Brockley's pantomime villains prevented from gatecrashing fairytale wedding



When she arrived at the castle and found that it was Snowdrop, she stood petrified with terror. Then two iron shoes were laid before her, and she was forced to put them on and to dance at Snowdrop's wedding-dancing and dancing in those heavy shoes until she fell down dead. And that was the end of her.
- Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

They shan't go to the ball. Brockley's comedy anarchist Chris Knight is back in the headlines today after he was arrested ahead of today's Royal Wedding, at which he planned to present the glowing couple with a guillotine as a wedding gift.

The radical anthropologist and two friends were taken in to custody after police turned up at his Wickham Road palace and held him on "suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance and breach of the peace."

Tedious though Knight's stunts are, every wedding features a grumpy old relative who no-one remembers inviting and BC doesn't see why William and Kate's day should be any different.

129 comments:

Anonymous said...

Its these kind of idiots why the Tower of London should still be in use.

Lep Recorn said...

Now available on video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOli98fgBP0

Looks a little like overkill on the police's part. Highlights are Chris Knight doing a sit down protest at about 2 min and being carried into the police van, and the executioner being arrested at 3m40.

I do hope that the rabbit was well cared for by the police.

Chris Knight describes himself as a Professor of anthropology, but I seem to remember he was stripped of the title by East London Uni after a previous arrest.

Anonymous said...

Just remember all you Green Party voters out there, they have an anti royal party agenda! I bet these idiots vote Green!!

Anonymous said...

What a waste of public money caused by a publicity seeking idiot. How would you react if an uninvited gatecrasher seeks to present your bride with a guillotine! Very bad taste.

qbf said...

Shockingly bad manners, apart from anything else.

A Happy Republican said...

Only greesn are 'anti royal'? I'm not green, the monarchy are an outdated institution that should just shuffle off, I think the professer is a bit of an idiot.

See if you can hold those thoughts without your head exploding.

Tressilliana said...

Unless you start your own political party you have to look for the best fit with the parties/candidates on offer. I'm not anti-monarchist but I vote Green.

As a hard-line Marxist 'Professor' Knight probably doesn't vote. When a couple of members of Militant were attempting to recruit me to their ranks back in 1980, they seemed pretty clear that parliamentary democracy was a bad thing.

A happy Repbulican (who will be watching DVDs all day) said...

Tressiliana, do you think if we met would would kind of cancel each other out in an explosion of political principle? Like matter and anti-matter?

Not so happy now I think about it. said...

Having said all that....arresting someone and detaining them in advance of a childish prank? Bad taste vs dubious leagality. Makes you proud as does reminding the homeless that they should not doss down on the route or face aresset....unless your wrapped in 10ft of bunting and sport a slightly vacent grin.

Tressilliana said...

Yes, pretty dangerous. To think it could happen at any time just like that!

Bugs Bunny said...

Wot about the wabbit?

Brockley Nick said...

On balance, I think the police reaction is OTT, but the police tactic of pre-empting crime is not new, they use it all the time on suspected football hooligans, forcing them to turn up to police stations to present their passports on the day of international football matches, to prevent them smashing up foreign town centres. Yes it's an infringement of civil liberties, but it's a proportionate measure to prevent known dickheads doing bad things.

I don't think these arrests are proportionate, but precedent is not the issue.

Lou Baker said...

Comedy anarchist? Is that a nice way of saying childish twit?

Still mostly Happy Republican said...

Agreed Nick, Not saying that pre-emptive arrests are always a bad thing but should be used with caution. They could quiet easily have kept tabs on him and acted if he got too close. Most people support the monarchy and no doubt Kate 'n' Will will waft through life surrounded by beaming smiles but there is a sizable portion who are at best indifferent and somtimes offended at the notion that it's unpatriotic to protest against the institution.

Ho hum.....

Anonymous said...

Better to stop the Numpty now rather than later.

Anonymous said...

Childish Twit? I think twat would be a better description.

"It's like Minority Report!"

Brockley Nick said...

Minority Report was a much better film.

Still happy but mainly indifferent said...

Depends on what he was planning, did the police have strong evidence that he was going to disrupt the wedding or was he (as he claimed) going to join a republican street party some distance away?

In the big scheme of things this is small potatoes but if he was arrested for potentially staging a joke then its wrong.

Mike Freedman said...

How can so many of you be snide about this? A 68 year old man, a 60 year old woman and a 45 year old man get arrested, handcuffed and taken to lock up having committed no crime! How is this acceptable? Who cares what the stunt was? Who cares whether he's a professor or a Marxist or whatever - they did nothing wrong. People should not be arrested if they haven't committed a crime - it's that simple. And "suspicion of conspiracy to commit a public nuisance"? That's utter bullshit! This is bully-boy, police state crap and it has no place in a free country.

