Police given extra powers to deal with schoolchildren in London over fears students set to ‘target Tesco’ in raid
Metropolitan Police imposed a dispersal order in Woolwich after a viral TikTok post appeared to invite schoolchildren to meet up and “target Tesco”. The order was described as a preventive measure, giving officers powers to move on anyone causing problems amid concerns about previous meet-ups that led to disorder.
The Section 35 order ran from 2pm until midnight and covered Woolwich. The post outlined a route including McDonald’s and Tesco, while messages sent to Greenwich school families warned of possible antisocial behaviour. The article also cites earlier “Red vs Blue” school-related posts and teen gatherings in London that prompted arrests, early school finishes and a stronger police presence.
- Police issued a preventive dispersal order in Woolwich.
- A viral post proposed a schoolchildren’s meet-up including Tesco.
- Families were warned amid memories of earlier disorder.
New here? Start with this
Dispersal orders are temporary police powers that allow officers to ask people to leave an area if they are causing or likely to cause trouble. In this case, the Metropolitan Police deployed such an order in Woolwich, London, after a viral TikTok post appeared to encourage schoolchildren to gather in the area.
The social media post described a route that included popular locations such as McDonald's and Tesco, and some messages interpreted it as suggesting the group "target" the supermarket. Schools in Greenwich warned families about the potential for disorder related to such gatherings.
Schoolchildren organising to meet up through social media posts is not a new phenomenon in London. Previous incidents, sometimes coordinated through posts using names like "Red vs Blue", have led to arrests, disrupted school timetables, and increased police deployments in different areas of the capital.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The police bear responsibility for preventing public disorder before it escalates into harm. A specific viral post explicitly invited schoolchildren to converge at commercial locations, and prior similar gatherings had produced documented disorder and arrests. The dispersal order was precisely targeted to a defined location and time window, enabling officers to address disruptive behaviour whilst permitting lawful assembly. Preventive policing that forestalls problems before they damage communities and businesses represents a reasonable exercise of police powers when evidence of escalating risk is clear.
The case against
Dispersal orders that restrict freedom of movement for anyone in an area—regardless of whether they have committed any offence—represent a significant incursion into civil liberties grounded in speculation rather than actual criminal activity. A viral post, however concerning, does not justify blanket restrictions on ordinary citizens' movement and assembly. Such preventive powers risk criminalising normal youth socialising and may be deployed disproportionately, whilst police should properly respond to actual offences rather than restricting freedoms based on fears about what young people might do.