Heavy handed police action at Quaker Meeting House.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you for that Wyllow.

Would they then refuse to let a room to those who were holding meetings to plan disruption and harm?

Or knowing that that was the case would they still let the room saying it was a matter of conscience?

It seems to me that if they knowingly provide the space for planning harmful activities they are supporting those activities.

The statement they released, to me, appeared to focus on the action of the police , with no reference to the intentions of the renters of the room and whether the Quakers had knowingly given them space to plan disruptive action.

I don't think it is a case of bring used, from what I can see the right to speech and disagreement is a key tenet of their beliefs, I may join them

friendshouse.co.uk/friends-house-letting-policy/

also gives guidance about how its decided if a group is OK to hire a room and also circumstances where they could be banned.

Lathyrus3 the reference I have just given above gives guidelines about refusing or terminating use of a room.

Pretty much every protest on earth is disruptive to someone.

M0nica

It is not a question of who these people were, or why they were meeting. It is a queston of whether they were an immediate threat to public order. By that I mean; were they about to come out of the room, go outside and start to vandalise cars, throw paint at people etc etc.

They were not, the building was a religious space. The police action was unjustified until proved otherwise.

Quite!

That's a first there - we've agreed about something.

As you say - "sacred space" and very doubtful they were planning to come out the door and head up the road for instant violence or anything.

Police must wait until a.crime is being committed !

Wyllow3

The action taken were only made possible by the very controversial Public Order Act 2023.

It is designed to stop actions such as the motorway blocking, and major disruption, however the extent of the powers do threaten the ability to carry out normal peaceful demonstrations.

The bill and the critique

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Act_2023#cite_note-theguardian-badshah-6

Worth reading to see what its intended to cover and the powers it gives the police.

""it is concerned the offence could encompass demonstrators who simply link arms with each other, and that it should be amended. [...] The committee said measures relating to the obstruction of major transport works covered actions that were not intended to cause significant disruption, while those related to interference with key national infrastructure covered those that were neither "key" nor "national". The proposed serious disruption prevention orders could prevent people being able to exercise their right to protest, the committee said, and represented a "disproportionate response" to any resulting disruption.

It also expressed concerns about the extension of stop and search powers,

allowing police to carry out searches where there were no reasonable grounds for suspicion.

The definitions of "serious disruption" are very broad indeed.

So under that 2023 law the police didn't even need "reasonable grounds".

I definitely think there were no grounds for the police to forcibly enter the building as there was no imminent law breaking whatsoever: they could have waited for the meeting to end.

A pre-emptive strike like this against the suspicion of law breaking is very dangerous imo

Quite! I certainly realised that one pronto....

....yep......ex-Quaker here in my case.

I’d like a rational explanation of why a building where people meet to share a belief (a religious building) is held to be outside the law. A sacred space.

Does it matter whether the violence is planned for immediate action or for next week?

Anniebach

Police must wait until a.crime is being committed !

We don't know what they were planning.

Many terrorist plots have been discovered and prevented over the years, the public is probably unaware of how many and what they were.

Quote Allira Sun 30-Mar-25 12:13:11
Anniebach
Police must wait until a.crime is being committed !
We don't know what they were planning.

Many terrorist plots have been discovered and prevented over the years, the public is probably unaware of how many and what they were.

True we don’t know what they were planning yet the police are
criticised for taking precautions which may save lives.

Wyllow3

Lathyrus3 the reference I have just given above gives guidelines about refusing or terminating use of a room.

It says what is expected of hirers.

But not what the Quakers would do n discovering the hirers don’t fit those expectations.

I’m always interested in how people apply their beliefs and their conscience to the tangled ways of everyday life.

So Quakers would weigh the good that protests might do against the harm that they would do and decide whether to give space to the group or not? According to conscience?

Lathyrus3

I’d like a rational explanation of why a building where people meet to share a belief (a religious building) is held to be outside the law. A sacred space.

Does it matter whether the violence is planned for immediate action or for next week?

It's my understanding that religious buildings - across different faiths - are held to be "sacred spaces". A place that is supposed to transcend more "earthly" type considerations and we can remember who we really are so to say.