Welcome to 2011 said...

Don't see how their age is relevant. If they're fit enough to drag a guillotine up to town, they're fit enough to sit in a police station for 24 hours.

Anonymous said...

Ha ha ha! Knighty was my tutor at UEL and was forever attention seeking. Camilla is the poshest person I ever met. Could tell a tale or two - but I have good manners.

Tommo said...

Sledgehammer to crack a walnut. If this bunch of clowns are viewed as a credible threat then the met police must have things pretty easy!

Increasingly bemused said...

Welcome, it was a pretend guillotine. Don't worry, they were not REALLY going to behead anyone. If the monarchy is unable to handle a bit of robust satire then it says more about the them than it does about the the protesters.

What was the nature of this alledged disorder they were planning? Tbe police are supposed to uphold the law, not be hired as personal bouncers to the crown.

Welcome to 2011 said...

I know it was a pretend guillotine, just poiinting out it Mike that they weren't decrepit pensioners and the arrest on video doesn't look like police butality, even though I agree it was heavy handed.

Anonymous said...

I was probably for their own safety too as the proletariat would have probably chinned them! They have earned plenty from the public sector over the years and are free to move to a country with no monarchy.

Some people really don't understand how democracy works said...

No, they're free to object to the monarchy.Democracy, freedom of expression, a bit of oposition to the status quo. That very british and long may it continue.

Anonymous said...

Squatters should have moved in while they were overwise engaged.

Weren't anthropology's at Goldmith's recently involved in some un democratic protests?

No, you still don't grasp it said...

whats 'un democratic protest' You can have a legitimate protest even if your view is supported by less than 50% of whoever. It's not a difficult concept. Think about it for a moment...if you can without getting a nose bleed

Anonymous said...

Stuff the rabbit!

Anonymous said...

I'd say the camera person was the one having the nose bleed, I'm guessing they were off for the day so felt the rabbit could deal with the stress of being alone for hours.

Anonymous said...

This professor has lived off the backs of the working class for years.

Doesn't the rabbit deserve the freedom to roam rather than be caged up?

Justice for the rabbit!!

no, focus on the point said...

makes you wonder why we're wagging our fingers at represive regimes that use the police to stiffle any less than titally supportive public demonstrations. It's not the same scale but there is a common thread, I find it much more distasteful than the prank with the toy gulilotine. A majority support the monarchy, a large number couldn't give a stuff or are against.

Who pays for the civil list? said...

'lived of the backs of the working classes for years' Now it would be childish of me to point out the irony of that statement.

Robert said...

I agree with Mike. It is not a very productive use of the Mets time to send so many police down to Brockley to deal with this issue - and it is not within the spirit of freedom of speech to prevent Chris from acting out whatever "street theatre" he chooses to.

I would describe myself as a patriot(lite), though I am proud of many different aspects of British culture. I enjoyed the ceremony this morning - and I am interested in the historic relevance of the Royal family. I am also a great supporter of anyone who would like to make a spectacle of themselves in order to raise an issue they feel strongly about - another great British tradition.

Also - is Chris an Anarchist, or a Marxist? There is a big difference. Most anarchists I have met hate the socialist element of the left as much as they hate fascists.

Anonymous said...

This is why we need to force the mungbean elite out of Brockley

Someone who dosn't like being patronised by the Windsors said...

You'd have to get a grownup to light the flaming tourch and help you get dressed first.

Robert said...

"force the mungbean elite out of brockley".

Why would you want to force anyone out of Brockley?

That's the beauty of living in an urban London borough. We rub shoulders against a vast array of different people with different lifestyles, backgrounds and ideas.

I would suggest that anyone wanting a place to live with lots of "PLU" you should look to the shires.

Brockley Dogging Society said...

God that was emootional and a bit intense. I don't know about anyone else but I got through a whole box of tissues watching that.

Colin (BDS Vice Chair & Royal Wedding Planner)

Anonymous said...

The BDS say.... Rodger the Rabbit!

Anonymous said...

The people of Lewisham rise up as one and free the rabbit!

Anonymous said...

The people of Lewisham rise up as one and free the rabbit!

Anonymous said...

@ Mike Freedman

If his age is so important...where's your consideration for the grandfather (89) and grandmother (85) being subjected to an educated idiot 'beheading' their grandson on his wedding day?

I wonder if the Prof carries a rabbit's foot for luck.

