Also in the news

[Big Dave]

Just now, harpendenfox said:

Surely if the Police had kept a distant and low profile, then the gathering, described as being in the hundreds, takes place and then disperses of its own accord with no harm done?

Agree completely. Yes, they shouldn’t have been there, but it was (supposed to be) a peaceful vigil. From what I have seen, it would have been until the Police stepped in.  This was outdoors, so little to no risk of spread of Covid, so was this in the public interest for the Police to react the way they did?

[Pliskin]

4 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

I think the middle paragraph is the most telling. The powers that be as you describe them, are the ones to blame for me. The actual individual police officers I understand were just following orders so I'm not blaming them or wanting them sacked. I said last night people like Dick, Patel, Kahn and local MPs have a lot to answer for. They would have been the ones giving orders/making decisions and any wrong doing should fall on their heads. I just think it could have been handled differently from the beginning. It didn't need to end like this.

That’s where I agree with you, the ones who will simply hide behind the police’s actions. They could have together come up with a plan, no one would have said anything if it was allowed to be carried out peacefully. Like you said earlier, common sense should prevail in situations like this, just show how those at the top just lack any kind of empathy and logical thinking in situations like this. Even if there was some kind of public communication where they explain their decision, but no, instead were left with images of public order and unrest.... further damaging the real message trying to be delivered.

[Sir Shep]

Ah yes, people sat in their nice and safe ivory towers launching scathing attack’s on the police attending a “vigil” that was deemed against the law. I’ve no doubt that within this crowd there would have been a small minority who attended to just to bait the police as well, police officers no doubt knackered after a year of dealing with more tw@‘s than usual along with reduced numbers amongst their ranks. 

 

I cant defend the actions of some police officers, they should have known better and no doubt this will be looked at but again we are just getting this one sided picture from fawning celebrities, media and MP’s who aren’t on the front line day in day out and like posted above, there’s a family dealing with the worst news ever amongst all this. 

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, Big Dave said:

Agree completely. Yes, they shouldn’t have been there, but it was (supposed to be) a peaceful vigil. From what I have seen, it would have been until the Police stepped in.  This was outdoors, so little to no risk of spread of Covid, so was this in the public interest for the Police to react the way they did?

Yes, because if police let one group of people break the rules, then every other group will think they can do the same. Doing something for a good reason, like a vigil, doesn't make this group special, or exempt from the rules that are rightly or wrongly guiding us all. Personally wouldn't have minded them carrying on, but it shouldn't surprise anyone that it was stopped.

[Lcfc82]

6 minutes ago, Big Dave said:

The vigil was not organised by Reclaim The Streets. The original one was,  it RTS cancelled the event and told people not to attend.  

I’d argue despite cancelling it they knew people would still turn up. Once they had originally announced the “ vigil “ it was always going to happen 

[peach0000]

1 minute ago, Lcfc82 said:

I’d argue despite cancelling it they knew people would still turn up. Once they had originally announced the “ vigil “ it was always going to happen 

Which is exactly why the decision to not allow it to go ahead in an organised and covid secure way was a bizarre decision. By trying to stop the spread of covid the police and courts have put more people at risk of catching covid. 

[TamworthFoxes]

4 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

Which is exactly why the decision to not allow it to go ahead in an organised and covid secure way was a bizarre decision. By trying to stop the spread of covid the police and courts have put more people at risk of catching covid. 

The lengths you are going to to defend this illegal gathering is embarrassing.

A bizarre decision not to let people gather during a pandemic?! Really?

So by banning a gathering the courts risked people catching covid?! No just the opposite, if people had listened then no one turns up hence no risk whatsoever.

 

[nnfox]

31 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

Have you seen the footage from last night? I ask because I’m wondering how you can watch it and not say it’s heavy handed

*just a random tweet. I’ve posted purely for the video rather than the actual content of the tweet! 

That really isn't heavy handed.

 

That's officers engaging with the protesters, asking them to move and then when the protester refuses to comply with that lawful order, the police then physically remove them with a proportionate use of force. 

 

The police are an authority.  If they lawfully tell someone to move (not ask) and that person refuses, what would you like to see happen? 

[peach0000]

Just now, TamworthFoxes said:

The lengths you are going to to defend this illegal gathering is embarrassing.

A bizarre decision not to let people gather during a pandemic?! Really?

So by banning a gathering the courts risked people catching covid?! No just the opposite, if people had listened then no one turns up hence no risk whatsoever.

 

Yes! For the simple reason that it was never going to be stopped. It would have been safer to do it in an organised way rather than an unorganised one. Emotions are running so high, across the country and more specifically in Clapham that it was not something the courts could realistically stop happening. The only real question was how it could happen in the safest possible way and they essentially picked the least safe option possible.

