Sarah Everard

the Japanese were utter ******** in WWII have you got any of their stuff in your house?
Bit extreme but same theory

 

Yes you have done that. I said my sisters kids were having nightmares etc due to covid and you said it's the parents fault. I apologised for reacting to your comments I did not excuse your comments

 

Not considered in the judgement so not relevant.

 

Did they have a second hearing? The first hearing the High Court refused to provide a ruling as to whether a protest could be undertaken and be lawful under the Covid regs.

Furthermore there was nothing in the hearing that should a motion be passed that protest be allowed under the Covid regs no dispensation was made that allowed an unnecessary journey. If the journey was considered unreasonable to an officer of the law or local enforcement officer then you would be facing a fine.

Technically, Under T1 to T3 the provision is there to protest providing that it is under two people. In T4 the lockdown status from January this year there is no provision to protest.

That means everyone without exception was breaking the law.

Although the right to protest is protected by the Humans Rights Act however they are qualified rights. This means that should the Government should they so wish curtail these rights if it was a public interest situation for example under emergency health regulations.

 

Do you think the Duchess of Cambridge will get one police officers knee in her back or two? I wonder if she’ll get bail?

 

I reckon when there was a police officer saying they should disperse.... she went home?

 

Tee Hee. Yes that’s exactly what happened.

 

This is just a really **** take. Aside from the fact it wasn’t illegal, in the 1950’s homosexuality was illegal. Therefore I assume you think it was correct and appropriate that Alan Turing was chemically castrated.

When a law is demonstrably morally abhorrent, there’s no ethical obligation on citizens to stay within the law.

 

The law is morally abhorrent to try and slow a worldwide pandemic and stop deaths?

You have once again joined things together in the most bizarre way... If you can’t understand that people can think that there shouldn’t have been a gathering of people flouting lockdown rules, but have a different opinion on the abhorrent treatment of Turing. Then I don’t think you’re ok assuming anything...

 

Youd expect when if instructed to do so by the officer on scene to disburse if not for her to be dealt with exactly the same as the Anti Lockdown protesters were by the Met. A similar fashion to Saturdays and no doubt yesterdays protest.

Something incidentally which was supported by a number of people on this forum. Some of whom are no doubt now championing the right to hold a vigil/protest for Sarah Everard.

The BBS hypocrisy machine saunters on.

 

And issues a statement about Saturday night that is basically ‘We didn’t want to do it, but we were left with no alternative’. If there’s anyone who doesn’t either facepalm or silently scream at that response I’d be wary of them.

 

In the time between the miners strike and now; have the Met police showed any evidence to you of handling demonstrations consistently well?

Cos in my head it seems the Met completely screw up on a regular basis. Which says to me that the organisation is systematically flawed.

Here’s a detail lost in most of the reporting from last Summer. When the EDL types turned up to ‘protect the statues’ against a BLM protest, and the EDL types ended up fighting amongst themselves/ with the police.

Do you remember the picture of the Big black guy carrying an injured white bloke to safety?

Which one of those ‘characters’ was an ex met police officer?

The guy helping someone even though that person was almost certainly there because they didn’t like him, or the guy who turned up to ‘defend’ statues but really just wanted a fight with BLM, but frankly a fight with anyone would do?

 

Police shoving an elderly woman back towards the crowd because 'Covid'.

Cowards

 

No, the poster is saying ‘it’s against the law so is therefore wrong’. I’m giving an example as to why that’s too simplistic a take. The law can be wrong.

And there’s a wider point here. Nearly everyone, including me, thinks the police got this wrong. But what i find outrageous is people like Sadiq Khan, Starmer and half the Tory party rushing to condemn the actions of the Met when they were all in their own way active enablers of the legislation which plod were enforcing.

And you well know that the law I’m referring to is the law making protest illegal. Which today they are attempting to permanently enshrine in law as part of Patel’s Police Act - which has absolutely nothing to do with ‘stopping a worldwide pandemic’.

 

How very Amber Rudd, who in 2016 (upon announcing there’d be no enquiry into Orgreave)stated:
‘Policing is very different’ today than 30 years ago.
A policeman present at Orgreave told the BBC that the order was to use ‘as much force as possible’ against the miners.

40+ years later, just last night, the Met police were sent out to guard the statue of Churchill with the instruction to ‘Protect Churchill at all costs’.

Yep, totally different force

 

Several weeks ago I watched an episode of a (IMO) bad, cheesy sci-fi rip off of Star-Trek called 'The Orville'

Nevertheless, the particular episode had an interesting premise where they visited a planet where the justice system consisted of every single person having a badge/transmitter which, when pressed up voted or downvoted a person who was featured on the 24/7 news media broadcast on display everywhere in public spaces, malls and homes. If an individuals credit rating (displayed on the badge they had to wear at all times) dropped below a certain number they were refused service at shops bars etc and reported to the authorities who then arrested them and put them on televised trial with a featured programme reporting their crime. Based on that a final vote was carried out and if the downvotes reaches a certain number they were sentences to 'rehabilitation' which essentially meant a hi tech lobotomy. The concept was that judgement by the largest peer group possible would come to the correct verdict, omitting the flaw that they were basing that judgement on half truths, inaccurate, missing and subjective often heresay evidence doled out by the media

Back to the real World....

Whilst there are clearly questions to be raised regarding the Met police response to the Sara Everard vigil, The media seems to have whipped up the masses in the latest bandwagon i.e. endangered women and, worse, is now scapegoating the head of the Met (ironically a woman) and reporting "people" are now calling for her resignation.
The overwhelming majority of people have no idea of what went on and the media clearly are 'sensationalising' it. The photo of the woman 'pinned to the floor' noticeably mask less has been widely published as well as her defiant claim that she will appeal her £200 fine for breaching Covid illegal gathering legislation and boasting she will do it again. It may well be that the actions of the Met were disproportionate (*they certainly have history there), but the fact that an illegal mass gathering (permission for which had been refused AND the original organisers had abandoned the idea and instead requested people carry out doorstep vigils) went ahead seems to have been ignored by the media now portraying those arrested as 'innocent victims'.
My main point though is media seems, increasingly, to be judge and jury and instead of reporting news, is intent on shaping public opinion and making the news.

* An example of the problems of trial by media... There is s danger that people on this BB (ex miners) with past experience of their treatment by the Met could well be biased in their perception of who is right in this particular case when, in reality, the two events are completely separate.(different leadership, personnel, decades apart ).

 

If that is what you'd expect to happen you don't live in Britain in the21 century.

 

The main issue I have is your last sentence!... Were you there? If not how can you categorically state "vicarious thrill of using excessive force " (the vicarious thrill indicating a clear subjective bias on your part unless you are a mind reader) ?
I am not saying that the response was not OTT, I was not there. Again! were you? However, the pictures I have seen did NOT show distancing rules being observed (and there were a number of people not wearing masks). It was an illegal gathering and even the organisers had called it off. So you think we should only obey laws you agree with then?