Sarah Everard Vigil
What do you guys think of the police breaking it up?
I have no strong opinion of this but there is some oddities that make it interesting.
Firstly, I think it is a joke that the police have the power to to stop demonstrations. I am totally against this and I defend anyones right to protest. To stop someone from protesting is anti-democratic.
Now me personally, I dont think the police should of intervened. That being said. You cant have double standards. The job of the police before was supposed to be enforcing the law. Now it seems to be the police decide what protests / gatherings are ok based on the moral merit of the cause.
For example, the anti-lockdown protests/ gatherings have had hundreds of arrests. No one seems to care.
But when the BLM protests / gatherings started everyone went nuts that a few people got arrested.
It seems a similar case with this.
Another smaller issue is on the use of force. Are police not meant to use force on women now? Or is what people want is for police to treat women differently to men in law? I thought we was going equality. I've seen a few videos of the police pushing protesters and arresting them but I didnt see anything violent.
For anyone curious on the amount of people that turned up check out this video.
[video="youtube;0J3L_frUsGs"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J3L_frUsGs[/video]
It must be close to being over 10,000.
Then we also have people saying this
https://twitter.com/xandvt/status/1370882639289257986
Doctors saying it is ok to gather in the thousands. The same type of people who thought the anti-lockdown protestors were putting lives at risk.
I mean it is clear covid is transmissible in large groups. If it wasnt then the lockdown would be pointless.
But in my view a protest/ gathering / vigil should go ahead. But it shouldnt just be allowed on if the cause is 'just'. If someone wants to do an anti-lockdown protest then they have just as much right.
But thats what I think anyway.
I have no strong opinion of this but there is some oddities that make it interesting.
Firstly, I think it is a joke that the police have the power to to stop demonstrations. I am totally against this and I defend anyones right to protest. To stop someone from protesting is anti-democratic.
Now me personally, I dont think the police should of intervened. That being said. You cant have double standards. The job of the police before was supposed to be enforcing the law. Now it seems to be the police decide what protests / gatherings are ok based on the moral merit of the cause.
For example, the anti-lockdown protests/ gatherings have had hundreds of arrests. No one seems to care.
But when the BLM protests / gatherings started everyone went nuts that a few people got arrested.
It seems a similar case with this.
Another smaller issue is on the use of force. Are police not meant to use force on women now? Or is what people want is for police to treat women differently to men in law? I thought we was going equality. I've seen a few videos of the police pushing protesters and arresting them but I didnt see anything violent.
For anyone curious on the amount of people that turned up check out this video.
[video="youtube;0J3L_frUsGs"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J3L_frUsGs[/video]
It must be close to being over 10,000.
Then we also have people saying this
https://twitter.com/xandvt/status/1370882639289257986
Doctors saying it is ok to gather in the thousands. The same type of people who thought the anti-lockdown protestors were putting lives at risk.
I mean it is clear covid is transmissible in large groups. If it wasnt then the lockdown would be pointless.
But in my view a protest/ gathering / vigil should go ahead. But it shouldnt just be allowed on if the cause is 'just'. If someone wants to do an anti-lockdown protest then they have just as much right.
But thats what I think anyway.
Scroll to see replies
I agree very much that the police shouldn't have the power to stop a protest. However I do feel the police should have some power to stop people gathering without social distancing, as we shouldn't put others lives at risk, but it is quite difficult to decide when this needs to happen. On the subject of use of force, I feel that the use of force shouldn't be necessary for arresting anyone at a peaceful vigil, male or female.
Original post by TalkativeJunior
I agree very much that the police shouldn't have the power to stop a protest. However I do feel the police should have some power to stop people gathering without social distancing, as we shouldn't put others lives at risk, but it is quite difficult to decide when this needs to happen. On the subject of use of force, I feel that the use of force shouldn't be necessary for arresting anyone at a peaceful vigil, male or female.
Some irony
https://twitter.com/politicsjoe_uk/status/1256622973294911492?lang=en
Says protests are reckless and are prelonging the lockdown.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1370870636999020548
Defends the right of protests.
There are actually many examples of this with Sadiq Khan condemning antilockdown protests only to condem the police for breaking up a vigil held by thousands .
It's truly a case now of you can only protest if we agree with it. Frankly nuts.
I don't think chanting 'shame on you' at police officers is helpful at all in the fight to ensure greater protection of women. Let's not forget these officers have worked throughout the pandemic, have recently had the same shock as any of us regarding the horrific case of Sarah Everard and have been instructed to enforce Covid-19 restrictions which were entirely breached yesterday and today.
