UKH

After today's antics with the Police in Clapham, what will happen with the emergency policing bill due to be railroaded through parliament shortly?

I for one hope it shines a spotlight on the rights to peaceful protest that are under severe threat from this fascist bill from a fascist government.

Nice opening sentence there. Adolescent, anachronistic, but nice.

I'm sure Cressida Dick and Pritti Patel are thick as thieves.

Im sure Sarah's family would have wanted lots of women gathering in her name without social distancing, ignoring the wishes of the police, in the middle of a global  pandemic, not showing consideration to their fellow sisters or the wider community.

There is a time and a place for peaceful protest and yesterday on Clapham Common wasn't it.

It certainly is telling that Priti Patel has well and truly thrown the Met under the bus over this, at the same time as pushing a bill that's going to be demanding a disproportionately heavy-handed policing approach to every protest in future.  I hope you're right, and it will.

You may be right but it's not the point.

If everyone there had been fined  and other protests treated similarly I don't think there would be a problem.  When you have destructive  football fans and antimaskers treated with kid gloves and then this, that is a problem. 

Without being at the different events, that took place at opposite ends of the country, I think you may be trying to infer too much from a limited knowledge base. 

I think it would probably be better if none of us invoke them, seeming to presume to speak for them is not a good look.

It was an unfortunate time for a 'mass gathering', to be sure, with the pandemic and all.  But other protests have also happened, and rather more disorderly ones at that, which have been policed more sensitively and which have not turned out to have a significant effect as so-called 'superspreader' events.

However it clearly was the time for the protest in the sense that it's something that arose largely spontaneously.  The organisers of something like that can't call it off, even if they try, when their organisation isn't the thing making it happen.

That's time.  On the subject of place, Clapham Common and that bandstand specifically was absolutely the place, and remains so for obvious reasons.

Elsewhere, all over the country, other gatherings took place.  Other illegal gatherings, if you like.  There's not a whisper about those in the news this morning as far as I can see, because they all passed off without incident.  Obviously they were smaller events and had the benefit of taking place in places without the emotional charge of being directly connected to this awful murder, but they also had the benefit of other police forces wading in, making complete and utter fools of themselves and undoing in an instant decades of work to build trust since Stephen Lawrence and the Macpherson Report.

I agree entirely. If the cap fits, round em up, lock em up, give em hell, totally. Peaceful women should be treated differently for sure but I'm  not going to comment on the police actions because I wasnt there and the protesters may well have been lippy and obstructive, or the police could have mishandled the situation. There's two sides to a story.

My point is that they shouldn't have been there at all; they  should have waited until we are over the last hurdle or protested in a different way.

The essence of empathy is trying to understand what others might be feeling, so to discount the likely feelings of her parents is just a cop-out. Any well-advertised illegal gathering in London will attract troublemakers who use the events to pursue their own agenda, that's just how it is. I don't think it takes a wild leap of imagination to think such an event will be no comfort to the Everard's whatsoever.

And these same Pigs are the ones that caught the murderer? 

The detectives who were probably working tirelessly in that first week?

I'm sure we're coming from the same place so I won't comment further as its such a divisive issue however despite your justifications,  I don't think (my opinion) they should have gathered in any place at this time. *

*this applies to all mass gatherings, until we are over these next couple of months.

I'm not asking you to discount them, I'd just prefer it if you don't presume to explain them to me let alone invoke them to support your point of view over mine. 

You may not consider it a 'wild leap' of imagination but the basis of empathy is imagination, so you empathise with how you imagine they're feeling and I'll empathise with how I do.  We'll undoubtedly agree far more than we differ over what we're both imagining but lets neither one of us presume that we know.

Everyone who attends a protest, 'troublemaker' or otherwise, is using the event to pursue their own agenda.  That's what a protest is!

A perfectly valid and reasonable opinion.  I don't even disagree, really, but I do understand why they did gather in this time and I'm declining to condemn them for it.  (And, in case it seems that I'm saying otherwise - I note that you haven't condemned them for it either.)

Given that the protest did happen, what is more unfortunate imo is that the way the Met handled it greatly exacerbated things in just about every conceivable way and they did themselves incalculable damage in the process.

With regard to the concept of 'Policing by Consent' which is why our UK police forces may arguably be the best in the world, or can at least make a justifiable claim to be founded on the idea that they should be, it seems appropriate to quote the 'Peelian Principles' on this thread.

These were the nine 'commandments' (kinda sorta) that were placed right at the heart of the Met when it was founded back in the early 19th century, as the UK's (and possibly the world's) first full-time professional police force. 

It may read like an impossibly idealistic set of aims written by Terry Pratchett in the voice of Samuel Vimes but it is in fact the list of 'general instructions' issued to every new recruit to the 'Peelers' way back in 1829.

Just have a read of these and consider how far the Met fell short of the basic founding principles that are supposed to be at the very core of everything they do last night:

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

Worth pointing out that the Clapham vigil continued most of the day with numerous people there, flowers placed and the police operating a very much hands off approach, much like across the rest of the country.

Things descended at around 830pm ish I believe.

Sticking to the original theme of the post, minus the polarising initial sentence, there are real dangers in this Bill, which appears to be aimed at making peaceful protest almost impossible.

This article explains the issue well:

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/03/11/silencing-black-lives-matter-...

Wow, those are pretty amazing stuff, and just as good now as nearly 200 years ago.

Wasn't his vehicle spotted in shot somewhere on a bus's cctv, imagine how much footage they've likely trawled through. Given his profession he might have thought he had all angles covered. 

There is quite good evidence that these were actually retrospectively created by academic researchers, I think I'm the 20th century but I'd have to dig out the research paper.

Right from the beginning of the pandemic there have been efforts to frame these events  as purely a protest issue, when the reality is, were it not for COVID we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Even in a protest situation principles 5 and 6 seem to have been the goal.

Principle 2 and 3 are problematic in this situation - how is public approval judged? Just because the people that want to protest want to be there does that mean that they have "public approval". What about causes we don't agree with - anti-lockdown, Tommy Robinson, left wing, right wing etc.

But again, the existence of a fatal global epidemic has placed other strains on the right to protest and the right to assembly.

Whilst the Peel principles offer a good model things like the Human rights Act impose a legal duty. Sometimes the two aren't compatible, sowetimes the HRA provides a framework for those principles, balancing the right to assembly with other rights for example.

Yes.  The OP in one of the deleted threads last night posted a link to footage from one of the 'citizen journalist' types filming things on their phone there and live streaming it on Twitter.  I commented that it seemed relatively peaceful and orderly to me and that on the whole I thought the police present were doing an excellent job.

I think that was at about 7:30pm ish.  Maybe things had already started to go south at that point, in which case it shows what I know.

Quite apart from whatever else I feel about this protest and the way it was dealt with, I also sympathise with those inside the Met who watched years of hard and largely thankless work since the Macpherson Report go up in smoke last night.  Hopefully it only seems like they have as far to go now as they did in the late nineties.  Sisyphus.

Perhaps not, but Covid is the catalyst not the cause.

I attended a local BLM protest last summer, it was peaceful, orderly and safe.  (In Covid terms the statistics bear that out - it had no measurable impact on the numbers.)  It could have been otherwise, and one of several things that could have made it otherwise would have been a heavy-handed overreaction from the police.

Back on topic for this particular thread - the government seem pretty determined that we'll be having this discussion in the future, post-Covid, as they seek to criminalise arguably all protest.  (That anyone might actually notice anyway, I'm sure it'll still be ok to light a candle on your own doorstep.)

Though as the OP suggests perhaps (hopefully) they'll change tack on that now that Priti Patel seems to have thrown the Met under the bus in feigned horror at their having done what appears to be precisely what she wanted.

which is spot on.

Agreed, events in Glasgow are not relevant, but the treatment of the anti mask demos at London hospitals most certainly are. Somebody is making choices.

I was thinking about started a thread on this.

The bill is no doubt illiberal, authoritarian and yet another thread of this government's ongoing assault upon democracy in this country. It should deeply concern anybody who has any interest in civil liberties, regardless of political persuasion.

I attended the four big anti-Brexit marches in London in 2018 and 2019, and I know that various other UKCers did too. Anyone who was there can tell you what wonderful events they were: huge, welcoming, vibrant, positive and peaceful, yet filled with a righteous anger and the knowledge that we were there marching in an act of democratic expression and indeed in defense of democracy against an clear threat. They received positive attention around the world, showcasing the best of this country.

Under Patel's bill, these events would have been illegal. Many thousands would have been deterred from going. Many would still have gone but it might have ended up a less family-friendly affair, with more underlying tension and with more risk of trouble between protesters and police.

The bill is also particularly vindictive, and seems to have a particular clause about "one-person protests" that is aimed directly at Steve Bray (Mr Stop-Brexit) who embarrassed ministers and Brexit-supporting MPs on a regular basis.

There are two main ways of discrediting protest movements. The first is to hope they result in violence (and indeed this often seems to be a goal of policing of some events) in order to be able to point to the 1% and tar everyone with the same brush. If the protesters disappoint the authorities and remain peaceful, the next tactic is to simply try and brush it aside as a fringe movement of ingrates and layabouts who've had their say, but won't they just stand aside now and let the silent, hardworking majority go about their business undisturbed.

The right to protest is a basic pillar of democracy. It is no wonder that a government that has governed so dreadfully, that has already sought to hide from any accountability over Brexit or its handling of the pandemic, would seek to remove a further freedom. And Patel probably has the strongest totalitarian streak of any prominent politician today.