 

Look we disagree on this issue. I get that. But we can have a discussion and share ideas without agreeing (I know we won't). But I wouldn't call your opinions embarrassing so I'm not sure why you feel the need to resort to such arguments. 

[Sir Shep]

Let’s not forgot as well all those who did stay away and hold a vigil on their doorstep, whole family’s distanced properly from their neighbours. Sadly the original message seems to getting lost now. 

[Scotch]

1 minute ago, Sir Shep said:

Let’s not forgot as well all those who did stay away and hold a vigil on their doorstep, whole family’s distanced properly from their neighbours. Sadly the original message seems to getting lost now. 

Thats my issue with this. No one is talking about Sarah anymore. It's about the protesters and the police. 

 

This "vigil" has has the opposite effect than the one originally intended. 

[Big Dave]

The vigil was cancelled by the organisers because the Police failed to interact with them in a meaningful way with regards to arrangements for the vigil.

The Police basically said it was an illegal gathering.  The Human Rights Act (which trumps other legislation) says that it is illegal to outright ban and protests: gathering, rather the Police must engage with groups.  They did not do this.  They did this with the BLM protests, why not with this.  Anything to do with one of their own murdering the victim?

The majority of BLM protests held around the country (where the Police interacted with the organisers) were very well organised and peaceful, with no issues.

Yea, with this vigil there were thousands of people turn up. What good is going to come often I g to move on, and then arrest people for not moving on.  Are the Police going to try and arrest everyone?  They would have been much better just observing g the vigil, and only stepping in if there was an issue of unrest, violence, etc.

The handling of this by the Police has been appalling, and they are rightly being criticised.

[Big Dave]

7 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

Thats my issue with this. No one is talking about Sarah anymore. It's about the protesters and the police. 

 

This "vigil" has has the opposite effect than the one originally intended. 

If the Police hadn’t handled this so badly and just let the vigil happen peacefully, we would still be talking about Sarah and the peaceful vigil.

[Gordon the Great]

10 hours ago, theessexfox said:

I was at the vigil tonight, was completely fine and pretty socially distanced until the police escalated it. Just really shocking policing, no idea how they thought what they were doing would help the situation 

Thought you were told not to go, or does the law not apply here?

[TamworthFoxes]

5 minutes ago, Big Dave said:

If the Police hadn’t handled this so badly and just let the vigil happen peacefully, we would still be talking about Sarah and the peaceful vigil.

The police never handled this badly.

They broke up a court ruled illegal gathering. As they should do.

The one video posted on here shows them doing so with minimum force after obviously pleading with people to move.

We can’t pick and choose when we want police to uphold the law. 
BLM gathering - fine crack on good cause no police required.

EDL gathering - police need to smash these up horrible people 

Vigil/ Reclaim the streets - good cause, crack on no police required.

Football fans gathering- police required, stop it ASAP no need for the gathering.

Doesn’t  work like that. Twitter doesn’t decide when the law is to be followed or not.

[Scotch]

9 minutes ago, Big Dave said:

If the Police hadn’t handled this so badly and just let the vigil happen peacefully, we would still be talking about Sarah and the peaceful vigil.

No. Don't agree. This wasn't a vigil and was never going to be. It was a protest, let's call it what it was. 

 

I have no doubt that the original organisers intended it to be a vigil but not everyone who attended had that intention.

[yorkie1999]

So much for “crime” (not really a crime though is it) prevention. The police knew there was going to be a gathering, why not stop it before it happens, can’t be that hard, they’ve managed it with football crowds for years. Why wait for an event to take place and then decide to break it up, surely, with vast experience of crowd management, they could predict what would happen. It almost seems like a set up. ACAB

[RowlattsFox]

I see the ginger women who was arrested is now trying to arrange further 'vigils' today. Unnecessary escalation and comes across as attention seeking. I wonder if she's one them at that turn up at every protest, whatever the cause. 

[peach0000]

3 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

So much for “crime” (not really a crime though is it) prevention. The police knew there was going to be a gathering, why not stop it before it happens, can’t be that hard, they’ve managed it with football crowds for years. Why wait for an event to take place and then decide to break it up, surely, with vast experience of crowd management, they could predict what would happen. It almost seems like a set up. ACAB

This is a point I hadn't considered but a good one. They could have just closed Clapham Common if they wanted to stop the vigil going ahead. 

Edited 14 March 2021 by peach0000

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough.

 

In that case, I am interested in what could be done by folks to benefit the cause that would be deemed "socially acceptable".

Repeating because I am still interested in an answer from those here who would say the gathering last night shouldn't have happened (and yes, by the letter of the law, it shouldn't).

 

Let's talk solutions rather than problems if the cause is actually worth something.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

1 hour ago, nnfox said:

Just this week the Met were criticised for being too lenient.  Despite what anybody thinks about the rights and wrongs of the situation, the police in the UK aren't heavy handed.