Poor old Windsors said...

I suspect the Queen would shrug it off actually. They are not a 'normal' family, this was not a 'normal' wedding. If they are going to occupy the position of head of state then they will have to deal with dissenting voices. Can't have it both ways, of they want to live anonymous private lives free of criticism then they should renounce the crown.

Simples.

Reality Bites said...

Glad the police picked him up before hand, it's not performance art or even comedy, but it could have end in tragedy, if the police had to pull the trigger, which would ruin any couples big day.

One silly old tosser's, alter ego on overdrive. Just another sad wannabe searching for his 15 minutes, who's old enough and educated enough to know better.

He's by no means radical, more of a cardboard Walter Mitty and those who associates came across equally as gormless stooges.

I think Will & Kate have done and probably will do more, in their lives than he has done in his.

Come to think of it, I think most people in there life time could, would and do more in a positive way than this idiot.

If he's still in the cell's, I hope he finds the time useful to reflect on how spend the rest of his retirement.

Hopefully in a positive way.

Now your just sounding insane said...

Pull the trigger? are you serious? they found a cardboard guillotine and some masks, not an AK-47.

This country has a long tradition of protest and scorn. Much of it disrespectful. Read a little history before creating these bizarre theories of imminent assassination.

Doh! said...

...and if you think it's good that the police aresset people for bad taste stunts then god help us. It is a free country last time I heard? what next? bundling Paul Merton off Have I Got News For you before he takes the piss out of them? he has and he will....

Reality Bites said...

If this twit tried to breech any security, regardless of any costume or intended stunt, he could well have been shot dead.

Do you also think he would have been warmly received by the Police Army or crowds of well wishers.

I think picking him up was good for his own protection.

Anonymous said...

All this intellectual twaddle about freedom to protest...they showed they were more concerned about the rabbit.

Some you educated people need to get to grips with reality.

Nope, try again said...

Picking him up for his own protection? No, he was picked up because he was going to do something embarrassing.

Where's the evidence that he was going to crash through security carrying a 6th cardboard guillotine?

I'll keep coming back to the same points. It was a state occasion linked the system of hereditary monarchy we have in this country. You and me will never occupy that role because we do not belong to that family, if you are catholic it is illegal for the head of state to marry you. It's undemocratic and a little daft when our governments (of whatever hue) claim to be promoting a metrocratic society.

The eccentric professor was going to carry out his stunt at a licenced street party. If the PM, an elected accountable official, decided to order the arrest of a banner waving noisy protestor before he did anything at an event he was at there would be outrage - I hope. If the same thing is done to protect the blushes of a future un-eleceted head of state its OK. Dont see your logic, sorry.

Anonymous said...

Do we know if the rabbit is safe?

Anonymous said...

All this twaddle about freedom to protest.... Yep, that's what were sending troops abroad to protect.

Anonymous said...

What was so unintentionally revealing about it was his "I'm a professor" like that means he can't have done anything wrong. What if he was "a cleaner"? What an ars and an elitist, playing at being a Marxist while owning a million pound house.

Prof: all property is theft, no?

Point missed said...

Exactly, stick to the point. What does any of that to do with the fact that he was arrested and detained for not quiet staging a stunt? Being a professor did not provide immunity, being a windsor does not exempt you from accepting dissenting voices. Goes with the job as head of state, deal with it like a grown up.

Anonymous said...

I'll keep coming back to the same points......You and me will never occupy that role because we do not belong to that family....

Has the person who wrote that lost their head?

Weren't family of the bride coal miners?

Oh let's toss that aside as it doesn't fit in with the stereotype image.

Meanwhile a Prof who lives in a castle compared to many residents of Lewisham makes idiotic statements from his ivory tower.

Oaksys said...

There were several people conveniently available to film the event when the police arrived to give this chap and his mates a short holiday break. The paparazzi were equipped with heavy tripods and semi-pro digital cameras.
What a coincidence they were hanging around the front gate at the time! It is almost as if someone gathered the camera crew(s) and then phoned the police saying "I'm an anarchist and I'm going to protest at the wedding. You can find us at this address..." I'm sure our village fool would not do that kind of thing to gain publicity.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm a grownuo said...

Nothing to do with whether Kate 'n' will are jolly decent sorts.

The institution is an undemocratic, exclusive (it excludes 99.9% of the population from being head of state, the clue is in the 'ex') anachronism.

I don't care how rich or poor the head of state is, I may even vote for Elizabeth Windsor. I can't, I have absolutely no say. I get what I'm given and I'll be happy with it, if I protest I risk jail.