Initially I thought that it was wrong for these officers to intervene, and still think that man-handling women out the way was a huge own goal for them.
But what would have happened if the Met decided not to enforce the restrictions yesterday and let the vigil take place with zero social-distancing? That would give the green light for any kind of public gathering, whether that be anti-lockdown marches, Extinction Rebellion or Brexit-related rallies. How can the police reasonably select which mass public gatherings they enforce restrictions on?
That is probably why they outright said no to the official vigil because they knew there would be no social-distancing and knew it would put them in the impossible position should other protest groups turn up in London expecting to be allowed to protest freely.
I also feel that this protest for greater protection of women (as far as I understand it) was rather unwarranted in the middle of the pandemic. I fully understand their cause, but the tragic case of Sarah Everard is enough to hammer the problem home more than a protest would. I think the public would have far more sympathy with the women's movement had they not held mass gatherings at the moment. Happy for others to disagree but in my mind there are so many other powerful tools (largely social media) which achieve so much more in Sarah's memory, than clashes with police on the streets.
Initially I thought that it was wrong for these officers to intervene, and still think that man-handling women out the way was a huge own goal for them.
But what would have happened if the Met decided not to enforce the restrictions yesterday and let the vigil take place with zero social-distancing? That would give the green light for any kind of public gathering, whether that be anti-lockdown marches, Extinction Rebellion or Brexit-related rallies. How can the police reasonably select which mass public gatherings they enforce restrictions on?
That is probably why they outright said no to the official vigil because they knew there would be no social-distancing and knew it would put them in the impossible position should other protest groups turn up in London expecting to be allowed to protest freely.
I also feel that this protest for greater protection of women (as far as I understand it) was rather unwarranted in the middle of the pandemic. I fully understand their cause, but the tragic case of Sarah Everard is enough to hammer the problem home more than a protest would. I think the public would have far more sympathy with the women's movement had they not held mass gatherings at the moment. Happy for others to disagree but in my mind there are so many other powerful tools (largely social media) which achieve so much more in Sarah's memory, than clashes with police on the streets.
if it makes you feel better the Met Police Chief is receiving huge criticism over the way it was handled and Home Secretary Priti Patel has called for a full report on what happened.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/sarah-everard-vigil-met-police-chief-urged-to-resign-after-disgraceful-clashes-between-officers-and-crowds-12245474
which imo is, in part, an effort to protect her party's ass and reassure the public as her party is trying to push through tougher restricted on protesting, like start and finish times and restrictions on noise levels
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-56391988
regarding the OP, firstly there is no right to protest in the UK - there is a right to 'peaceful protest'; so if a protest causes a real disturbance or threatens public safety - ala Extinction Rebellion - then you can and should be arrested.
secondly, the police can only ever use reasonable force to remove or arrest someone - regardless of who they are - otherwise they are breaking the law, and indeed this has been part of the criticism of the Sarah Everard vigil.
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/public-order/core-principles-and-legislation/police-use-of-force/
how is it determined what's reasonable force? police ask themselves -
also tbh i don't understand how the op is 'for' the right to protest in one breath, and in another breath supports forceful removal.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/sarah-everard-vigil-met-police-chief-urged-to-resign-after-disgraceful-clashes-between-officers-and-crowds-12245474
which imo is, in part, an effort to protect her party's ass and reassure the public as her party is trying to push through tougher restricted on protesting, like start and finish times and restrictions on noise levels
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-56391988
regarding the OP, firstly there is no right to protest in the UK - there is a right to 'peaceful protest'; so if a protest causes a real disturbance or threatens public safety - ala Extinction Rebellion - then you can and should be arrested.
secondly, the police can only ever use reasonable force to remove or arrest someone - regardless of who they are - otherwise they are breaking the law, and indeed this has been part of the criticism of the Sarah Everard vigil.
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/public-order/core-principles-and-legislation/police-use-of-force/
how is it determined what's reasonable force? police ask themselves -
•
would the use of force have a lawful objective (eg, the prevention of injury to others or damage to property, or the effecting of a lawful arrest) and, if so, how immediate and grave is the threat posed?
•
are there any means, short of the use of force, capable of attaining the lawful objective identified?
•
having regard to the nature and gravity of the threat, and the potential for adverse consequences to arise from the use of force (including the risk of escalation and the exposure of others to harm) what is the minimum level of force required to attain the objective identified, and would the use of that level of force be proportionate or excessive?
also tbh i don't understand how the op is 'for' the right to protest in one breath, and in another breath supports forceful removal.