They're heavy handed when there is no danger to themselves. Hence why they shat their pants at the BLM rallies and were chased all over London.

[Gordon the Great]

9 hours ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

A quick point on the Met police.

 

What a 12 months those guys have had. During a deadly pandemic, they’ve been asked to manage widespread BLM protests where they’ve been labelled racists, anti-lockdown protests where they’ve been painted as ‘the mob taking away people’s liberties’, forced to break up illegal raves and house parties and now to put an end to what was (rightly or wrongly) an illegal gathering with this vigil on Clapham Common. That last one whilst having had one of their colleagues arrested on suspicion of murder and then that blown into a wider point around the trustworthiness of the police and/or their effectiveness/capability.

 

Underneath each of those hats is a person who probably hasn’t much wanted to be out and about whilst COVID ripped through the nation or told that, actually, regardless of the risk you take on through your job, you’re not any higher up the vaccine queue than you already are based on age. There’s someone who more likely than not is not a racist, or a rapist, despite the calls to defund their organisation or the shouts of “shame on you” at the vigil tonight.

 

I lived in London for 5 years and these are the men and women who have one of the hardest jobs in the world keeping people safe. Fighting knife crime, preventing terrorism, policing the largest events in the country and a highly populated city. They do it brilliantly.

 

So I won’t be joining in any pile on about how they handled the technically illegal event tonight. It doesn’t look good

but it never could look good. In the same way as you’re at risk of harm if you don’t interact with police peacefully and calmly when they are doing their job, if you went to an illegal gathering on Clapham Common tonight then you were also at risk of the police moving through the levels of response they needed to in order to split that up.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

A quick point on the Met police.

 

What a 12 months those guys have had. During a deadly pandemic, they’ve been asked to manage widespread BLM protests where they’ve been labelled racists, anti-lockdown protests where they’ve been painted as ‘the mob taking away people’s liberties’, forced to break up illegal raves and house parties and now to put an end to what was (rightly or wrongly) an illegal gathering with this vigil on Clapham Common. That last one whilst having had one of their colleagues arrested on suspicion of murder and then that blown into a wider point around the trustworthiness of the police and/or their effectiveness/capability.

 

Underneath each of those hats is a person who probably hasn’t much wanted to be out and about whilst COVID ripped through the nation or told that, actually, regardless of the risk you take on through your job, you’re not any higher up the vaccine queue than you already are based on age. There’s someone who more likely than not is not a racist, or a rapist, despite the calls to defund their organisation or the shouts of “shame on you” at the vigil tonight.

 

I lived in London for 5 years and these are the men and women who have one of the hardest jobs in the world keeping people safe. Fighting knife crime, preventing terrorism, policing the largest events in the country and a highly populated city. They do it brilliantly.

 

So I won’t be joining in any pile on about how they handled the technically illegal event tonight. It doesn’t look good

but it never could look good. In the same way as you’re at risk of harm if you don’t interact with police peacefully and calmly when they are doing their job, if you went to an illegal gathering on Clapham Common tonight then you were also at risk of the police moving through the levels of response they needed to in order to split that up.

 

 

This really has to be post of the year on any of our forums, a massive blast of rational clear thinking common sense which as we all know is not so common. I really do congratulate you on this wise, well thought out and articulate post but, be warned, it will not go down well in some quarters on here.

[TamworthFoxes]

1 minute ago, Gordon the Great said:

 

This really has to be post of the year on any of our forums, a massive blast of rational clear thinking common sense which as we all know is not so common. I really do congratulate you on this wise, well thought out and articulate post but, be warned, it will not go down well in some quarters on here.

Definitely not when a post contains ACAB at the end and gets more than one thumbs up!

Tells you everything about the leanings of people on here.

[Mike Oxlong]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Repeating because I am still interested in an answer from those here who would say the gathering last night shouldn't have happened (and yes, by the letter of the law, it shouldn't).

 

Let's talk solutions rather than problems if the cause is actually worth something.

My thoughts - The doorstep tribute yesterday, vigils/ protests when permissible but above all a campaign that seeks to educate about how certain behaviour affects the person that it is directed at. Something like an ad campaign and talks in schools - this is what you say/this is how that makes me feel. You could criminalise certain behaviours but the most effective and long term solution is to change minds/values by educating 

Edited 14 March 2021 by Mike Oxlong

[Gordon the Great]

9 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

So much for “crime” (not really a crime though is it) prevention. The police knew there was going to be a gathering, why not stop it before it happens, can’t be that hard, they’ve managed it with football crowds for years. Why wait for an event to take place and then decide to break it up, surely, with vast experience of crowd management, they could predict what would happen. It almost seems like a set up. ACAB

Read the above and weep folks, just pray that this is not indicative of the average City fan or contributor to this forum..ACAB...really...........ACAB!...It will be home rule for Tooting next!