You may be happy with that paternalistic, patronising state of affairs. I'm not.

As the editor of 'The Lady' magazine said, it's the biggest reality show in the world. Except the winner doesnt get a million pound record deal, he gets to be king. Woopy do.

Hope that's clear.

Well done you said...

So if your in a pub and someone said the monarchy should be abolished you'd hit them? Nice, hopefully you'd be arrested gpfor even thinking about it.

Anonymous said...

The point being made was... because he was a 'professor' he was above others...ie in his language the working class.

It's the equivalent of 'Do you know who I am?'

Anonymous said...

What's clear is this idiot's getting more than his 15 minutes.

So if we all drop off line, I'm sure you pseudo intellectuals will understand why?... or not. lol

Even more of a republican than I was this morning said...

So he was arrested for being arrogant? Not sure where your going with this. He's was arrested for protesting, well almost protesting, against the head of state. That's wrong and has no place in a democratic society. If the police have credible evidence that he was going to disrupt the event they should present that. I accept that well over half the population support the monarchy but that's no reason to chuck people in jail for something as trivial as this.

Robert said...

"playing at being a Marxist while owning a million pound house."

To be fair - I think he rents a flat in a dilapadated, but rather characterful Brockley House, which is owned by an external landlord.

And we still haven't established whether he is a Marxist or an Anarchist!

Anonymous said...

It was their wedding day. Whatever this idiot thinks about the monarchy, it's selfish, childish and extremely vulgar to try and disrupt that.

Sigh....no said...

No, it wasn't just "their wedding day" if it was they wouldn't have invited various ambassadors, and then excluded some. That happened because its a state occasion that has significance in how we present ourselves to the world. If it was private occasion between two people you'd be right. It wasn't and you're wrong.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the last post, I'm sick of reading about the right to protest and democracy, this sort of rubbish is nothing to do with our rights. It's because of mad people taking this sort of action that the authorities have had to take such a firm approach. It's not effective and protests shouldn't be fashionable, so let's stop waving banners and ranting about the establishment because it's the 'right on' thing to do. I'm really pleased that loads of people got to see how brilliant the majority of British people are and how much fun we can have when we drop the hard-done-by attitude.

Tug your own forelock said...

Jesus h Christ! Leaders need to be kept on their toes by those they govern. If you want to give up that right you're living in the wrong country.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-this-royal-frenzy-should-embarrass-us-all-2267904.html

Anonymous said...

Now I wonder what the prof would ban if in power...

Well he'd ignore the millions in London and the Zillions of TV viewers and terminate the monarchy.

The public display of the Royal family would likely be banned or confiscated.

He'd probably ban the EDF, BNP, UKIP, Country Alliance and various fractions of the left.

The singing of God Save The Queen would be outlawed.

Anonymous said...

Yes, he'd be wrong, as I'm sure you agree. So banning his stunt was right or wrong? Not sure what your arguing there.

Anonymous said...

The guy is a joke, let's hope they forget to let him out.

Anonymous said...

Well Well Well....

They were all handcuffed and held in a police van and gave their names as.... and Deborah, 19, an anthropology student at the University of East London.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/29/royal-wedding-police-criticised-protesters

Students of anthropology at Goldsmiths heavily involved in protests...if I didn't know better I'd say they'd been brainwashed.

Anonymous said...

Oh he'd also probably nationalise the press and TV...

They go on about democracy but ignore the fact they don't win elections.

What's the latest on the rabbit?

hardlianotion said...

Heavy handed security theatre, what!

Lou Baker said...

I don't much like the monarchy and I have no issues with people who want to protest against it.

We have a right to protest against it - we should be proud of that.

But I have no sympathy for anyone who wants to disrupt someone else's wedding.

It doesn't matter who the person is - their wedding day is special to them.

That's why we should have no time for this 'comedy anarchist.'. Your stunt wouldn't have been funny anyway. Anarchy is not funny either.

I'm pleased the police arrested this unamusing man. In a police state they'd have beaten him around a bit too - which may have had the advantage of knocking some sense into him.

Coney said...

Now the wedding is over, I hope they've all been swiftly released.

Brockley Nick said...

@Robert - Anarchist / Marxist / Lunarchist (http://www.radicalanthropologygroup.org/new/RAG.html) it doesn't really matter, what matters is whether he arrived pre or post 2005.

Coney said...

Nick it's not nice being the wrong side of the social discrimination fence but seriously man up.

Brockley Nick said...

Coney, I could honestly not care less what bit of nonsense some bloke down the pub came out with, but I enjoy taking the piss out of his pronouncements and those of anyone who takes them seriously.