Protests should be peaceful. But they should also be noisy, attention-grabbing and disruptive. The removal of the right to peaceful protest is a provocation and an incitement to violence.

Where is your evidence for this please? I don't know a single police officer who hopes things end up in violence, specially when they are the ones having to police it. All the officers I know would much rather a peaceful demonstration which ends with them and their colleagues going home to their families and not to hospital.

It's not just the emergency policing bill.  There's also stuff like them 'testing' mass surveillance of web activity for two years without saying anything

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/internet-connection-records-ip-act

Then you've got laws allowing them to break treaties at will and give agents permission to murder or rape.   C*nts like Johnson don't see anything wrong with dictating there will be no second Indyref for Scotland no matter how often Scotland elects the SNP.   

Compared with EU states or the US when the Democrats are running things these guys are heading towards authoritarianism.   But what do you expect when you have a Home Secretary who was willing to do PR for cigarette factories owned by the Myanmar military.

The huge benefit of having Patel as Home Secretary is that you just know that if she's in favour of something, she's wrong. 

I do hope that Cressida Dick faces her down though.

What an absolute shit show this thread is. 

There's at least one more tried and tested tactic: find or manufacture a sex or financial scandal involving the leaders of the movement you want to discredit.

Easy to find or create 'kompromat' when you are monitoring everyone's communications and running agents.

Anyone who thinks the UK don't run agents in protest movements or political parties which wish to break up the UK is kidding themselves.  They've been caught doing it often enough.  Most recently with the undercover cops who had relationships with green protestors.

she's in favour of gaining credit and virtue signalling at the moment. 

Various incidents. Of course it's not easy to establish foolproof evidence about the precise trigger for a complex chain of events, so it's often a case of the word of one group against another. In a disputed incident, the government/media are generally not likely to weigh in on the side of the protesters. So often you have to rely on anecdote/twitter/alternative media sources.

However, some examples from recent years:

- Alleged use of agent provocateurs in G20 protests (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provaca...)

- The killing of Ian Tomlinson at the same protests.

- Very questionable use of kettling during the 2010 student fees protests, including a dangerous incident on Westminster Bridge.

- Undercover officers used to infiltrate environmental movements (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/10/fine-line-undercover-officer)

- Heavyhanded policing used against XR and BLM protesters

- Last night's vigil is a clear and stark example.

I experienced something similar myself during the student fees protests. I attended one large protest which was friendly and well policed. Later I attended a second smaller one which was a bit more edgy. We had a spontaneous sit down protest in a main street in Leeds outside the university. It was disruptive and possibly illegal but in no way violent or aggressive. The police brought in the cavalry who made threatening advances towards us. We faced them down until they backed off, but it could have turned very nasty. The threat of violence was entirely a result of the police actions.

I am happy to give credit where it is due. The policing on the People's Vote marches was excellent.

I'm not suggesting that it's the choice of an individual officer on the ground to just punch a protester to cause trouble. It's much more subtle than that and comes down to the choice of numbers, equipment and tactics before the protest. Nor am I suggesting that there aren't some anarchists who turn up wanting to smash a few windows and shout, and who wouldn't mind being clobbered with a truncheon on camera to make their point. As I alluded to above, it's swings and roundabouts. Protesters may say that a protest turned nasty because the police turned up looking intimidating and dressed for a fight, while the police would say that they came expecting trouble from some elements and subsequent tactics bore out their decisions.

On behalf of my niece and on behalf of my daughter in law (both proud to be serving in the police), you can stick your 'pigs' comment where the sun don't shine.  Ffs you sound like a 10 year old trying to be clever.

'Don't' or 'Didn't'?

Have you read the bill or what it contains?

It's amazing how many people think the UK may have done bad things in the past but doesn't any more.

If they weren't running agents why would they need to pass a law saying they could authorise undercover agents to murder or rape so their cover wasn't blown.

So many negative comments on this thread when our glorious government is only carrying  out the mandate given to it by the overwhelming majority of the British public at the last general election (well at least by 43.6% of those who could be bothered to vote).

Therefore, anyone who opposes or criticises any of the measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill must be an Enemy of the People and must therefore be automatically guilty of treason against the state.  This of course includes all those treacherous MPs and do-gooder lawyers (who are only trying to do good) who oppose the statuary (Henry VIII) powers in the Bill or other proposed curbs on the Right to Judicial Review that might hold the government to account when it acts unlawfully. After all the Great British Public didn’t vote to Take Back Control to allow that sort of thing!

You can rest assured that our wonderful Home Secretary Priti Useless, a great champion of truth, freedom and Law and Order (who broke the ministerial code not once, or twice but three times for bullying civil servants because she didn’t realise she was doing anything wrong) has everyone’s best interest’s at heart and anyone who doesn’t think so should be truly sorry from themselves.

It’s great to know we live in World Beating Democracy where everyone is equal apart from Tory Party donors who are deservedly more equal than others!

On a less serious note that might actually be of concern to UKC followers please read the BMC response to some of the powers in the bill relating to trespass.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/law-of-trespass-could-change

I can simultaneosly object to the bill and to mindless insults directed at (for the most part) dedicated and hardworking police officers.

Well said. I thought it was very sad that a peaceful vigil in memory of someone who had been brutally murdered should have been hi-jacked by noisy, belligerent protesters. It was a double shame because all it has done is strengthened Priti Patel's hand with the right-wing public. I.e it was massively counter-productive, as well as being tastelessly inappropriate at a memorial gathering. (A bit like anti-war protesters causing trouble during the two-minute silence on Armistice Day.) Now, as a result, we are likely to get Patel's Policing Bill (

BTW, is there are chance it won't get a majority?

Has anyone got the exact quote from her? Just that I am wondering if the journalists have got the wrong end of the stick and her objection was lack of use of batons. tasers, rubber bullets, watercannon, emp to knock out the ability to record and airstrikes.

You might be onto something there.  I think she said something about finding the police response to the protest 'disturbing', maybe she was quoting Darth Vader.

Were you at the protest? It wasn't "Noisy or belligerent" until the Police started throwing their weight around.

Sad that you and others are on the side of the Tory's and Police instead of your fellow citizens.

Were you there?

If there is one thing that is a dead cert to be the enemy of social distancing, it's kettling.

I think we should be arguing for the right of grifting little cnuts like Robinson to protest despite covid and into the future. I would also argue for representation of 'fringe' ideologies I despise in parliament.

Apparently somewhat haphazardly.

jk

I find it pretty objectionable that a murder about which we know very little has been used as a peg to hang any number of protests on, including anti-vaccing, anti-police and Reclaim the Night. Anyone who thinks that the fact that the alleged perpetrator was a (recently appointed) policeman has some wider significance other than the fact most murderers have day jobs of one sort or another, is lacking in logic. And did any of the protestors personally know the victim? So this 'I wanted to join together with my sisters to celebrate and remember her' which I heard demonstrators claim was, frankly, dishonest and synthetic.  

Like all murders this has been a terrible tragedy, we should expect justice to be done and lessons to be learned. But to use it to support just about any fashionable cause that it may only marginally touch on, let alone encourage a demonstration that would inevitably jeopardise the huge sacrifices and efforts being made to avert other, Covid-based tragedies, strikes me as - well, just cr*p frankly.   

My understanding is that containment wasn't used - there was no tactical reason for it either. The police attempted to disperse the crowds, for 2+ hours via engagement but unfortunately resulting in the much publicised arrests on the bandstand, when protestors refused to leave.

No, but a group of my female friends were. Who have told me what they witnessed.

Maybe that makes what I said incorrect, but from the footage and individual reports it seems that the police are the aggressors.

Who will they blame if any of them contract Covid and die?

There was apparently some sort of anti-police agenda judging by flyers reportedly distributed at the vigil, seemingly with the logo of the organisers.

I've no objection to anti-police protests, but I'm not sure how that fits in with the vigil I had understood it was being publicised as, promoted as, and being argued about in court. Not to mention how it's being talked about now.

https://twitter.com/e_chiswell/status/1371124821464133634?s=19

(Edit to add - to be fair, on looking at the flyer again it might be Sisters Uncut rather than Reclaim These Streets 🤷‍♂️)

We always are. Usually when we are telling people they have to leave and they don't want to.

You might find this interesting. Makes the case that the police have mishandled this situation and have a poor track record in many areas relating to crimes against women but also criticises Sisters Uncut for hijacking this protest:

https://unherd.com/2021/03/the-police-have-a-woman-problem/

"The police’s own failures have made it easy for the hard Left to luxuriate in the pretend feminism of anti-law-and-order. "

The vigil that was originally promoted and argued about in court didn't happen.  That was declared illegal by the police and (almost) by the court and the organisers, who had been trying to make it happen in collaboration with the police, were forced to abandon their plans and cancel it.

I'm surprised that you're surprised that the vigil that actually did happen was not exactly the same event as the one that was cancelled.  Or that a somewhat stronger 'anti-police' sentiment was apparently expressed there, given that it was happening largely spontaneously in spite of the very well publicised efforts of the police to prevent it.

Off to the other side of the planet now...

Meanwhile in Australia, where entirely different marches were just kicking off as a result of entirely different events (different and yet exactly the same):  The Prime Minister seems to think he deserves congratulations that protesters weren't shot!

“This is a vibrant liberal democracy. Not far from here, such marches, even now, are being met with bullets – but not here in this country. This is a triumph of democracy when we see these things take place.”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/15/scott-morrison-decla...