(edited 3 years ago)
Is funny, is BLM all over again. These people are probably the same people who before supported all these lockdowns and coronavirus legislations but the moment it doesn't go their way suddenly it's a problem? I also find it very cringe how many news outlets are saying "Male officers manhandling women" as if there is some sort of oppression against women going on. This is just a stunt by some idiots who are looking for trouble, just like BLM a few months back.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by Joleee
also tbh i don't understand how the op is 'for' the right to protest in one breath, and in another breath supports forceful removal.
also tbh i don't understand how the op is 'for' the right to protest in one breath, and in another breath supports forceful removal.
To be clear. I am all for the right to protest. What I find disingenuous is that some politicans were all for heavy handed approach for anti lockdown protests. Yet when it comes to this they all turn on the police demanding answers.
It should not be for the police or politcans to decide what protest is lawful. Heck if I want to protest that the moon isnt real I should have as much right as anyone else. The merit of the cause should not be a factor on whether it should be allowed or not.
I dont support forceful removal. I was just comparing how those who were in support of forceful removal are not against it when it is a cause they agree with / have sympathy for.
In a democratic nation the people should have a right to assemble in peaceful protest. We elect our government through a public vote and are entitled to hold them to account.
With that said, most protests these days aren’t actually protests. They’re not pushing for an achievable goal or lobbying the government to change specific policies.
People gathering to be angry at broad concepts like “racism”, “climate change” or “domestic violence” without stating clearly what they want done is not a protest it’s a public nuisance.
With that said, most protests these days aren’t actually protests. They’re not pushing for an achievable goal or lobbying the government to change specific policies.
People gathering to be angry at broad concepts like “racism”, “climate change” or “domestic violence” without stating clearly what they want done is not a protest it’s a public nuisance.
Original post by adam271
To be clear. I am all for the right to protest. What I find disingenuous is that some politicans were all for heavy handed approach for anti lockdown protests. Yet when it comes to this they all turn on the police demanding answers.
It should not be for the police or politcans to decide what protest is lawful. Heck if I want to protest that the moon isnt real I should have as much right as anyone else. The merit of the cause should not be a factor on whether it should be allowed or not.
I dont support forceful removal. I was just comparing how those who were in support of forceful removal are not against it when it is a cause they agree with / have sympathy for.
It should not be for the police or politcans to decide what protest is lawful. Heck if I want to protest that the moon isnt real I should have as much right as anyone else. The merit of the cause should not be a factor on whether it should be allowed or not.
I dont support forceful removal. I was just comparing how those who were in support of forceful removal are not against it when it is a cause they agree with / have sympathy for.
definitely agree with your first para. it doesn't make sense when the government is trying to pass an Act that restricts the definition of a peaceful protest
regarding the second para, it actually isn't the burden of police or politicans to decide what constitutes a legal protest - that's the responsibility of judges when they decide what was reasonable in the situation, and indeed they will examine the cases of the four who were arrested if they get charged. re the merit of the cause should not be allowed; you're preaching to the choir - but it isn't. four people have been arrested in this instance, compared to BLM protests which have seen three times that amount
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/03/george-floyd-protests-live-thousands-gather-london-black-lives/amp/
unless you're saying BLM wasnt a worthy cause compared to Sarah Everard and therefore deserves more arrests? afaik according to the law arrests are based on whether you're breaking the law or whether you haven't; it isn't the cause of the protest specifically, so how have you arrived to this conclusion?
third para is probably right.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by Joleee
regarding the second para, it actually isn't the burden of police or politicans to decide what constitutes a legal protest
unless you're saying BLM wasnt a worthy cause compared to Sarah Everard and therefore deserves more arrests? afaik according to the law arrests are based on whether you're breaking the law or whether you haven't; it isn't the cause of the protest specifically, so how have you arrived to this conclusion?
third para is probably right.
regarding the second para, it actually isn't the burden of police or politicans to decide what constitutes a legal protest
unless you're saying BLM wasnt a worthy cause compared to Sarah Everard and therefore deserves more arrests? afaik according to the law arrests are based on whether you're breaking the law or whether you haven't; it isn't the cause of the protest specifically, so how have you arrived to this conclusion?
third para is probably right.
Well a lot of this is going off memory.
But it is 100% the case that politicans have a influence on what consitutes a legal protest. By this I mean actual arrests. It shouldnt. But it does. The police are very concious of the how politicans might react before doing anything now.
Like with the BLM protests there was not that many arrests and instead some police joined in on the kneeling instead of dispersing the crowd.