Robert said...

A Lunachist. Now I understand. Does that mean rule by lunatics or rule by the moon?

Brockley Nick said...

@Robert - I think the latter would be a subset of the former.

Robert said...

I don't know. Who's to say whether the moon would be any better at making decisions on our behalf than the train of politicians we have had recently. If there is a picture of the moon on my next ballot paper, I may well be tempted.

Snippy said...

I'd say from all these comments that Mr Knight is far from tedious.

I think the beheadings sound great! Good on you Knight. I hope you get loaded money after suing the plod for wrongful arrest.

Coney said...

Nick you're not thick, so I'd expect you to be able to distinguish between reporting something and endorsing something.
You may think you're "taking the piss" but your across as butthurt about some random blog comments.

Brockley Nick said...

Please be reassured I am not butthurt.

Welcome to 2011 said...

So Coney, tell us more about this man you met and his stories. What sort of a man was he? How long had he been here and what was it about the newcomers that so displeased him? What do you think of his observation that you dispassionately reported on a thread about a couple of new flats being built?

Coney said...

Nope.

Brockley Dogging Society said...

Nick: are you interested in becoming butthurt?

Anonymous said...

anonymous at 08.53 Chris Knight is actually a hard core Marxist so woul dprobably vote Socialist Party or People Before Profit.

Having said that people have the right to peaceful protest and there is no evidence that he was planning anything other than peaceful street theatre.

By the way the Green Party policy regarding the monarchy is for them to be treated the same as the rest of the aristocracy. So that means remove all residual powers and let them pay tax but let them keep their titles. So no, a completely different agenda to Mr Chris Knight.

Anonymous said...

Get rid of the Royals! I can't wait for President Cameron!!!!!!

Lou Baker said...

'Peaceful street theatre.' Seriously, some people are morons.

Perhaps we should all hang around outside Chris Knight's house and chop the head off an effigy of him using a fake guillotine.

I'm sure he'd see the funny side of that.

Oh, no, wait. It's not funny - it's pathetic.

Go and have your protest today Mr Knight. Many of us agree that the monarchy is outdated and needs to go.

But doing something inappropriate at a wedding? That says nothing about the monarchy and everything about you. And - no protesters weren't stopped from being inappropriate twits yesterday - they were just kept well away. Presumably for their own safety.

Did anyone else see Chris Knight's daughter interviewed by BBC London last night? She made me want to throw things at the TV. Embarrassing.

Welcome to 2011 said...

Coney, it's alright man, those were rhetorical questions, I know the answers already.

"What sort of a man was he?"

An old guy who'd spent a lifetime doing a bit of this and a bit of that, been a roadie for a few unsuccessful bands, goes to a few 'radical' political meetings but is only really involved on the fringes - likes them for the sense of camaraderie rather than the ideas. Smokes. Likes Dylan, Marley, Captain Beefheart. Divorced or never married. Prides himself on his open-mindedness but has a hot contempt for anything he thinks is bourgeois. Does not see the contradiction.

"How long had he been here and what was it about the newcomers that so displeased him?"

He's been here since the mid 1980s when large properties were very cheap. Doesn't like the newcomers who've had to work hard to afford something half the size. Sees them as petty-bourgeois (see above) who "don't really understand Brockley" (translation: they don't want to spend hours propping up a bar with him on a Tuesday night, because they have work or families or more interesting friends). Most of all, he doesn't like the fact that there are so many of them. It was better in the old days, when there weren't so many people around, because they were slouching around in their big old houses making bongs and letting the local businesses rot.

"What do you think of his observation that you dispassionately reported on a thread about a couple of new flats being built?"

You think he's right, because you're just out of college, where you spent a lot of time talking in simplistic terms about politics and class, you're still coming to terms with the real world and he was a reassuring figure, who dealt in the same kind of black and white debate you're use to and puts you back in your comfort zone, because having your first job and paying your own bills for the first time is unnerving.

You're a relative newcomer yourself, but by tacitly agreeing with him, you are exempting yourself from the same criticism and because the newcomers have a brand of personal and social politics that isn't entirely based on the rhetoric of class-struggle and the work of Timothy Leary.

You brought it up on that thread because you think the new flats will be bought by yuppies.

It could be lou said...

I get the impression that Lou spends a lot of time raging at inanimate objects.

Anonymous said...

Decapitate the rabbit and prepare a stew for tonight.

Anonymous said...