Therein lies the problem. They don't share the presumption of the moral or legal authority of the police.

Until, of course, they want the police to protect them from burglars, rapists or murderers.

Or rather, they presume that their belief in their own moral authority gives them legal authority.

That seems like quite a presumption on your part.

I think it's a perfectly reasonable position to protest about the things you don't want the police to do whilst simultaneously being happy with other things the police are doing. What's wrong with that?

I don't think that challenging the authority of the police means that one shouldn't expect to receive the same assistance that any other member of the public can expect, or indeed that one shouldn't be cooperative when the situation requires. It's about maintaining the two way trust between police and public that is necessary for policing by consent to work. That trust was seriously breached on Saturday.

Likewise. Mine is based on my experience, yours?

Generally speaking the only place you can have an argument about whether your moral authority trumps my legal authority is in court.

Not in the middle of an illegal protest, after repeated warnings to disperse, despite how much you might disagree with me.

Hence, to re-emphasise a point, we nearly always come across as the aggressors. Because ultimately you are going to have to move, and unfortunately, eventually, that movement will be on our timeframe, not yours.

Why didn't they just leave the crowds alone?   How many of them were actually going to stand about all night in the cold. and even if they did, so what.   Aggressive police tactics are at least as likely to create situations where Covid can spread as the behaviour they are trying to prevent.

There's an interesting contrast with the low key way Police Scotland handled the 'celebrating' Rangers fans who were a damn site worse behaved than these women.    Deciding you aren't going to smash heads and chuck people in vans at the time doesn't mean you can't video everything and get photos of organisers and people smashing stuff up then nick them later.   

Reason. Nobody with an interest in civil liberties should inherently presume the legal or moral authority of the police, including the police themselves. I don't think that's contentious. More specifically, given the background to the vigil, I think it's safe to assume the attendees didn't share those presumptions.

I think that dialogue is legitimate anywhere.

The legality of the protest was disputed, as has been discussed in this thread. And many will take the view that legality does not necessarily confer morality, and vice versa, and that sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do.

From all accounts that I've heard of Saturday, the police came across as the aggressors. And from all accounts, it sounds like it was entirely avoidable.

You're obviously not using number of arrests as a measure of how low key Scottish police tactics were.

As TDB says near the start of this thread, the whole thing was entirely avoidable.

I'm not sure what qualifies him to to express the wishes of Sarah's family.

There had been a court case that established the protest couldn't go ahead. All the organisers had announced it couldn't go ahead due to the rest of legal action and was cancelled.

Prior to any police action there was 2+ hours of engaging with protestors after about 6om asking them to disperse.

I don't think it's contentious that the legal position was clear, even if the protestors may not have known of that judgement, believed that judgement, or wanted to accept that judgement.

Yes. But it's not a substitute for having to comply with lawful instructions. And bearing in mind the proportionate escalation that the police are required to exercise before the use of force that dialogue will have taken place.  

Unfortunately as above, if you want to have a legal argument then ultimately it will end up being conducted in court. Not conducted at 2100 after repeated discussion escalating to instruction to move.

As you appear to accept "breaking the law" might be "the right thing to do" - but the immediate consequence is likely to be arrest.

As I've previously stated, we always end up coming across as aggressors. I'm sure the woman in this video felt that we were aggressors. It's rubbish being told what to do when you think you are in the right. 

https://twitter.com/NewsFrenchTony/status/1371023392246235143?s=19

Not a bad sky news timeline (it's only 4 1/2 mins,)

Again, I'm sure everyone will see in it what they want to see, but still ... 🤷‍♂️

youtube.com/watch?v=GK6X0ePXa3w&

The cops could simply have left them alone.  21.00 at night in a park.  The only thing that was going to happen if they were left alone is they'd have got cold and bored and gone home.

Really? Twenty police have reported that they were punched, threatened or spat-at - a have submitted their body worn video accordingly.

Amongst them, a black female officer who was racially abused and a female officer who was told that she deserved to be abducted and murdered. 

How do you reconcile this with a group who claim to be protesting against violence towards women!?

Because getting the police to go what you want still means getting them to stop someone else doing what they want. 

The only way to resolve that is to have an objective rule of law and apply it impartially. Being Human constructs, it doesn't always work perfectly.

I'm amazed some of the things people implied about me going on my local hills alone and avoiding all human contact, avoiding contact with gates, gloves for scrambling, effectively zero risk and within the law and yet this lot should be tolerated in the middle of a pandemic - Demagogues shouting, people without masks.  A greater threat to people than I could imagine short of Cheltenham last year

I am going to be ostracised for saying this but I think the people there later on were clearly wrong and were reckless in the face of the pandemic

And how many other murders have there been in the last days?

it must have been cold at the vigil, several male protesters had to wear full face balaclavas.

This BBC piece is good on the wider context. Your  last sentence applies here too.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56394344

On average 5 women a week get murdered. (This is half the number of men, but that doesn't make it right, obviously.) It would be unseemly to speculate why this poor woman has been singled out for special treatment, so I will keep my thoughts to myself for the time being.

Lots of things "could" have happened.

A significant number of the population also have this view (which is backed by the legislation):

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/priti_patels_emergency_policing...

and the police job is to tread the tightrope between the two views, guided by a necessity to impartially but also proportionately enforce the law. 

I wouldn't want to take anything away from the utter horror and tragedy of this murder but I do wonder how the families of other victims feel about their awful losses being eclipsed- it can't improve an awful situation not to have your story told

Are you saying you think families of other murdered women will be resentful of the attention this one murder has gotten?

To get back to the Policing Bill, here’s a legal analysis:

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/more-than-a-nuisance
 

You can protest but don’t annoy anyone. 

that is a very strange way to describe what I said.   I was referring to the fact that their own tragedies are untold, possibly ignored by the media.  That is the harm, not the fact that someone else gets attention.

Or put anyone at 'serious risk' of being annoyed. 
(So before you do protest, you should probably also just double check that you've taken adequate precautions to make sure nobody will notice.)

It wasn't a description, it was a question. Thank you for clarifying.

I would hazard a guess that those relatives and friends of women killed by men would be mostly happy that this appears to be sparking a long overdue and serious national conversation. It's not just been a love-in for Sarah Everard to the exclusion of all others, but rather a protest / debate about the misogynist abuse and violence that runs through society generally.

If those protests do in fact spark even a small societal change from the resulting conversation, I'd be loathe to say that the slight increased COVID risk taken from an outdoors protest wasn't worth it.

You’re not not allowed to make any noise that might have an impact on others either. As Ian Dunt says in the article I linked to earlier,

”The government is effectively sticking duct tape over the mouths of protestors. They are requiring, quite literally, that they do not make noise. They are silencing them. The inability to be heard is now a precondition for being able to protest.”

So cancel culture on grounds of offence is bad but prison time on grounds of annoyance is good?

Free speech of the establishment is to be sanctified. Free speech critical of the status quo is to suppressed.

There must be more right wing comedy on telly. Black Lives Matter protests must be held quietly and out of the way so that no one notices them.

OK, thank you for clarifying.

I can see arguments both ways and we definitely need to reduce violence in society somehow and it is certainly true that there are several ways in which men can behave badly towards women and also vice versa to a lesser extent.

But I am unhappy with the way in which there seems to have been a hijacking or possibly even co-opting of well minded sentiment into pandemic busting large scale gathering. I am quite sure there has been some mobilisation and manipulation at work.   I have wondered almost as if the police should have realised they were possibly being lured into a trap where they would be damned whatever they did.

Police forces across the rest of the UK appear to have easily avoided any such trap.

In reply to geode:

Will they be the same sort of undercover cops exempted in Priti Patel's bill from any prosecution for crimes committed to maintain their cover?  They'll need to blend in with the offenders I guess, but you can't make an omelette without groping a few eggs.

The Met (and London) have a unique set of challenges. Thats a pretty unfair comparison.

Those would be the same protestors who appeared responsible for most of the verbal/physical attacks on the police and damaging vehicles. Thanks fellow men, you just did a great job of reinforcing the view that men love a bit of violence. 

Its plain clothes officers, not undercover.

I think it may be based on TVP successful Project Vigilant.

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-03-16/undercover-officers-at-nightclubs-among...

Still, yet another example if the police "damned if you do, damned of you don't" postion.

"The police need to do something about predatory males, particularly at night time"

Ok.

"You need to focus on offending males not curtailing behaviour of females"

Ok 

"No, not that"

🤷‍♂️

Pick up your bottom lip love, it's Priti Patel I'm having a pop at, not you.

Which of those are relevant to Clapham Common but not elsewhere across the UK?

It seems pretty obvious how policing the vigil/protest at the site of Sarah Everard's abduction, by the force in which her alleged murderer was a serving officer, might have been more challenging (and arguably required more sensitivity) than elsewhere.

Brighton police have been taking a fair bit of flack for being heavy handed too.

Certainly, one of the elements that was unique to this protest was the the officers (including females) who spend the evening being spat-at, racially abused, threatened and assaulted by a bunch of supposed anti-female-violence protestors woke-up the following morning to be accused of violence and heavy handedness!

Not to mention the (standard issue) allegations of racism, homophobia, transphobia, mysogeny and fill-in-as-applicable-ism.

OffDuty - I'm suprised you bother! 

Perhaps the Met could have thought a bit of sensitivity was required. Thinking that way didn't seem to present much a problem for most forces.

