According to Take Back Power, the group carried out a coordinated 'mass shoplifting campaign' across UK cities including London, Manchester, Exeter, and Truro on a recent Saturday. The group claimed activists 'liberated boxes of food' from supermarkets and redistributed them to food banks, defending this as non-violent civil resistance. In Exeter, Take Back Power said supporters took boxes from a Morrisons supermarket, with security intercepting two of five boxes, while three were successfully taken to a food bank.
The group reported similar actions at Tesco and Sainsbury's stores in Manchester and Truro. However, the police response to these events has varied by location and has been marked by significant contradictions. In London, the Metropolitan Police reported no arrests because shop staff said a group member paid for the items taken from a supermarket.
Police are reviewing CCTV to verify this payment claim. Take Back Power denied paying for the items. ' The exact outcome of the police review of CCTV footage regarding the payment claim in London remains unknown, leaving a key discrepancy unresolved.
What's legal isn't necessarily an indication of what's moral or right.
In a separate but related development, police arrested 15 Take Back Power activists on suspicion of conspiracy to commit theft. This occurred after they gathered for what was described as 'non-violent direct action training' at a Quaker Meeting House in Manchester. One activist was bailed and others were taken into custody.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner James Harman stated police had grounds to suspect planning of organized theft. He emphasized the difference between lawful protest and crime, framing the arrests as a necessary intervention. Take Back Power called the arrests a 'draconian overreach' and linked them to protecting corporate profits.
This highlights a broader contradiction between the group's description of actions as non-criminal and police treating them as theft planning. The specific evidence police have to suspect planning of organized theft beyond the training session is not detailed in available reports, adding to the uncertainty surrounding the legal basis for the arrests. The event timeline reveals a sequence where the claimed shoplifting actions occurred on a Saturday, followed by the arrests at the training session on a subsequent date.
No crime was committed.
This pre-emptive police move suggests authorities were monitoring the group's activities closely. Deputy Assistant Commissioner James Harman provided official statements attributing the police actions to preventing crime. His remarks were disseminated through sources like PA or the force.
Take Back Power is a civil resistance group. The legal basis for the arrests, and how it differentiates from lawful protest, remains unclear, complicating assessments of the police's approach. Inconsistencies are central to this story.
Beyond the payment dispute in London, there are contradictions between the group's portrayal of their supermarket actions as technically non-criminal and the police's treatment of the planning meeting as potential theft conspiracy. The group's claim of setting up stalls on property to avoid theft contrasts with police suspicions of organized crime. These discrepancies reflect deeper tensions between activist tactics and law enforcement interpretations.
The total number of activists involved across all cities, and the specific charges or legal statuses of those arrested, are not fully disclosed, indicating gaps in public information. Research findings based on provided sources confirm the direct conflict over payment in London, with police relaying shop staff claims and the group denying them. Similarly, the criminal nature dispute centers on different events: the executed supermarket actions versus the planning session.
Police did not make arrests during the shoplifting events, focusing instead on pre-emptive measures. This nuanced conflict underscores the complexity of balancing protest rights with crime prevention. The story continues to evolve as investigations proceed, with outcomes pending on multiple fronts.