He's a publicity-seeking nob and the police are right to stop people like this disrupting a million people's enjoyment of the Royal Wedding in Central London.
It's not a case of what the cause was, or if you agree with it- the police have a duty to maintain public order at such big events, and with lots of booze flowing on both sides emotions could have run high.
If I wanted to perform a theatre piece on women's rights in some Islamic countries that is my right in the UK. If I chose to do that near the opening ceremony of a new mosque, then I would expect and get the same treatment as Mr Knight. Er, but I'm not a nob, so I wouldn't do it in the first place...

Calm Down Dear said...

if it was an incitement to violence etc etc yes...was it? If there was credible evidence that he was going to disrupt things, fine. Was he? The police are not there to arbitrate on the appropriateness of stunts, nor are they there to prevent blushes. They are there to uphold the law, which also includes the right to free speech.

It's a balancing act, have they got it right this time? I'm not sure. Bear in mind he hadn't actually done anything yet. Does that not worry you at all?

The police can and do make mistakes, were they asked by the home office to intervene?

They allow offensive protest at soldiers funerals, they allow the EDL to hurl abuse back. Only interveneing if things are going pear shaped. They seem to have applied other criteria here. It's a fair question to put. I doubt anyone here has an answer or access to the facts.

Tressilliana said...

If he'd been planning to throw a custard pie at a cardboard cutout of a prince, I wonder if the outcome would have been different.

I see a difference between that kind of stunt and a mock execution. He last hit the headlines by planning to string bloody effigies of bankers from lampposts. I don't like mob violence of any kind and I find this kind of stunt a bit disturbing.

Calm down dear.... Not you tressiliana! said...

Disturbing enough to lock him up for twenty-four hours without trial before he'd even attempted it? The monarchy is an ancient tradition as is the state taking away someones liberty. It shouldnt be done in a cavilear manner. I find the professor slightly ludicrous and there would be far more affective ways of demonstrating against the monarchy but slinging him in jail for planni ng a stunt leaves a nasty taste

bumbags said...

Let's get this straight- this isn't just some random poor old pensioner being victimised. This is a chap who has been in trouble for his protests before, and been sacked from his Uni. It is for THIS reason the police have chosen to act before the event this time. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/G20/article5982908.ece
The police know him because he was fuelling anger and encouraging violence. Inciting hatred isn't funny. Mob violence isn't funny. As an 'educated' person, he should take more responsibility for his words- you only need a few idiots to take things literally and things turn nasty on all sides.

Calm it bumster said...

Well there are hundreds much more dangerous than him out there, the police know who they are, they keep tabs and arrest them where appropriate if they have just cause. He was arrested before anything happened, that's not a trivial matter.

This looks far from appropriate.

Be clear? No, it's far from clear. It looks like he was arrested because he would have caused embarasment during a state occasion. The police are accountable and should account for this. That's all.

highhorse said...

Lewisham fuzz sent four cop cars and two vans to arrest CK, which seems a tad over the top to me. As a tax payer I object to this waste of police time and resources. Shouldn't they have been out catching "real" criminals? They could always have followed and arrested him if he actually DID commit an act deemed a breach of the peace.

His protest was filmed by a Channel 4 film crew, who are running a programme around 7ish Monday night called An Alternative Royal Wedding. Believe it or not, there are some Brits who had/have no interest whatsoever in the Royal Wedding.

Chris Knight's protest should be viewed as a demonstration of how fortunate we are to live in a democratic country. I don't think the stunt was in good taste (and I personally enjoyed the Royal Wedding), but then I find the British government's inability to deal with Robert Mugabe leaves a much more unpleasant taste in my mouth!

Anonymous said...

Yesterday was a flawlessly executed piece of propaganda. Look at the headlines in the Guardian "Royal Wedding: How Britain fell in love with the royal family all over again".

There was mass bedazzlement by the pomp.

A day later I just find the whole thing surreal. We know that having a royal family as head of state, is anarchronistic and at odds with the type of society we're in. But it's collective failure of imagination and nerve that keeps us clinging on to them.

Steven Mills said...

Good on Chris. This arrest makes me ASHAMED to be British.

Anonymous said...

State your point of view, and protest by all means. Disapprove of the Royals if you want.
Inciting hatred and violence are very different. As mentioned Chris Knight already been in trouble for just this at previous events, and that is why the police are acting now.
Had his 'street theatre' led to arguments between both sides, then people chucking bottles and glasses around Soho Square we'd be having a different debate and asking why the police hadn't acted earlier. Arresting him and others in a crowd of protestors in Soho on Friday would have been disastrous, needed FAR more officers, and could well have got out-of-hand and led to injuries.
As an earlier poster mentioned, I am also rather suspicious as to why a C4 film crew was conveniently there. He strikes me as a rather tragic 'I REEEEALLY wanna be on the telly and want people to think I'm clever' git.