And there does seem to have been an element of misogyny, antipathy or apathy in 4 out of 5* officers when a flasher was reported.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/met-police-clapham-vigil-co...

*it was group of 5 or 6 officers

The organisers should have followed the Greenham Common strategy of banning men. But then they weren’t allowed to organise the vigil were they?

In reply to geode:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56394344

Perhaps the protestors could have thought a bit of sensitivity was required?

Afterall, it was them, not the police, who were dishing out the racist and misogynistic abuse...

Got a link*?  There was copious video footage posted to social media.  I browsed through a chunk of it that was being live-streamed at the time, nearest I saw to any of that could be characterised at worst as 'verbal abuse' I would say.  Which was mildly muffled by a mask, btw.  No fun to be on the receiving end of I'm sure, but they'll have dealt with worse when the pubs chucked out on any Friday night in the before time.

At that point I almost commented on here that I thought the Met were handling things extremely well funnily enough - this was on one of the deleted threads shortly before it all apparently went south.

There are no such allegations in connection with these events that I'm aware of.  Not directed at any of the police officers on the ground anyway - whether there was a hint of misogyny in decisions that were made higher up the command chain might be a moot point.

Again, have you got a link or are you just making stuff up?

*Edit to add:

"There was definitely a lot of anger - with some of the crowd chanting obscenities at the police at one point.

The Metropolitan Police Federation, representing frontline officers, says 26 of them were assaulted yesterday at Clapham - punched, kicked and spat at.

Pictures obtained by the Press Association clearly show three instances of officers being forcibly pushed and a van's wing mirror being deliberately vandalised. Guess what? All three instances involved men, not women."

This is your evidence?  Okeydokey.

Three instances, according to the Walrus's link.  But I agree, three too many.  Dickheads - I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the Met arresting them.

Regarding the balaclavas though, I think Albert Tatlock has his finger on the pulse of current events about as firmly as his user name suggests.  I'm not sure he realises we're supposed to cover our faces when we go out in public now.

Is it fair to judge the Met by their worst too?

Maybe worth some self-reflection there? 

I'm well aware of that. Are you?

In reply to geode:

Plain clothes cops? - almost certainly not.

Undercover cops? Judging by the fallout of the Spycops saga, I'd say a vanishingly small chance. But obviously you can never say never.

Forgive me, I didn't realise your post was tongue in cheek.

On Five Live last night I think reported 20 something police officers. Cala for body cam footage to be released. 
 

Edit: 26 police officers 

Pity it all came to this really. Whilst it is against the Covid laws these outdoor events are quite safe, but it did escalate, but that was more likely to happen when you have a lot of emotion and some pseudo-anarchists taking advantage (especially those blokes kicking off). I wonder if the organisers of the original vigil sussed that and also went ‘the timing is not right’.

In reply to geode:

I would argue that if you think undercover cops are "likely" to be deployed in a protest you probably don't even understand the difference between plain clothes and undercover, let alone have any concept of their roles.

Which to be clear, in a protest in the UK would be almost non-existent, and even if you found a role for them it would be almost impossible to suitably risk assess let alone get suitable authorisatio.

In reply to geode:

Undercover - like Keanu Reeves in Point Break (say infiltrating a criminal gang)

Plain clothes - like Jasper Carrot in the Detectives. 
 

Ed. I have offduty down as a Keanu rather than a Jasper, but I may be wrong. 

Erm...that's exactly what's happening here, isn't it? Or did I miss the entry praising The Met for all the good work they do?

infiltrating the climbing scene to catch the dead PM bank robbers?

"No justice, no peace. F@CK THE POLICE. Brrrrrap."

Sarah Everard's family must be delighted that this is taking place, in their daughters name.

Peaceful vigil? https://www.facebook.com/563938412/posts/10159477378843413/

Considering that's clearly an edited highlights reel of the worst 1m14s of footage they could find that's some thin gruel that.

It shows a disgraceful hijacking of the grief of Sarah Everards family and friends by a group of activists in order to make a pseudo-political point. The very same people who are demanding respect and sympathy from the police!

It also shows the demonstrators in a rather different light to that which has  been reported - and  completely undermines their claims that they attended the vigil with good intent. 

Perhaps you could send a link which shows the polices heavy handed and disproportionate response?

All I've seen is a couple of lawful arrests and some shoving - well justified in the circumstances.

There allegations up-thread of the police 'cracking heads'....let's see the footage.

Surely we can all agree that on occasion, neither "side" covered itself in glory?

Fundamentally, I think the issue was the Met trying to stop the vigil in the first place. When the judge sat on the fence* the Met should have worked with Reclaim the Streets and we would probably have had a better outcome. I'd be interested to see who made/forced that decision.

However, once Reclaim the Streets were forced to back out, it seems that more militant groups took advantage of the situation and as darkness fell and the police attempted to disperse everyone (I think they should have hung back and let it fizzle out but I'm no cop/specialist in large scale crowd control so.....), with emotions running high it all went a bit wrong.

I am baffled as to how the Met didn't see this as being a massive PR cock up as soon as they tried to stop it.

Also, props to the policeman in videos staying so calm whilst being shouted at. If people had listened, I think he articulated the situation very well!

What a mess.

* I think more due to the poorly written legislation than not wanting to make a decision.

Please show the "hijack". Or were you only expecting immediate friends and family there?

What emotions are permissable at a vigil? Is anger not allowed dependent on the circumstances? Should anyone not merely sombre be required to leave?

It sounds an awful lot that you've accepted a narrative and are happy to pin anything, no matter how flimsy, as supporting that narrative.

Crowds chant; upset and angry crowds can be confrontational. Nothing in that video suggests more than a crowd of upset and angry people.

It sounds like you're just seeing what you want to see.

The genuine mourners attended throughout the day to pay their respects, and appeared to act with dignity.

They didn't damage anything, they didn't attack anyone, they didn't whip-out their megaphones and incite the crowd to violence.

The people in the film are just yobs, seeking to damage police vehicles, abuse the officers and goad them into a response; at the expense of SE's memory and the grief of her family.

I don't think that you really believe the stuff you're writing - you seem to be digging-in, now that the the position has changed, and The Met are starting to appear far less culpable than the protestors.

If you can't see how this is a hijacking of what was supposed to be a peaceful and dignified response to SE's death, and the society which made it possible, there's really not much point continuing with the conversation.

You seem to think that being "genuine mourners" is the only possible good faith reason to congregate according to your own unwritten rules. 

The desire to loudly protest violence against women is an act in good faith and the desire to express anger over a disgraceful societal problem is an act in good faith. 

It always turns out with authoritarians that the wrong way to protest is always whichever way just so happens to be going on. 

You seem to be accepting that there's a possibility that it was the crowd who were confrontational, whatever justification. 

If a body of people is being confrontational, aren't they seeking to provoke a reaction? And should they complain/ be surprised  when the reaction they were trying to engineer actually takes place?

Angry crowds can be confrontational, yes. They're an angry crowd and often not *trying* to engineer anything at all. Crowd psychology is a real thing. 

So we have an angry and completely disorganised crowd of people of all walks of life on one side and a professional police service highly trained in crowd situations on the other. It doesn't necessarily follow that once the decision had been taken to ban the original protest that it has to either be the policemen and women on the ground or the protestors *fault* that things got out of hand or that either side wanted it to. I certainly don't put the onus on the mass of random angry people to ensure things don't boot off over and above the police though. 

It's difficult to find fault with 'the boots on the ground'. The behaviour of the "mourners" (as opposed to the mourners) was pretty terrible - and the footage I have seen shows the police being remarkably restrained in the face of (the usual) provocation. Despite the hysteria and headlines, I haven't seen any evidence of police brutality.

Difficult to see how the management could have done anything differently. If they'd agreed to this protest, they'd have to agree to all the others and that'd be the end of lockdown. Which would have attracted just as much criticism as the course of action they took.

What would you suggest as an alternative course of action?

They let the vigil go ahead, by the way, and only moved in when they activist turned-up.

Do what pretty much every other police force did.

That's the point, isn't it?

Provoke a reaction, then scream blue-murder when you get one!

It's all rather old hat.

What definition of "activist" are we using here?

Really? Do you think other police forces would react as The Met did? What do you think happens when the police are provoked and goaded this way in The States, or Europe.....or China!

Do you think the Guardia Civil or the CRS would show such restraint?

No, but at least you are accepting that it was probably a bit of both, which is a step up from an ACAB post.

I don't really expect the Met to behave like foreigners and it would be nice if they'd behaved like other UK forces did.

Is China the really standard by which the Met should be judged? 

I asked before if the Scottish police response was still regarded as low profile policing but didn't get an answer; hardly surprising since they arrested seven times as many people as were arrested at Clapham.

I wasn't aware of many women's vigil arrests outside of London & maybe Brighton.

I'm accepting that based on the earlier decision and the strength of feeling in the crowd that maybe there might not have been a satisfactory outcome either way. I was merely pushing back on another poster's insistence that it was malicious rabble-rousing by "activists", which I think is a synonym for "anyone who didn't act how I've decided they should".

It has been commonplace to compare the policing of Clapham with the policing of the Scottish footballers' celebrations, usually with comments about how the Scottish police were able to manage the event with a more "low key " approach than the police used at Clapham. 

The implication is clear: if the Scottish police handled  a crowd of pissed up idiots, mostly male,  in a relatively quiet and uneventful way, why couldn't the Met take a leaf out of their book and deal with a gathering  of angry women with a bit less trouble.

