GreaterManchester Police have searched a group of teenagers and threatened them with arrest because one of them was carrying an anti-monarchy placard. This happened on Friday (20th January) when Charles Windsor was visiting Bolton.
This latest example of the suppression of peaceful protest is a reminder of just how quick British police are to prevent any expression of anti-monarchy opinion.
Nate Norris, aged 16, was holding a sign reading “Abolish the monarchy”. He was joined by some friends, aged 16 and 17, none of whom had placards or banners. They were approached by police before Charles Windsor had even arrived.
Despite no evidence whatsoever of any physical threat to anyone, the police searched four 16- and 17-year-olds. They issued them with a dispersal notice, telling them to leave and threatening them with arrest if they returned within three hours – so they would not be there when Charles Windsor turned up.
Nate tells me that when he asked why this was being done, the police pointed to wording in the dispersal notice that claimed that “there are reasonable grounds to suspect your behaviour has contributed to or is likely to contribute to members of the public in the specified locality being harassed”.
Nate asked them to explain why they thought this. There is some footage of this part of the incident: Nate can be heard asking what behaviour the police are referring to, and a police officer can be heard repeatedly avoiding the question. At one point, the policeman said, “If you don’t know what ‘bevhaviour’ means, feel free to Google it”. This should make him a strong contender for Patronising Copper of the Year. But then again, there’s likely to be a lot of comepeition for that title.
In short, Bolton police searched and dispersed a small group of peaceful teenagers because one of them objected to the monarchy. Did they think that Charles should not have to cope with seeing a critical placard? This is in no way compatible with democracy and the right to free expression.
The low standards of the police have been increasingly obvious in recent months and years, not least through the latest revelations about the number of officers accused of sexual or domestic abuse. The general police contempt for the right to peaceful protest seems to have become more visible just as the Home Secretary is offering them more and more powers to shut down dissent.
There are few issues on which the police seem as keen to deny the right to free expression as the monarchy. While I know this from my own experience of being arrested in Oxford last September, I am aware that my case is one among many – as the incident in Bolton shows.
Three cheers for Nate and his friends for standing up to monarchy and for challenging the police about the legal basis of their actions. Too often the police seem to think that the law is what they say it is, and that everyone should do what a police officer tells them without question. It is entirely understandable that some people do not feel confident about challenging the police, given the imbalance of power involved.
As the government tries to further criminalise peaceful protests, and to effectively ban strikes in some industries, our right to resist must be constantly reasserted. The coronation in May is likely to be a big test for this.
Ahead of William Windsor and Kate Middleton’s wedding in 2011, people planning to protest were pre-emptively arrested before the event, while others were arrested on the day on very dubious grounds. That must not happen again. Between now and May we must speak up loudly for the right to dissent – and make our voices heard on the day itself.
Symon Hill 
This story is all wrong. They searched them because the public felt they were acting suspicious, and it is stated on the back of a dispersal notice that they can do a search and disperse if they have public suspicion and they were told that they can’t return to the place the dispersal stated and would yes be arrested if they came back because that is how it works. They had reasoning behind it, the public were concerned for not only their own safety but the groups. Meaning the police were able to search and disperse the group.
Who do you mean by “the public”? They were themselves part of the public. Having failed to find anything suspicious when they searched them, why did the police order them to disperse? What was the “reasoning behind it” other than a desire to remove people because of the opinion that one of them was expressing?
Do you not know what a dispersal notice is or something? They might not have found anything suspicious but being there could have lead to violent outbursts from the public towards them. Hence why the police got rid of them. For THEIR safety and for the public’s safety. Not for the safety of the king. He wasn’t even in Bolton at the time.
“Could have led to violent outbursts from the public”? The teenagers in question are just as much “the public” as anybody else who was there. If anyone had been violent towards them, surely it is the people being violent who the police should act against, not their victims?
Removing peaceful protestors “for their own safety” is a totalitarian-style justification if ever there was one.
When they found nothing to cause alarm, no weapons, no explosives … why did the police make them go so that Snarls didn’t see the sign. It’s not like it had any b”bad” language that might have been offensive to elderly ladies like queen Mrs Parker Bowles.
Is that the kind of country England has become? Clearly it is.
It puts me in mind of some of the Communist states I visited 35 years ago as a kid, where it was illegal to criticise the president and my parents warned us over and over again to be careful what we said.
I have a feeling I know who this is and it’s likely you won’t listen but you’re not understanding, the “reason” the police gave us was completely illegitimate as we were not acting suspicious in any way , nobody’s safety was at risk and the use of police power was completely unwarranted. They had no reason to remove us as we didn’t have the items they were looking for.
Good old “Anonymous “
Pingback: Three key moves will help the monarchy save itself
Pingback: A shallow rebrand can’t save the monarchy | Symon Hill
They made us leave for our safety because people they thought we’d be in danger if we stayed. Not to mention there wasn’t ‘3 teenagers protesting’ there was 1. The rest of us weren’t associated with them and that why we left. And to the person who said “good old anonymous” Yes I am. This story is wrong and that’s that.
And to Nate who dragged our three names into this. It was for our safety, your safety, I know you won’t ever see that but it was because the people who were there would have started a fight and if you can’t see that you’re just blind. So here is the actual story. There was 1 teenager. Protesting. With use three surrounding them, the crowd was hectic were 16, we’re there messing around whilst this other teen is near us protesting, we say hi and talk to them cause yes we knew each other. So the police assumed we were with them. Then for our OWN safety and for the CROWDS, we’re taken and searched in case the one person with a bag had something in it that could be harmful. Then they issued a dispersal notice for the square. Not the actual town its self. That notice was an hour. The police calmly explain to us what had happened and why we were being taken off to the side, nate was the one who kept talking back and not listening. It didn’t go on our records and I know this for a fact. NONE OF US WERE HARMED and the officers were kind and reassuring. We could have seen the king if we wanted to, but us three decided not to. There was 1 Protestor, who when calmly got explained to why it was a problem argued and argued for no reason. Then proceeded to compare every police officer to each other and say they were brutal and shouldn’t deserve to be here. Which is why we no longer have contact. So take this article down. Its fucking false.
Thanks for your comments.
Of course, I wasn’t there so I don’t know the details. My blog post was based on Nate’s account. I’m not going to get into the accuracy or otherwise of every detail. I’m sorry that I did not make clear that Nate was the only one actually protesting. While I can’t personally know whether each detail is accurate (when you and Nate are differing from each other’s accounts), it seems clear to me that Nate’s main point still stands. The police often try to justify their actions on grounds of protecting people’s safety. I can see no way in which searching you made your safer, or any grounds for searching Nate to check he had nothing harmful in his bag. However polite the police may have been, their action was nonetheless an interference with the right to peaceful protest. Nonetheless, I am sorry that I was not more precise in my wording about who was involved, and for any distress this has caused you.