Tamsin said...

@bumbags. We don't all subscribe to Times on-line. Could you be kind enough to summarise what they say? This is an intersting issue and I would appreciate knowing more.

Anonymous said...

Obviously he wants to be on the telly. It was a publicity stunt, he didn't really want to behead anyone with a cardboard guillotine. The ch4 documentary was scheduled weeks ago, not sure why you see some conspiracy.

Tamsin, the article is not protected. It doesn't say much other than a stupid remark he made a couple of years ago that lost him his job.

British citizens, sorry 'subjects', were locked up. Where's the evidence that they were going to disrupt the wedding? I've no issue if that was really the case.

Anonymous said...

In interviews he refers to himself as a Professor of Laughter but he seems to have a very short fuse when someone has a different opinion to himself. (See You Tube).

He was barred from an anti G20 demo by the organisers, camera in tow.

When two police officers chat with him he responds to them not as individuals but as 'you lot'.

He's line when being arrested about being a professor gives away his elitist attitude.

In the world of showbiz gossip he'd be known as a publicity seeking whore.

Anonymous said...

Working class football fans get 'arrested' before some matches, I don't see defenders of the 'Lunar' Chris taking to the streets over that.

Is the rabbit dead or did it escape from captitivity?

Anyone googled David Icke & Chris Knight?

Anonymous said...

If the police had a credible reason to lock up the fans then fare enough, was there a credible reason in this case? Presumably you don't agree that fans should be locked up at random?

Yes he was a little arrogant, that has nothing to do with him bring arrested.

I think he's a knob, I've not seen any evidence for why he was locked up.

Yes it was a publicity stunt.....point?

You may happy with arbitrary arrest, I'm not.

Anonymous said...

All three have been bailed to appear in court in June...no doubt the rabbit will act as a character witness pointing despite being caged it is well fed and cared for.

Long live the rabbit!!

.??? said...

Have they been charged? With what?

Anonymous said...

@Anon

If the police had a credible reason to lock up the fans then fare enough, was there a credible reason in this case?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/09/bnp-candidate-arrested-quran-burning

A senior member of the BNP who burned a copy of the Qur'an in his garden has been arrested following an investigation by the Observer.

A video clip of the act, leaked to the Observer and passed immediately to South Wales police, provoked fierce criticism from the government.


I'm sure you are outraged by the following...

Twelve men linked to the British National Party were released on bail after being arrested.....The men were arrested after handing out leaflets....The organiser, said: "There was nothing unlawful in the leaflets - all the contents of the leaflets had been carefully vetted, or they would not have gone out.

A man burns a book in his back garden and is arrested men handing out leaflets also arrested.

Now in your heart and mind know why they were arrested and very likely have no objection to there arrests, now try being as liberal to the arrest of Chris Knight.

Anonymous said...

They have been charged with "suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance".

Now they've been charged their publicity stunt for Channel 4 will have to be edited?

Elementary human rights part 1 said...

Arguable if the book burning was an arresable offence, so yes not sure it was an appropriate reason. That ok?

There's an old saying, the right to free speech does not allow you to shout 'fire!' in a crowded cinema. You have rights but also responsibilities to the society in which you live. Saying or doing something with the hope that it would incite violence is wrong. Still trying to fathom how this stunt would credibly have caused that.

I reluctantly accepted that the BNP should have been allowed to appear on a public broadcaster since they had two euro MPs. I would have prevented people burning a Koran outside a mosque.

All about balance, the polkce have yet to convince me that this would have caused anything other than embarrassment. You see how it works? Shades of grey, functioning democracies allow protest. Represive ones prevent it, often under the guise of "protecting the public"

Now Then said...

Entity of many names, whatever the rights and wrongs of a mock guilloteneing I have to say I'm delighted with the straight tho' subtle path you're taking through the fields of civil liberties. Good reading. Cheers.

Zinaka said...

Wake up, you stupid idiots. Here is a man being arrested by a dozen police for a crime that he "might" have committed. Wake up and fight for our democracy before it completely disappears. Wake up, fools. Wake up.

Reality check said...

Telling people to wake up is like shouting into the wind. An increasing number of people that live in Brockley don't give a stuff about like this, principles. Their concern is about house prices and gentrifying the neighbourhood. This was a nice story, for them because Brockley's leafy streets were broadcast throughout the media.

bumbags said...