The answer is simple: in spite of the Scottish police's "low key" approach, they arrested 28 people; the Met arrested 4.

Are you aware of any women vigils outside of London and Brighton, with a comparable scale and dynamic?

I really can't see why the met would 'do what pretty much every other police force did'. 

Are you suggesting a one-size-fits-all approach? Whats good in Cumbria is also good in London?

As far as I can tell S.60 - S.61 make it a criminal offence to park a car or a van in a lay-by to spend the night. Well that's just swell. 

Comparison to other women's events is much more relevant.

I can.

I think a one size fits all policy for all women's vigils would have been better.

Well, it wasn't just a vigil in the end. The Met banned that, forced Reclaim the Streets to back down and allowed other groups to fill the vacuum. There was always going to be something, a vigil, a protest, whatever and the Met's decision*, in my opinion, to stop it being organised by Reclaim the Streets was a big error.

This isn't just about this one tragic case, it's triggered an outpouring of stories of sexual harassment/assault, it' cast a bright light on the issues of the safety of women on our streets and I imagine many of the women at that vigil have been victims of/affected by the issues raised. It's not surprising they are emotional and the situation got very heated. Combine that with the fact the main suspect is a police officer, who seems to have a shady background which was never acted on, and you have a powder keg. I'm surprised it didn't kick off sooner than when they started dragging people of the bandstand and trampling on the flowers.

I'm not blaming the "boots on the ground", they are doing what they were told to do and seemed to be doing it is a polite manner, at least at the start.

Well, it still seems up in the air as to whether it was technically illegal and there have been various rallies/protests over the past 12 months that have been policed better than this was. 

They moved in when it got too crowded, according to the interview at the time with a senior officer there. There was no mention of activists. Unfortunately, if you tell someone to leave and they don't, you are left with either letting them stay and undermining your authority, or you have to physically manhandle them if front of a lot of photo journalists which, when it's at a vigil for a murdered girl with a prime suspect of a police officer, is going to end up with front page pictures painting the Met in a VERY bad light.

*I don't mean the boots on the ground, more the high ups plus maybe the Home Office etc.

Totally. 1000s of Rangers fans, a number of events, fireworks, flares, sectarianism, intoxification - stupid to compare the two. 

Well, I'm sure some of the posters on this thread will be delighted that they're managed to claim at-least one scalp...it seems recent event were the last straw for this chap.

https://mattjohnsonauthor.com/2021/03/16/im-done/

I’m done with the far left and far right, two sides of the same violent, socially corrosive and destructive coin, trampling over anyone and everyone, destroying anything in their paths, if it doesn’t conform to the “right” narrative or world view. I’m done with their red and black flags, their balaclavas, their violence, bullying and intimidation. I’m done with them calling themselves Nazis or Antifa and pretending they are any different to the opposition. I’m done with their anti locution and persecution of anyone that isn’t on their side. I’m done with their cheerleaders in the media, who adopt their cause but absolve themselves of any responsibility for the harm they cause.

Ring any bells?

Really? I think most of the disdain is for those making the big decisions, not the poor people that have to act on those ill thought out decisions.

I don't think that passage has much to do with Clapham Common debacle does it?

Having read the post, I can see where the despair comes from, despite not agreeing with all of it. I couldn't do it.

Judging by the OP ( antics with the Pigs in Clapham) and the press coverage in general, it would appear that the rank-and-file are just as fair game as the top-brass.

It could well be written about Clapham Common, given the timing. Balaclavas, violence, bullying, intimidation, cheerleaders in the Media...all present at Clapham, and everywhere else there might be an opportunity to spit a police officer, or smash-up a riot van, in the name of whatever-it-is they're pretending to be upset out this week. 

Can't say I blame him. 

Perhaps you could address that comment to the many  who keep citing the Rangers' celebration policing as an example of "how it should be done"  when finding fault with the job done at Clapham.

So who is it who insists on comparing them?

 No one called it stupid when Tom in Edinburgh compared them and it happened in at least one other thread now deleted. And a quick Google will find lots of people making the comparison.

Of course it's a stupid comparison but people have been using it because it suits them .To cite it as an example of low key policing is a bit wide of the mark, though.

Let's just stop talking about the Rangers' celebrations because they have no relevance at all.

It's in your post of 1834 that I replied to.

i understand that. And I in turn was responding to posts like the one where Tom in Edinburgh made the comparison between the policing at Ibrox and the policing at Clapham.

Not really, unless you're talking about recent events from 1999.  He was discharged from the Met with PTSD 22 years ago.

It's certainly very familiar that you've posted a link that, if you take the trouble to read it (all of it), does not support your position nearly as much as you seem to think it does.

The weary tone is familiar though from off-duty's posts on here, and I certainly have some sympathy with that.  It's not a job I'd much want to do either.  So I'll echo galpinos's comments about not blaming those filling the boots on the ground.

I understand why one protester will be arrested by 5 or 6 officers, haven't suggested that any of the arrests were unlawful, nor that there's any evidence of brutality on the part of any of the police officers who were there. 

The criticisms I have made on here are wholly of command decisions that were made, following on from the earlier, arguably political, decision to sideline the original organisers thereby changing the nature of the vigil/protest/whatever that at that point was inevitably going to happen in some for or other with or without permission.

Once the decision had been made to take occupation and control of the bandstand and break up the demo those scenes were pretty much inevitable and I don't suppose there's anything the officers in the thick of it there could have done much better.  However that decision was unnecessary, oppressive and from a Covid safety point of view entirely counterproductive.  It made nobody any safer, than they would have been had the protest been allowed to run its course and disperse naturally, least of all police officers themselves.

Matt Johnson has reproduced the account from a current serving cop, it’s not his story ,it states that in the first paragraph 

D'Oh.  So he did.  My mistake, thanks for the correction.

Does anybody know why we need an emergency policing bill anyway? Has the country gone to the dogs? Have they discovered murder or something important isn't actually illegal? Have they decided they want to cancel open dissent on the grounds of annoyance?

That'll be the last one.

Black Lives Matter had some statues rather worried last summer so we're all having our ball taken off us.

Don't worry though, Gavin Williamson is going to vet freedom of speech in unis which will make it more free. 

Sorry I’ve come to this thread late so missed Tom in Edinburgh’s comparisons. Agree, no relevance. 

Getting rid off BLM and Gypsies, and protecting statues seem to be the main drivers from reading summaries, though having attempted to listen to the justifications for Tory MPs backing it, it seems to be to keep women safe on our streets (but I couldn't find anything in it that will do this), stop ambulances getting blocked by protesters (the current legislations does this) and because Labour don't like it.

I think they essentially want more legal means to stop the tactics used by Extinction Rebellion when they’ve shut down parts of central London. Plus some political signalling in damage to statues.

Not sure why it’s an emergency and stifling protest isn’t addressing problems. 

The guy who wrote the article resigned on Monday. You'd have noticed that if you'd taken the trouble to read it (all of it).

Like you say, he isn't entirely supportive of my position (or yours), and seems all the more authentic for it. 

Theres no shortage of anti-police sentiment in this thread, its now-deleted predecessor and in UKC in general.

Its aimed as much at the rank-and-file as the brass.

Emergency police legislation and reverse  nuclear weapon cuts - somebody wants to be the strong man?

It's incredibly depressing and more than a little scary when it's all in black and white.

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/03/16/anti-protest-bill-freedom-die... 

You’re right. And meanwhile, the govt (who brought in Covid legislation to ban this sort of stuff when there was plenty of evidence that outdoors stuff was fine) and the courts (who said ‘the police and reclaim the streets need to sort it between’) get let off, meaning we squabble between ourselves. 

The fans outside Ibrox were pretty much left alone.  When fringe elements turned it into a mini riot and started smashing up George Square the cops arrested some of them.    Which is fair enough IMHO:  good call not to escalate things by getting heavy handed with a bunch of football fans who are breaking Covid rules but basically happy and not causing much trouble and good call to make arrests when a small number move from a celebration to trashing the place. 

Ha.  Nice one.  It was worth the edit to put that in!

Yeah, we've established that my reading comprehension isn't up to much tonight.  Embarrassing.  So help me out - where does it say he resigned?

I get that "I'm done" could be read that way, and then again it could be a more general expression of despair.  Mind you it certainly does sound like he should pack it in, I hope he'll find another job that's easier to live with.

Seems authentic to me too.

Meh, I don't curate anyone else's opinion on here but my own.  I'm not shy about being a bit critical of the 'rank and file' when I think they f*cked up (though you'll not catch me 'tarring them all with the same brush') - but on this occasion I think it was all about the brass*. 

Perhaps they too were in an impossible position, under pressure from the Home Secretary who didn't hesitate to throw them under the bus later.  She should never have been allowed to worm her way back into the cabinet (or parliament) again after she resigned in disgrace the first time.

(*Unless there's any truth to the story about the male officer who overruled his female colleague and refused to take an interest in an alleged indecent exposure as things were winding down, in which case f*ck that guy.)

I imagine all crowds and protests have their "fringe elements" .

Shouldn't be a problem from the 5th of April because hairdressers will be back open.
Though there might still be some in Edinburgh come August.
 

Is it reasonable to expect the Edinburgh fringe elements to be better behaved than their Glasgow counterparts?

I think hindsight is, as always, both 20:20 and totally untestable.

What did we have? 

A vigil that continued through most of the day, extremely hands off policing. Kate Middleton even turned up.