They shouldn't be doing that. The police should not be making political statements.
I dont know where you get I am saying that one cause is more worthy than the other. I think all causes are equal in their right to protest.
The image I linked is of a local councillor to me. It just shows the hypocrisy. They condem protests they disagree with calling them idiotic but slam the police for shutting down an illegal gathering when the police was just enforcing the law. The only reason they are upset is because they think the Vigil was morally right while the anti-lockdown protests were wrong.
As for unreasonable force in the vigil. I didnt see anyway. At best, a bit of pushing and a few arrests. Nothing shocking. But everyone seems to making a huge deal out of the level of force used.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by adam271
Well a lot of this is going off memory.
But it is 100% the case that politicans have a influence on what consitutes a legal protest. By this I mean actual arrests. It shouldnt. But it does. The police are very concious of the how politicans might react before doing anything now.
Like with the BLM protests there was not that many arrests and instead some police joined in on the kneeling instead of dispersing the crowd.
They shouldn't be doing that. The police should not be making political statements.
I dont know where you get I am saying that one cause is more worthy than the other. I think all causes are equal in their right to protest.
The image I linked is of a local councillor to me. It just shows the hypocrisy. They condem protests they disagree with calling them idiotic but slam the police for shutting down an illegal gathering when the police was just enforcing the law. The only reason they are upset is because they think the Vigil was morally right while the anti-lockdown protests were wrong.
As for unreasonable force in the vigil. I didnt see anyway. At best, a bit of pushing and a few arrests. Nothing shocking. But everyone seems to making a huge deal out of the level of force used.
But it is 100% the case that politicans have a influence on what consitutes a legal protest. By this I mean actual arrests. It shouldnt. But it does. The police are very concious of the how politicans might react before doing anything now.
Like with the BLM protests there was not that many arrests and instead some police joined in on the kneeling instead of dispersing the crowd.
They shouldn't be doing that. The police should not be making political statements.
I dont know where you get I am saying that one cause is more worthy than the other. I think all causes are equal in their right to protest.
The image I linked is of a local councillor to me. It just shows the hypocrisy. They condem protests they disagree with calling them idiotic but slam the police for shutting down an illegal gathering when the police was just enforcing the law. The only reason they are upset is because they think the Vigil was morally right while the anti-lockdown protests were wrong.
As for unreasonable force in the vigil. I didnt see anyway. At best, a bit of pushing and a few arrests. Nothing shocking. But everyone seems to making a huge deal out of the level of force used.
What all of the above seem to be missing is the fact that it is a member of the police force who has been charged with this girl's murder. Therefore police then man handling women at a vigil in her memory is terrible purely in optics if nothing else. Also there has been a great out pouring of mutual outrage that women are routinely threatened in their daily lives by men so P C plod going in with their size nines was plain stupid. Only good thing it had highlighted gov's plan to restrict democratic right to protest at all in it's bill in the commons tomorrow.
Not knowing their reasoning other than "covid" its hard to say. Suffice it to say if they thought the optics on this would be anything but horrific they should be sacked for the opinion 
Girl is butchered by the met so the met decides to beat up the women protesting that. Say what you will about covid and right of assembly to protest but this was a particularly stupid move on their part. Its just s shame **** (i love that her name is censored here) wont resign, rarely has the met had such an incompetent leader as her.
Girl is butchered by the met so the met decides to beat up the women protesting that. Say what you will about covid and right of assembly to protest but this was a particularly stupid move on their part. Its just s shame **** (i love that her name is censored here) wont resign, rarely has the met had such an incompetent leader as her.
Original post by Napp
Not knowing their reasoning other than "covid" its hard to say. Suffice it to say if they thought the optics on this would be anything but horrific they should be sacked for the opinion Girl is butchered by the met so the met decides to beat up the women protesting that. Say what you will about covid and right of assembly to protest but this was a particularly stupid move on their part. Its just s shame **** (i love that her name is censored here) wont resign, rarely has the met had such an incompetent leader as her.
Girl is butchered by the met so the met decides to beat up the women protesting that. Say what you will about covid and right of assembly to protest but this was a particularly stupid move on their part. Its just s shame **** (i love that her name is censored here) wont resign, rarely has the met had such an incompetent leader as her.Yup, seems obvious the violent presence of the Met in particular would antagonise and alarm resulting in huge media problems,. They've went ahead anyway so that's on them. Funny how every other force did so much better.
Original post by StriderHort
Yup, seems obvious the violent presence of the Met in particular would antagonise and alarm resulting in huge media problems,. They've went ahead anyway so that's on them. Funny how every other force did so much better.