@tamsin- sorry, the link doesn't work, but I'm not a subscriber- if you google 'chris knight' a suggestion appears to search 'chris knight anarchist'. The Times article appears near the top.
He was basically whipping up protesters during the G20. He may be able to see the interleckchul arguments, but most morons just hear the 'hang em' bit...

Voice of Reason said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
mot said...

I am writing to Joan Ruddock MP about this. Since when has potential street theatre been a crime?

Robespierre said...

I must confide thay no'one really deserves the guillotine. It's like mmmmnnnNNN Ouch!

Anonymous said...

If writing to Ms Ruddick don't forget to mention the rabbit.

Talking of which..is it true it was detained by the police with the line..'Irish Stew in the name of the law'?

Brockley Nick said...

It wasn't very democratic, but then neither is the monarchy, so it was entirely fitting. Knight's an attention seeker and he got plenty of attention. Everyone's a winner. This isn't a fault line in British democracy, but it is, as someone already said, a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Brockley Central Classifieds said...

For Sale:

6 foot high theatrical guillotine (not used)

Executioner's costume (worn once)

Effigies of various members of the royal family (with detachable heads)

A rabbit hutch.

No unreasonable offer refused.

mot said...

What struck about this was the complete shock of all those arrested. The law seems to have been applied in a new way with regards to demonstrations.

If it was terrorism, football hooliganism, vandalism, it might be a little bit more understandable but potentially it was non violent protest. At the very least we need to be clear what and what is not acceptable.

Pre-arrests of this type for demonstrations should not simply be glossed over.

Anonymous said...

@mot last time he did some 'harmless street theatre' things turned nasty. just see him for the moron he is. He's no better than a football hooligan, and nobody complains when their passports get confiscated to stop violence. Good on the police for saving the good people of Soho his moronic rants and incitement to hatred.

Anonymous said...

Football hooligan that took part it or organised violence had their passports confiscated. He planned a puppet show.

What specifically did he cause before? Or did he simply not object to violence by others? Still sounds like a complete overreaction and actually gives him much more significance than his stunt deserved.

The police are not there to arbitrate on the good taste of demonstrations or to arrest people for being morons. Has been charged? The only reference I can see is that he's been released pending further enqueries. Hardly sounds like a violent mastermind.

Brockley Dogging Society (legal services) said...

We at the BDS are concerned by the continual abuse of police power, aimed at grpups who simply want to express themselves, or planning to express themselves. Indeed if Colin was arrested every time he had a twitch below the waist he'd have no time teach. We have sent our crack team over to Wickham Rd to discuss with mr Knight.

From the home office website..


"Banning orders are issued by the courts following a conviction of a football-related offence, or after a complaint by the Crown Prosecution Service or a local police force. For an order to be issued, it must be proved that the accused person has caused or contributed to football-related violence or disorder and that an order will prevent them from misbehaving further.

Orders are not imposed on people solely on the basis of  minor convictions such as alcohol offences, or similar misdemeanours.

They can last between three and ten years and can be customised to address individual behaviour patterns. Breach of an order is a criminal offence and is punishable by a maximum sentence of six months in prison (however this is extremely rare)."


Don't think even that legislation, designed for CONVICTED hooligans, allows you to lock up said hooligan for the duration of the match. It was an over reaction and a misuse of the law. The police have handed Mr Knight a little gift far greater than the publicity that wold have resulted from his stunt.

Anonymous said...

If he has been charged are we allowed to say what we know or do we have to suggest googling.

Anonymous said...

@BDS he wasn't the subject of a banning order, so your cut and paste is irrelevant.

I am reminded of Neil Horan the defrocked mini skirt wearing priest of Nunhead...

At the June 5, 2004 Epsom Derby, Horan was spotted by police and tackled moments before they believed he was about to run in front of the horses.

What an outrage..and then this...

During the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany, Horan was arrested by German police before he could stage a planned protest. He had written to the German Chancellor, and The Kingdom newspaper, Ireland, informing them that he planned to dance a peace jig outside the stadium.

Horan auditioned for series 3 of Britain's Got Talent in 2009 performing an Irish jig in traditional costume.

BDS said...

No, but some of the legal geniuses on here were comparing his treatment with banning orders. The criteria for banning orders is greater that the dubious "suspicion" used to lock someone up for 24hrs in this case.

What's the relevance of the mad priest? Is there any evidence that the prof was going to actually disrupt the wedding?

No, it was an overreaction. The police have unique powers, they should use them with respect. Policing by consent, it's something we're supposed to lead the world in.

Brockley Central Label Cloud

Click one of the labels below to see all posts on that subject. The bigger the label, the more posts there are!