That progressed until the speeches started. Some are blaming the disorder on hijacking by militant groups.

Worth considering the flyers that were going around - which certainly appear to be logoed with messages suggesting organisers logos - and which appear decidedly anti-police rather than a simple vigil.

Then consider the "usual suspects" who are happy to turn up at every occasion and give their speeches - all of which tend to be turn every cause into some version of their own anti-establishment views.

Had the vigil been permitted are we certain they wouldn't just appear anyway? 

Not that those views aren't allowed - but they would fuel the flames of those who already believe the police act without impartiality for "certain" causes.

The organisers say social distancing would have been maintained? Really? In the dark with a central bandstand for speakers that the audience will naturally gather round - regardless of amplifiers?

And the audience would have complied? Really? Like they did when the councillor requested them to disperse as part of the speeches?

It would have been different? Yes. But better? Are you sure?

I suspect that as night fell the event would have degenerated in a similar fashion. The police would then have the added criticism - you let that event continue but not ours? What other bits of this "lockdown lunacy" should you be allowing etc...

This was a real 'damned do/damned don't' situation for policing.

Let down by the courts who refused to definitively rule, let down by the government who watched the fallout and picked a side.

Now picked over by every two-bit commentator and rent-an-opinion bandwagon jumping muppet on social and mainstream media.

And, in the most scrutinised job of all, more scrutiny. And heaped collective blame and punishment.

And at the bottom of it all, the ordinary cops and detectives, cracking on, investigating this murder and many others, safeguarding victims of domestic abuse, arresting rapists and now having the added pressure of being slagged for being stasi, misogynist and brutal. 

Ultimately all because one "flame haired" activist made a spectacular photo as she was detained for a period of minutes before being released.

(And yes, I fully expect the typical chorus of sneering - 'but it's their job' - from those who happily criticise from comfy armchairs, enjoying the luxury of a job that no-one really cares about, let alone is an insta-expert on).

Crikey, Sounds like you need a new job pal... I have sympathy, most people just want to do a good job.

The below is not a personal dig in any way (obviously as we’ve never met).

I had a family member in the force, he left mid way into a promising career because of appalling behaviour and bullying he witnessed in the ranks (back in the late 80s early 90s).

I’ve no doubt most coppers are in it for the right reasons, but you must be deluded if you think it’s not the perfect job for those who are not, and I sincerely doubt things have changed much culturally since then, although maybe it has.

That’s the main reason I am against giving the force more powers. The Torys love it though don’t they...

It's usually those which end up getting the publicity.

I know for a fact that on a Pro-Palestine march some years ago, the thing that got in the papers was some dickhead who had a placard with a swastika on it, 200,000 people and this is what got reported in most places.

Sorry, can't match that for sneering.

I don’t think he’s sneering as such, no more than any of us would anyway. I’ve worked in retail in the past, so I know fine well how constantly having to deal with Joe public on a daily basis drives you mental.

I doff my hat that he continues to bother engaging with anyone to be honest...

That’s part of the problem I think. There is very much an us against them vibe from both sides. C’est la vie unfortunately. We don’t live in utopia, and that won’t change any time soon.

Couldn’t agree more. The Torys say that they are the party of liberty and freedom, and that may once have been true, but now their leaders act differently and few of their MPs have the courage and integrity of some of their predecessors. 

This Twitter thread maybe an overly an pessimistic view of the state of affairs but it might make some people think.

https://mobile.twitter.com/docrussjackson/status/1371265857108738048

Remember Martin Niemöller’s poem and think about the meaning of right and wrong.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

That's true, but the fringe element around Rangers is football hooliganism spiced up with ulster sectarianism and alcohol and you wouldn't want to be near it.

You don't need to be a genius to realise that multiple male cops putting hands on a photogenic and totally nonthreatening woman at a protest about violence against women provoked by a cop murdering a woman, is going to end up with pictures in the paper.  So why on earth did they do it?

QED.

The young woman who was murdered... what was her name again?...

..well, anyway... she was soon forgotten after the vigil hoo ha. It’s all about our rights to have a mawkish shouty gathering really.

Maybe paragraphs 4,5,6,8,9,10,12,13,14

It really isn't a sneering post. Read it again. Address the points.

hindsightis, mlitant groups, anti-police, "usual suspects", anti-establishment views, "certain" causes, every two-bit commentator, rent-an-opinion, bandwagon jumping, muppet, social and mainstream media, "flame haired", comfy armchairs, luxury, job that no-one really cares about,  insta-expert 

Plenty of sneering.

Sarah Everard. No one forgot. Don't talk shit.

Ah, according to the police federation. 

Thanks for listing the points, but Rob did actually suggest addressing them.

Not quite sure why out of that whole post it's the one paragraph about sneering critics that appears to have provoked your ire but....🤷‍♂️

I'm not sure the blokes in balaclavas would have remembered.

Blimey. Don't sneer at the sneerers! They don't appear to like it.

Obviously, but when I make a mistake at work or things don't turn out how I thought/wanted, I am obliged to look at the choices I made and consider the impacts of making different choices.

I am happy to concede it may not have turned out better to have worked with Reclaim the Streets to make it happen but banning something that isn't illegal* but is going to happen anyway whether banned or not gives you less agency to control it. Whether that would have made a difference is anyone's guess but mine is that it might have given a better outcome.

*as far as I can make out, the legislation seems a bit wishy washy? Happy to be corrected.

You mean almost every paragraph contains a sneer.

The courts did not support the police case, possibly as peaceful assembly protected by human rights act as an essential part of democracy might count as a reasonable excuse under covid regulations and suggested a negotiated compromise.

The judge thought the police had weak legal or public interest grounds to interfere with a peaceful and probably lawful event. 

The police refused to authorise the event leaving any organisers at risk of a fine so organisers pulled out. If the police had chosen to work with the organisers as the judge expected that might have been more fruitful.

Outdoor transmission has been reported ONCE* (single person infected) but there has NOT EVEN ONE* identified purely outdoor superspreader event. The police had little reason on covid grounds to be concerned.

*has anybody heard of some I've missed?

None of that is hindsight. It was all known before the probably lawful vigil.

Why do you think not one but a group of police officers felt free to ignore the report of a flasher at the event? Given that a flasher might turn into a murderer within days that seems a pretty poor prioritisation by that group.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9362087/Met-Police-launch-investig...

​​​​​​

F*CK me you really are dredging the barrel to quote the Daily Mail aren't you? There is nothing - absolutely nothing - in that story that rings true. So, no change there then.

Good to know a woman's complaint is taken so seriously.

Oh, in case you're looking for a motive, at a guess the DM would like rid of Cressida Dick because a) she's a woman and b) she's gay. Those are not desirable attributes in the DMs readership. Well done for supporting them.

Well, yeah, how *could* you be sure, but you may as well assume you know for definite so you can make a strident point on the internet like num num.

Funny thing is, the more we delegitimise protest the more blokes in balaclavas arrive.

That’s what we want, right? People to either stand still and silent with a candle in a manner agreeable to Priti Patel, or for them to have to choose to break the law. And once they’ve felt compelled to cross that line?

Here it is on the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56409023 

Back to those women making up sexual harassment allegations so soon, eh? Won’t they take even one day off?

You're quite right, I deleted a post when I found it was reported on the BBC. Still doesn't ring true though; however it is being investigated so no doubt we'll find out. Has 'Georgina' filed a complaint or reported the crime officially yet?

Doesn't ring true? Having been on my fair share of protests and having experienced the whole spectrum of police behaviour, from the sublime to the ridiculous and the outright sinister, I'd say it rings absolutely possible.

That's it. Keep questioning the behaviour of those pesky women. They can't be trusted.

Try reading the Daily Mail article titled "Met Police launch investigation..." and you will find the text "She has reported the officer's alleged handling of the situation to the Met and a meeting has been set up". 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9362087/Met-Police-launch-investig...

If you read the story there's nothing there. She doesn't give her name.  She doesn't say where the incident occurred, just that she was 'walking back.'  Who was she with? How far away was she?  How did the incident unfold- she 'asked the police to address the issue because she was feeling very uncomfortable...' If somebody is keen on committing indecent exposure I would have thought doing so in the close proximity of a large number of police would be career limiting. If some bloke is standing there with his todger out and waving it I'd feel uncomfortable too, and if the police were nearby ask for help rather more robustly. 

We get it. You don't believe her.

Do you?

I wasn't there, but it sounds completely plausible to me and absolutely worthy of investigation. I thought initially you might have just thought the bit about police ignoring her didn't ring true, but no, you meant that someone might expose themselves to a woman in a busy place at night doesn't ring true and so she must be making that up.

Dunno if you're aware, but starting from a position of believing a complainant of sexual abuse / harassment to be a liar doesn't have a great history.

People do that stuff on the tube in rush hour. Women get sexually assaulted, harassed and flashed on packed public transport and in busy public places all the time. Do you believe that?

Yes of course I do, and I am all in favour of such behaviour being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. It's this specific event that I'm sceptical about, for reasons mentioned above.

It's possible I'm wrong, in which case I'll have egg on my face won't I?

Her full name isn't given in the press, only 'Georgina'.  You can hardly blame her for that can you, given the absolute shitstorm of misogynistic abuse she'd inevitably be subjected to if it was? 

She isn't anonymous to the police though.  From the Guardian report of the same story:

Well, egg on your face *and* having helped push a pervasive and deadly idea that a woman's complaint of sexual harassment is fair game for public dismissal, with her now, instead of being a victim in need of assistance, a trouble-making liar.