From memory I believe Anglican churches, for instance, are supposed to be "safe spaces" - though I guess we've all read our history about soldiers breaking into one to murder someone some centuries back at a king's behest.

I would hazard a guess that it's pretty much communally accepted that there needs to be "somewhere" people can go free of earthly considerations and undertake some quiet contemplation (or, in this case, a meeting) and it's a useful reminder that "Earthly society with all its conflicts" isn't all-there-is. My own personal take is that there is always/always fighting going on on Earth - whether physically, mentally or whatever. Countries fight and argue, people fight and argue and that's basically what life on earth so often consists of.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have a widespread recognition that there are "sacred spaces" we can go in and there not be all this "fighting, grabbing and arguing" that typifies a life on this warlike planet we call Earth.

Should a sacred place be used to cause harm, distress, death ?

Lathyrus3

Wyllow3

Lathyrus3 the reference I have just given above gives guidelines about refusing or terminating use of a room.

It says what is expected of hirers.

But not what the Quakers would do n discovering the hirers don’t fit those expectations.

I’m always interested in how people apply their beliefs and their conscience to the tangled ways of everyday life.

So Quakers would weigh the good that protests might do against the harm that they would do and decide whether to give space to the group or not? According to conscience?

I think Quakers believe good of everyone, that everyone has an inherent goodness.

Thst might be naïve but if they believe thst, then they would hope thst everyone might be redeemed.

that .........

Lathyrus3 it gives grounds for refusal or cancellations if you re-read that section so yes any hiring group can be reviewed and cancelled.

Wyllow3

friendshouse.co.uk/friends-house-letting-policy/

also gives guidance about how its decided if a group is OK to hire a room and also circumstances where they could be banned.

Oh yes, sorry. I somehow missed that post and was relying on the previous one that wasn’t quite as full😳

Quakers do believe there is good in everyone. It's called the "Inner Light" or "that of God in everyone".

Part of the reason why I personally describe myself as an "ex-Quaker" - is because I've realised that there are some people who really don't seem to have that and are just purely and simply about themselves only and will only think of what they personally want regardless of any individual, society or whatever they encounter. Many people will also "run with the crowd".....rather than figuring out their own opinion.

So yep...there can be/sometimes are people that have a "road to Damascus" moment and do drop being a fighter, thief, bully, etc and become normal. Hence I personally talk about "thieves" on the one hand and "normal people" on the other hand.

A very very "learning experience" I had decades back was getting given a right talking-to by a friend who shared the same employer I did - in which he gave me a lecture of "The trouble with you is you are a nice person - and so you think they will treat you the way you would treat you in reverse. You are wrong - they won't". At which point that was about a "last straw" thing to me - as at every point thereafter I thought "What I would do is x...that's the correct thing to do" and then went on to think "If I were them - and I was nasty/dishonest/couldnt give a monkeys about me personally then I would do y instead". I got it right every single time as to what they would do next to me and, as an exterior onlooker said to me "You are two steps ahead of them now and get it right as to what they will do next to you".

So yep and I have a personal philosophy now of thinking "What would a nice person do/should they do?" and then thinking "What would a nasty person do?" and I wish I weren't right so often when I think "I reckon they are going to do the second option" about a person/firm/government....

So - yep.....Quakers do indeed believe people will "think/do/be the right thing" because of this belief in the innate goodness of people. Not saying they're perfect - as I've encountered a few that are "as bad as many other people"...but hey.....

So yep...Lathyrus - you are correct...

This report in Sky News isnt without its moment of amusement, when the Quaker in charge of the building at the time refused to make the police a cup of tea in protest. There were other groups in the building at the time, a counselling group and a life drawing group, and the Quaker added "but they didnt see the model".

The breaking in was quite unnecessary as the Quaker in charge of lettings could have opened the doors to them but they did not ring or knock

news.sky.com/story/ridiculously-heavy-handed-metropolitan-police-criticised-after-raid-on-quaker-meeting-house-to-arrest-protesters-13338603