women were too. It's badly done.

Yes a balanced article apart from the irrelevant bit about eating hummus and breadsticks ( see how harmless they are🤣🤣🤣)

The BBC on the other hand summarised the Times article as “Police raid Quaker meeting”.

Clearly deliberate and wrong.

Actually given that differences of religion are a major cause of f violence and persecution in the world I don’t believe that religious placs should be excluded from any action that might be taken with other venues.

On front page of the Times....20 officers smashed down door to arrest 6 women..

Excessive or what!!

Front page news in the Times today.

In 1933 the same sort of things were happening in Germany. Please don’t ignore the warning symptoms. I think it is very, very bad and fear for the future when a mass police presence like this attacks a small group of people. Ok, we tend to play things down because they don’t immediately affect our own lives but this is serious.