It's almost like women's voices, even today, aren't being heard as they repeat this well-established stuff again and again. Someone should arrange a protest. Oh wait, they're not allowed. Unlucky, ladies. *shrugs*

Yes I read that too. Not sure what that proves. But let's see what the investigation reveals.

Interestingly the BBC says the incident took place at 8, while the main event kicked off at 9, so the male policeman who said he'd had enough of demonstrators still had a few hours to go.

It is a beggar, I agree. 

I'm not butting in to be argumentative, but isn't this trial by media based on hazy facts just part of the problem?

The bigger issue is not whether _you_ are right or wrong or it _you_ will have "egg on your face", it's about the casual dismissal of a report of a serious crime. Both your dismissal and the police's.

I've got an open mind about the police's dismissal since a couple of media reports are hardly a solid basis for information about what happened, but I'm saddened to see your scepticism about the event when there's so little public information about it.

Time will tell I guess.  What it suggests right now is that you're a bit out of order to accuse her of lying on the grounds that she's anonymous.  Her complaint to the police is not anonymous.

One of the females officers agreed to go and look for the offender to be told to remain with the other officers. Perhaps a wise choice in view of numbers of males in balaclavas nearby with anti police agendas and willing to use violence towards the police irrespective of their gender.

A sensible police tactic not to get isolated from your colleagues in an unlit park at night during a protest.

Strange that she chooses to stay anonymous but have her face plastered across the media.

Am I reading it right that only the traffic/road part applies to Scotland as the rest is (currently) devolved? ie protest is still possible but it would have to be in Scotland?

Imagine choosing to use your agency over the level anonymity you want. She's doing being a victim all wrong isn't she? Can you send her the handbook?

So earlier on you were saying she's probably lying because she's anonymous, and now you're saying she can't be trusted because she's not anonymous enough.  Righto.

Are you by any chance rehearsing a character for a youth theatre production about reporting sexual abuse, because this is sort of becoming a tick box exercise in things to say publicly to discourage women reporting abuse or harassment?

As much as it's great to have you make our arguments for us, maybe some reading of recommendations by victims / survivors charities and a bit of reflection would be good way to spend your lunchtime.

Blimey. If theres one thing this debate has established, it's that the people who turned-up at the vigil to shout and scream and goad the police, and their supporters, really don't care about about the victims. 

I must have missed that. Whereabouts was that established?

Forgive me, I hadn't realised how sensitive you were. 

Still I'll bear it in mind that an accusation of having the benefit of hindsight is sneering, describing anti-police and anti-establishment groups as anti-police and anti- establishment is sneering and describing someone as "flame-haired" is sneering.

I'll admit that my last paragraph was somewhat derogatory as was the reference to "two bit commentators".

I'm sure you wouldn't consider yourself to fall into these categories.

The court said that a blanket ban on protest was probably unlawful, however the police said there wasn't a blanket ban in place.

Following discussions with the organisers about the possibility of organising a lawful and socially distanced protest a compromise couldn't be reached, so it was canceled. 

I'm sure a compromise would have been in everyone's interest, not least the police's.

But it couldn't be reached.

This is ALL irrelevant. Due to the legislation in place the discussion isn't about opinions of public health, it's about the legislation.

(Which is one of the reasons I've said all along this pandemic was never a problem that could be solved by policing or legislation)

Yes it is poor. As the circs have been alleged i'm not going to excuse to it, it's not an acceptable level of service.

To give it some context, pissed off cops, probably well out of their area, who have been on a lengthy, probably unwanted shift getting abused, and generally tired, have wanted to go home rather than be delayed searching for a flasher, taking a statement and putting the  admin in. I'd say that's probably 1 to 2 hours more work. Just when you wanted to go home.

It happens regularly in this job. I take it you know the feeling?

Still I'm sure it won't be used as a characterisation of the routine behaviour of the other 140,000 cops across the UK.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/police-sarah-everard-vigil-abused-237...

It is sneering when you could have described it as peaceful vigil that got bad tempered when police intervened and calm was restored when many of the the police left.

https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/i-clapham-common-vigil-wha...

That is one way that some have described it, yes. 

Disagreement is not sneering. 

Describing a peaceful vigil as anti-police and anti- establishment is sneering and smearing.

Police intervention that other police forces recognised as unwise and lacking in public interest justification caused the problems but the calm was restored when the police intervention ended. 

You can repeat it as often as you like but it really wasn't a 'peaceful vigil'. It's not normal to give amplified speeches at vigils, or give out inflammatory leaflets stirring up dissent.

That piece you quoted, did you notice the word at the top: 'Opinion'. Not facts, not enquiry; just opinion. 

And about 'Georgina' - if my daughter was a victim of an assault, and rightly determined to bring down the law on the perpetrator, I'd certainly suggest she didn't allow her face to be published, so the perpetrator could potentially identify her. Pure common sense, and another reason that episode doesn't ring true.

It isn't sneering. It would be a disagreement.

It also isn't what I said:

"A vigil that continued through most of the day, extremely hands off policing. Kate Middleton even turned up.

That progressed until the speeches started. Some are blaming the disorder on hijacking by militant groups."

I'm not sure why you repeat yourself but disagreeing with you is also not sneering.

I'm also not sure why you persist in this comparison. Or why you are so certain of the decision making and thought processes of public order commanders in other forces. One could almost call you an insta-expert.

The lack of police intervention elsewhere may well have had nothing to do with decisions about "wisdom" or "public interest" but simply been because it was not necessary in those locations.

It's not entirely surprising calm was restored when the police left. The protestors had all dispersed.

Ah yes, they are subversives!

Rubbish.

It's sneering and smearing attendees at the vigil.

Certain? Perhaps check your reading comprehension of words like probably or possibly.

That is probably not true so why the certainty? Calm was restored when many police left leaving a calm vigil behind. 

Ah yes, this silly woman is clearly missing the guidance of a wise man. No wonder she's gone off the rails.

Not in any commonly understood usage of the word sneering. 

(Edit to add - And it still isn't what I said)

Yes. That's definitely a much closer example of the term.

Incidentally, I've read it again and I'm struggling to see where you've used the words "possibly" or "probably"

"Police intervention that other police forces recognised as unwise and lacking in public interest justification caused the problems but the calm was restored when the police intervention ended. "

All of them? Like all men a rapists I guess.

Ridiculous.

jk

There's possibly or probably a "find in this page" type function in your browser. Possibly or probably CTRL+F worth a try.

Strangely enough "possibly" and "probably" are not in every sentence. Possibly or probably that would be unusual.

If the episode occurred as she described then she could certainly have done with better advice from her friends, of whatever gender they might be.

I'm surprised you are doubling down on this. In true UKC fashion I'll go down the sidetrack.

I pulled you up and disagreed with you for your certainty about the rationale behind the police decision making in your post.

You have then said you didn't claim to be "certain" - you had referred to what their rationale had "possibly" or "probably" been.

(And sneered at my lack of reading ability comprehension)

I queried where you had used the words "probably" and "possibly" and you derided and mocked, and some might even say "sneered" at me and told me to using the search function.

Ok. I have. And, because I am clearly a thicko plod who is unable to read, comprehend or use a computer, perhaps now you could point out to me exactly where you have posted that this was not certainly the decision making process but only "possibly" or "probably".

And I'm sure you could clarify to UKC audience why you find my mentioning unnamed posters "sneering" such an obstacle in my, much lengthier, post.

Especially when that "sneering" is directed at a specific comment "the typical chorus of sneering - 'but it's their job'".

Its almost as if, dare I say it, you could do with checking your reading and comprehension.

Well, we're quite happy to painting all coppers with the same brush, aren't we?

I listed a whole paragraph of words where I thought you sneered.

Possibly and probably are in my posts but not here, there and everywhere.

"Police intervention that other police forces recognised as unwise and lacking in public interest justification caused the problems but the calm was restored when the police intervention ended."

In other words...

Problems happened at a peaceful vigil when the police intervention occurred. Problems stopped at that vigil when the police intervention stopped. Problems didn't happen in the cities where police didn't intervene in peaceful vigils. Very strong correlation with police intervention. Probably not a coincidence. Strong case for causation. Public interest is a significant factor in policing.

I'm relatively certain on that.

What's she got so wrong, exactly?

Are we? I'm not.

Jk

She played right into Priti Patel's hands. She might as well have been working for Priti Patel.

That's the prudential level. At a moral level, to cause a noisy disturbance at a memorial vigil for someone who has been brutally murdered is completely unacceptable.

Others are.

You know we're talking about the woman who reported being flashed and then ignored by police, right?

No, my apologies, if so. I have not read the whole thread (had to work quite late today). Just last few entries.

I've just looked back, and see that it's extremely ambiguous/ not at all clear unless you read a section in the middle of the thread (the flasher only being mentioned for first time at 2.19 on Tuesday, on a thread that started at 0.37 on Sunday.)

Phew, I thought that was a pretty hard line you were taking!

I can only apologise. I've done that thing where you read someone's post and respond to what they've written, instead of what they meant to write.  Which was totally different.

Rubbish. Previous posts mentioned other police forces, a timeline at Clapham Common and public interest.

You wrote:

"Police intervention that other police forces recognised as unwise and lacking in public interest justification caused the problems but the calm was restored when the police intervention ended."

I explained that the rationale for police action was:

"The lack of police intervention elsewhere may well have had nothing to do with decisions about "wisdom" or "public interest" but simply been because it was not necessary in those locations."