To be honest. If anyone believes in stopping gathers to prevent covid it made sense to break it up.
I don't think they should of been treated any differently to any other illegal gathering
Original post by adam271
To be honest. If anyone believes in stopping gathers to prevent covid it made sense to break it up.
I don't think they should of been treated any differently to any other illegal gathering
I don't think they should of been treated any differently to any other illegal gathering
Oh I can see how the Police are damned if they do, damned if they don't, but that doesn't change that they should have known the visuals would be awful. IMO Police should be more concerned with dynamic de escalation of illegal gatherings rather than any zero tolerance principle. To say nothing of issues of policing by consent and community relations
Original post by The RAR
Is funny, is BLM all over again. These people are probably the same people who before supported all these lockdowns and coronavirus legislations but the moment it doesn't go their way suddenly it's a problem? I also find it very cringe how many news outlets are saying "Male officers manhandling women" as if there is some sort of oppression against women going on. This is just a stunt by some idiots who are looking for trouble, just like BLM a few months back.
I wonder what percentage of people who attended the vigil, also attended the BLM rally and the XR rally. I’d like to see that stat.
Original post by StriderHort
Oh I can see how the Police are damned if they do, damned if they don't, but that doesn't change that they should have known the visuals would be awful. IMO Police should be more concerned with dynamic de escalation of illegal gatherings rather than any zero tolerance principle. To say nothing of issues of policing by consent and community relations
Should the police care, its their job to enforce the law. They asked people to leave they refused. The only way to avoid a confrontation was to allowed them to stay. Which would of not only been against the law but would of been discriminatory against other protesters who did get arrested and fined. I wonder how many at the Vigil got fined.
I think this is a difficult one.
I think police are really starting to question themselves a lot. I wouldnt want to be a police officer.
Like, if you stop a black person are you a racist? You could be accused of racism.
If some drunk girl spits in your face and you push her head against the wall to stop her doing it again will someone take a snap and report you?
I dont know the answers, I def dont want to be a police officer though. I couldnt handle all the plebs with their cameras out trying to provoke something just so they can upload it on twitter and youtube.
Just the Met doing what the Met do best, massively overreacting.
Health protections laws are designed to protect health and the transmissibility of the virus we are being protected from is severely reduced when outdoors so was there a major risk to health with all those people outside? No.
Was there a high risk of public disorder at the vigil? No.
So who does it protect to arrest a few women at a vigil?
Did a Met officer kidnap, rape and murder the woman for which this vigil was for? Probably, the Met need to break it up because it makes them look bad and they need to make themselves look even worse.
Health protections laws are designed to protect health and the transmissibility of the virus we are being protected from is severely reduced when outdoors so was there a major risk to health with all those people outside? No.
Was there a high risk of public disorder at the vigil? No.
So who does it protect to arrest a few women at a vigil?
Did a Met officer kidnap, rape and murder the woman for which this vigil was for? Probably, the Met need to break it up because it makes them look bad and they need to make themselves look even worse.
Original post by Joleee
...regarding the second para, it actually isn't the burden of police or politicans to decide what constitutes a legal protest - that's the responsibility of judges when they decide what was reasonable in the situation, and indeed they will examine the cases of the four who were arrested if they get charged...
I’m not sure this is quite right, for two reasons. First, the High Court on Friday agreed that a blanket ban on protests would be unlawful, but that whether or not it would be unlawful to restrict a specific protest would come down to whether the restriction was “necessary and proportionate”; that assessment has to come in the first instance from the police. Second, whether or not a particular protest is lawful, and whether or not someone could be properly prosecuted for a breach of the covid regulations (which you mention) are separate questions.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Aussie police uninvited from Mardi Gras after double homicide
- Relationships as a police officer
- Hurt or Heal (girls names)
- Which name do you like?
- GCSE ENGLISH LANGUAGE Paper 1 Question 5
- UCLAN vet med interviews
- UCLANN PLEASE HELP!!!!! Does Uclan accept A-level resit student for pharmacy????
- UClan Return to Study
- Is season 2 of Vigil any good?
- UCLan Psychology
- UCLAN pharmacy 2023
- Physician Associate UCLan Undergrad 2024
- Vet medicine interview
- UCLan Modern Languages Japanese and Korean
- Locker rentals at Sir Tom Finney Sports Centre
- UCLan Clearing - MPharm Pharmacy
- Dmu vs uni of roehampton/london
- Stressed out with student finance
- Uclan university pharmacy
- University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) A100 2024 Entry
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