If you meant something different, write something different.

(Edit to add - I can only see one poster who is suggesting a lack of certainty in their assessment in the rationale behind police decision making And it's not you. And why do I feel I have some insight into that? Because I have an idea of the police resources and ongoing assessment behind other protests.)

Edit again to add:

Still at least it now appears we agree. The police elsewhere dealing with protests in different contexts may well have felt no intervention was required because no intervention was necessary.

Certainly judging by what I've seen and read it appears most other protest people turned up. Stood in (socially distanced) silence and left 

Pretty much what took place for around 6 hours in Clapham and at other sites in London.

I hope you can see the irony in your post when you consider how often the poor woman (let alone her name) has been mentioned in this long thread connected to her murder.

And the amount of mental energy that has been expended on this thread without thought of her.

This thread is about the policing bill, the right to protest, how we treat women, complaints of sexual harassment/abuse and the Sarah Everard vigil, and regardless, I managed to remember her name the whole way through, whether it was mentioned or not. It's a cheap and lazy shot to take at the opposite side in a debate that they don't care about a murdered woman (and presumably have ill-motives all-round), when nobody whatsoever has expressed anything which could reasonably interpreted as such.

It's a disgusting allegation to make with zero evidence.

It seems some people are saying the respectful thing to do would be to shut up about the wider societal problem, light a candle and then carry on like nothing has happened. Like the last time, and the time before that.

I think the OP had something to do with setting the tone of this thread, and there has been a recurrent anti-police theme that seemed to conflict with supporting the right of a few sisters to comfort each other and share their grief of Sarah Everard's murder in a peaceful vigil.

'the respectful thing to do would be to shut up about the wider societal problem.'

As it happens, that's exactly what I think. You know nothing about the circumstances of Sarah's death, not even if it was committed by a man - the suspect hasn't been convicted yet. (And doesn't he also have a partner who appears to be in some way implicated?) Even assuming he is guilty, to extrapolate from that and say this is the epitome of the wider gender issues in society,  is just ... disrespectful, insensitive, not very meaningful and probably counter productive. Almost, you might say, virtue signalling.

I won't defer to anyone in my support for equal rights, the right of women to feel and be safe, the need for some men to really be re-educated about what is acceptable behaviour and what is not; and be punished if they don't get it. Sarah Everard doesn't change any of that. 

Hashtag notallcops?  Nobody is saying it is all cops.

If feel personally under attack you should probably step away from the thread y'know, it can't be good for you.

It must be a bit tough contributing to a thread where the opening sentence describes you and your colleagues as  'pigs', and then on occasion manages to deteriorate from there. All credit to OD for trying and present an alternative (but qualified) viewpoint. There's quite a few posters that could do with  reading what he writes rather than assuming they know what he's going to say.

Another ex-cop speaks:

“They were institutionally misogynistic in terms of their approach to the event”

“It is just so ingrained in the decision-making. They don’t realise they are doing it and why. They think they are making the best decision they can, but the basis on which they are making the decision is flawed.”

“It is cause and effect. If you police and in your mind is it will turn violent, chances are it will. If the police had made different decisions in London, we would not have seen those scenes.”

-Sue Fish (who joined the Nottinghamshire police in 1986 & retired in 2017).

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/16/institutional-misogyny-erod...

And most of us are rejecting that false dichotomy, that anything other than quiet and sombre vigil constitutes hating the police or riding roughshod over Sarah Everard's memory. That a protest on the wider issue re women's safety in our society is not only understandable but justified, and the emergency, horrifically draconian, bill being rushed through parliament that would supress such a protest pulls that need to protest into focus even more.

I don't hate the police, I'm sympathetic with them having to go into a potentially lose-lose situation once the original planned protest had been refused, but nor do I hate the people not just genuinely upset for Sarah, but scared for the continuation of misogynist violence against women and deciding that they were going to make a principled stand on that issue, rather than just lighting a candle and going quietly home.

Once more: The worst people arriving at the protest are no more justification to write off all those protesting than the worst behaved police officers are justification for saying "All coppers are bastards". Most of us exist between those two extremes and invoking the worst behaviour to dismiss the majority is lazy and in bad faith, in whichever direction it's aimed.

I'm sure it must be.  I don't think anyone that off-duty, or you, have been engaging with on this thread has repeated that have they?  I certainly haven't, I don't think that way.  Maybe one or two on your side of the 'debate' have come out with things you're not entirely comfortable with, dunno.

I value off-duty's perspective on these kinds of threads, but if it's too tough he probably shouldn't bother.  Not really worth it.  This thread will be archived pretty soon anyway, no bad thing prolly.

So women just have to wait for the right murder to come along, parameters set by... you? To be fair, they shouldn't have to wait long wherever you set the bar.

Hey, if you aren't interest in context don't read my posts. As I said behaviour was "not acceptable"

Great. 

A really good point. Thanks for considering that there actually is someone behind the uniform that might just be trying to get on with their everyday job, but now finds that if they want to relax after work and read social media, mainstream media or even their favourite hobby social media site, they are faced with relentless anti-police negativity based on opinion, often ill-informed and biased, and fairly regularly presented uncontested as fact.

If only there was someone who was prepared to offer some context and engage with some of the more blitheringly stupid opinions. Maybe I should be wearing my underpants on the outside

I have a lot of affection for the Guardian, but they still spout b*llox. 'It was only in 1975 that all aspects of police work became accessible to women. ' That's 46 years ago. At what point does that become an acceptable timeframe? 100 years?

And Sue Fish's contributions are risible: real rent-a-quote stuff: 'They were institutionally misogynistic in terms of their approach to the event,” said Sue Fish.' She wasn't there, has she spoken to, does she even know Cressida Dick, who was; and what on earth is she trying to say? That if the vigil had been predominantly conducted by blokes it would have been different? No sh*t.

And, of course, we have the inevitable anonymous contributions. 'One female police officer, however, believed there was a culture of “toxic masculinity” within the police. '  I  don't doubt there are issues with machismo, testosterone, aggression within police forces, after all we depend on those qualities when we expect police to run, unarmed, at potential terrorists; or barge into a house full of spaced out druggies with access to an unknown array of weapons; or tackle a martial arts psychopath who is about to attack his wife. A police 'force' exclusively recruited from flower arrangers probably wouldn't cut it. Reconciling the requirement for those attributes with a police service is always going to be an issue.

'So women just have to wait for the right murder to come along, parameters set by... you? '

Could you show your working? I don't follow.

Imagine not having been there and forming strong opinions about what happened and what didn't. She was only Chief Constable for Nottinghamshire and had decades of experience up to just four years ago, not like us who are much more eminently qualified even down to the point of publicly dismissing allegations of sexual harassment out of hand.

We depend on machismo and testosterone? Eesh. Next stop from machismo and testosterone is flower arrangers? Eesh.

You are DCI Gene Hunt and I claim my five pounds.

Your paragraph here:

You're saying that protest might only be remotely justified if a case was an "epitome of the wider gender issues in society", as if not being safe to walk home at night in the capital city isn't that. So yeah, we'll need to wait for the right kind of murder if you're to be satisfied that upset, scared and angry women are allowed to protest.

I don't know, but I'll stick my neck out and take a guess.  I doubt she's discussed this with Cressida Dick, but yes, I'm pretty sure she does know her.  Also Sara Thornton.  They clearly don't quite see eye to eye on the subject of misogyny.

Though I note that they all agree that misogyny absolutely is something 'deserving' of their attention, they disagree on priorities in the allocation of scarce* resources and whether it's something they can afford to do. 

*(Shamefully scarce resources imo, after a decade of 'austerity' cuts.)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46068013

Should we automatically assume that anonymous contributions are not credible then?  All of them, or just the ones that challenge your point of view?

Or just the ones that women make...

Have you got a single shred or iota of evidence for saying that? Or is it just a predictable, reflex reaction that you know will get a laugh from pre-disposed sympathisers?

For the record, I would severely discount anonymous contributors of either sex in any piece of journalism; that's not what journalism should be. Journalists make up stuff, they mishear, they misunderstand, they cherry pick the contributions which fit their narrative, and discard those which don't. Give me an hour or two and I'm pretty sure I could find an anonymous female officer to say pretty much the opposite: how things have changed, how much they have improved (notwithstanding hat there is still a long way to go) etc etc.   

'You're saying that protest might only be remotely justified if a case was an "epitome of the wider gender issues in society",'

Sigh; no I'm not. You've added 2 + 2 to make 5.

It's a reaction the the skepticism you've shown on this thread to the accounts of three women - the one who reported a flasher and now to the two women referenced in the Guardian article.

It got a wry little laugh from me.  Sorry if that makes you feel like you're being 'cancelled'.

Purely coincidence of course, but you do seem to have dismissed anonymous female voices as nonsense out of hand (along with the entirely non-anonymous views of the retired former Nottinghamshire chief constable), while apparently accepting anonymous male ones* as entirely authentic.

*(Most obviously, of course, the posts of off-duty of this parish.)

You're right, I am in a bit of an awkward spot. Time will tell about 'Georgina'; I think it's an odd thing for Sue Fish to do, try and throw Cressida Dick under a bus from her comfortable position of 4 years retired and 150 miles away from the event; and, come to think of it, I actually agreed with the anonymous contributor to the Guardian article, as you can see from my post. So not entirely misogynistic.

I'm struggling with then what it is you *are* saying.