Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really do suspect that if twice as many people turned up today at NSY they would not have acted in the same way as they did at the vigil site. They won't tomorrow either, and I will bet a number way past those on both these days so far will attend." What's going on tomorrow? I'm not too sure what the issue is regards yesterday. The police chose to enforce the law, today they didn't. Now, I can understand people may be angry at the lack of consistency but why are we so angry st them enforcing the law? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i dare say the usual 'silent majority' of tory voters are getting over excited at the prospect of the police sooner or later rounding up and arresting all these leftist socialist corbynistas who are daring to defy the government to express their views" no I've broken the law many times and been punished rightly so they broke the law so got just deserves im no police fan but it's there job I for one wouldn't have let it get that big to start with. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Now, I can understand people may be angry at the lack of consistency but why are we so angry st them enforcing the law?" I think that 'context' of violence is the answer to that. There is another protest tomorrow called by the woman - Patsy Stevenson - who is in that main picture we see of her being pinned to the ground. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That rabble where a discrace and let women down very much in my view" Who are the "rabble", the women attending the vigil, or the police who got heavy handed with them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Now, I can understand people may be angry at the lack of consistency but why are we so angry st them enforcing the law? I think that 'context' of violence is the answer to that. There is another protest tomorrow called by the woman - Patsy Stevenson - who is in that main picture we see of her being pinned to the ground. " Oh yeah, I did know about that one. This is the thing, she knows its banned but is going ahead anyway? Isn't that just asking for trouble? In terms of context, is it ok that at least one person was caught on video vandalising a police vehicle. This is the thing with 'context', any side will only show the side that paints the others in bad light. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That rabble where a discrace and let women down very much in my view Who are the "rabble", the women attending the vigil, or the police who got heavy handed with them?" the crowd I'd presume and not all women. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cresida Dick in her own words: "the protest had become unlawful and the force had to act" And she adds: "later on a large crowd gathered and we had to do something". So she is not accusing anyone of unlawful behaviour except the size of the gathering. And just as unlawful today - yet a softly hand-off approach. Looking at the pictures today there are probably more people." yep and is do the same as yesterday go in hard they are just pampering to the softies today. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cresida Dick in her own words: "the protest had become unlawful and the force had to act" And she adds: "later on a large crowd gathered and we had to do something". So she is not accusing anyone of unlawful behaviour except the size of the gathering. And just as unlawful today - yet a softly hand-off approach. Looking at the pictures today there are probably more people." As I've said before, it went on for 6 hours without issue. Then they decided the gathering got too big so was unlawful. Then I'm gonna imagine there were public order offences, I'm not guessing, I've seen a couple of videos so imagine there's more. Then criminal damage. I don't for one minute doubt it could've been handled better but what do they do if people aren't compliant, it's not always black and white | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That rabble where a discrace and let women down very much in my view Who are the "rabble", the women attending the vigil, or the police who got heavy handed with them?the crowd I'd presume and not all women." Oh standard right wing victim blaming nonsense then. Crack on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That rabble where a discrace and let women down very much in my view Who are the "rabble", the women attending the vigil, or the police who got heavy handed with them?the crowd I'd presume and not all women." You have a point? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today." 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today." You get the impression that even if the police came out and said 'actually we got it wrong '(yeah right)the people protesting would still get the blame. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law." We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. You get the impression that even if the police came out and said 'actually we got it wrong '(yeah right)the people protesting would still get the blame." that's because those protesting are in the wrong and nobody else to blame but themselves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground " I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law." Until the Law has shown to be broken, then the Law actually hasn't been broken. Otherwise, we step clearly into the realm of Minority Report and the Pre-Crimes Division. All the police needed to see and understand was the context of violence and violence used. I always have had a good understanding that the police do a difficult job - this has actually rocked that view for me. The new proposed legislation may make this very much worse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out." You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That rabble where a discrace and let women down very much in my view Who are the "rabble", the women attending the vigil, or the police who got heavy handed with them?the crowd I'd presume and not all women. Oh standard right wing victim blaming nonsense then. Crack on." victim don't make me laugh only victim was the lady murdered. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it?" Yes I did bring it up. Maybe ask yourself the context in which it was said seeing as you wanna talk context. If you struggle to figure it out I'll happily help. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That rabble where a discrace and let women down very much in my view Who are the "rabble", the women attending the vigil, or the police who got heavy handed with them?the crowd I'd presume and not all women. Oh standard right wing victim blaming nonsense then. Crack on. victim don't make me laugh only victim was the lady murdered." You have no problem with women being pinned to the foor presumably? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the Law has shown to be broken, then the Law actually hasn't been broken. Otherwise, we step clearly into the realm of Minority Report and the Pre-Crimes Division. All the police needed to see and understand was the context of violence and violence used. I always have had a good understanding that the police do a difficult job - this has actually rocked that view for me. The new proposed legislation may make this very much worse." the road to damascus ... but 30 years too late i fear | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That rabble where a discrace and let women down very much in my view Who are the "rabble", the women attending the vigil, or the police who got heavy handed with them?the crowd I'd presume and not all women. Oh standard right wing victim blaming nonsense then. Crack on. victim don't make me laugh only victim was the lady murdered." Laugh all you like, police violence towards women isn't that funny to me. Especially given the context of the background to the vigil. It doesn't send a good message. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. Until the Law has shown to be broken, then the Law actually hasn't been broken. Otherwise, we step clearly into the realm of Minority Report and the Pre-Crimes Division. All the police needed to see and understand was the context of violence and violence used. I always have had a good understanding that the police do a difficult job - this has actually rocked that view for me. The new proposed legislation may make this very much worse. " There is clear video evidence of laws being broken. Granted, no one has been to court and been found guilty. However, if that's how we play it then nothing would ever get to that stage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it? Yes I did bring it up. Maybe ask yourself the context in which it was said seeing as you wanna talk context. If you struggle to figure it out I'll happily help." I'm fully aware of the context. There was a virgil for a woman who was murdered by a policeman(allegedly) During scuffles a window was smashed. So obviously this entitled them to go in mob handed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That rabble where a discrace and let women down very much in my view Who are the "rabble", the women attending the vigil, or the police who got heavy handed with them?the crowd I'd presume and not all women. Oh standard right wing victim blaming nonsense then. Crack on. victim don't make me laugh only victim was the lady murdered. You have no problem with women being pinned to the foor presumably?" not if they have broken the law just because they're woman doesn't mean anything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That rabble where a discrace and let women down very much in my view Who are the "rabble", the women attending the vigil, or the police who got heavy handed with them?the crowd I'd presume and not all women. Oh standard right wing victim blaming nonsense then. Crack on. victim don't make me laugh only victim was the lady murdered. You have no problem with women being pinned to the foor presumably? not if they have broken the law just because they're woman doesn't mean anything." What law did she break? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Laugh all you like, police violence towards women isn't that funny to me. Especially given the context of the background to the vigil. It doesn't send a good message." maybe some bizarrely believe that wpc's being violent to other women over the issue of violence to women is fair enough? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the Law has shown to be broken, then the Law actually hasn't been broken. Otherwise, we step clearly into the realm of Minority Report and the Pre-Crimes Division. All the police needed to see and understand was the context of violence and violence used. I always have had a good understanding that the police do a difficult job - this has actually rocked that view for me. The new proposed legislation may make this very much worse. the road to damascus ... but 30 years too late i fear" Not so much a road to Damascus as it is a rationalising of two evils. People are bad. People need policing. Policing is bad. People need to be bad to stop bad policing. People . . . well you get the rest I guess. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Laugh all you like, police violence towards women isn't that funny to me. Especially given the context of the background to the vigil. It doesn't send a good message. maybe some bizarrely believe that wpc's being violent to other women over the issue of violence to women is fair enough? " The issue is the violence used in the context of women and violence in the country in which we live. The police in this context are the institution, be they women or men. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the Law has shown to be broken, then the Law actually hasn't been broken. Otherwise, we step clearly into the realm of Minority Report and the Pre-Crimes Division. All the police needed to see and understand was the context of violence and violence used. I always have had a good understanding that the police do a difficult job - this has actually rocked that view for me. The new proposed legislation may make this very much worse. the road to damascus ... but 30 years too late i fear Not so much a road to Damascus as it is a rationalising of two evils. People are bad. People need policing. Policing is bad. People need to be bad to stop bad policing. People . . . well you get the rest I guess. " the police only enforce the laws that are enacted by the politicians that their supporters vote for. in this instance the people who voted for this government have received the policing they deserve. perhaps it will encourage them to vote more wisely on a broader range of issues in the future rather than just the ones that affect their wallets | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That rabble where a discrace and let women down very much in my view Who are the "rabble", the women attending the vigil, or the police who got heavy handed with them?the crowd I'd presume and not all women. Oh standard right wing victim blaming nonsense then. Crack on. victim don't make me laugh only victim was the lady murdered. You have no problem with women being pinned to the foor presumably? not if they have broken the law just because they're woman doesn't mean anything. What law did she break?" they were told no vigil she new what she was doing for me I'd have closed the park and fined anyone or didn't leave so lionel what laws didn't they break | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That rabble where a discrace and let women down very much in my view Who are the "rabble", the women attending the vigil, or the police who got heavy handed with them?the crowd I'd presume and not all women. Oh standard right wing victim blaming nonsense then. Crack on. victim don't make me laugh only victim was the lady murdered. You have no problem with women being pinned to the foor presumably? not if they have broken the law just because they're woman doesn't mean anything. What law did she break?they were told no vigil she new what she was doing for me I'd have closed the park and fined anyone or didn't leave so lionel what laws didn't they break" So why didnt they close the park? Would that not have been easier? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is the violence used in the context of women and violence in the country in which we live. The police in this context are the institution, be they women or men." you appear to be advocating that if the protesters were men then they would be fair game for over-policing ... that's how it reads anyway. perhaps you could clarify | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the Law has shown to be broken, then the Law actually hasn't been broken. Otherwise, we step clearly into the realm of Minority Report and the Pre-Crimes Division. All the police needed to see and understand was the context of violence and violence used. I always have had a good understanding that the police do a difficult job - this has actually rocked that view for me. The new proposed legislation may make this very much worse. the road to damascus ... but 30 years too late i fear Not so much a road to Damascus as it is a rationalising of two evils. People are bad. People need policing. Policing is bad. People need to be bad to stop bad policing. People . . . well you get the rest I guess. the police only enforce the laws that are enacted by the politicians that their supporters vote for. in this instance the people who voted for this government have received the policing they deserve. perhaps it will encourage them to vote more wisely on a broader range of issues in the future rather than just the ones that affect their wallets" Oh! If only. The police enact the Law with such a wide variance across the country as for it to be not be the same police force. But Regardless - we don't get to vote for our local sheriff. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That rabble where a discrace and let women down very much in my view Who are the "rabble", the women attending the vigil, or the police who got heavy handed with them?the crowd I'd presume and not all women. Oh standard right wing victim blaming nonsense then. Crack on. victim don't make me laugh only victim was the lady murdered. You have no problem with women being pinned to the foor presumably? not if they have broken the law just because they're woman doesn't mean anything. What law did she break?they were told no vigil she new what she was doing for me I'd have closed the park and fined anyone or didn't leave so lionel what laws didn't they break So why didnt they close the park? Would that not have been easier?" yes it would have but they didn't . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it? Yes I did bring it up. Maybe ask yourself the context in which it was said seeing as you wanna talk context. If you struggle to figure it out I'll happily help. I'm fully aware of the context. There was a virgil for a woman who was murdered by a policeman(allegedly) During scuffles a window was smashed. So obviously this entitled them to go in mob handed." The person who caused criminal damage was not involved in a scuffle. Bte, the context is that not everyone at that vigil was peaceful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is the violence used in the context of women and violence in the country in which we live. The police in this context are the institution, be they women or men. you appear to be advocating that if the protesters were men then they would be fair game for over-policing ... that's how it reads anyway. perhaps you could clarify" No. I was pointing out that the tool of the police force is the 'police officer' - it does not matter in that context that the police officer is male or female. They just become the institution of policing and the way they are instructed to police. Today. The institution of policing, chose NOT to police the way they did yesterday. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the Law has shown to be broken, then the Law actually hasn't been broken. Otherwise, we step clearly into the realm of Minority Report and the Pre-Crimes Division. All the police needed to see and understand was the context of violence and violence used. I always have had a good understanding that the police do a difficult job - this has actually rocked that view for me. The new proposed legislation may make this very much worse. the road to damascus ... but 30 years too late i fear Not so much a road to Damascus as it is a rationalising of two evils. People are bad. People need policing. Policing is bad. People need to be bad to stop bad policing. People . . . well you get the rest I guess. the police only enforce the laws that are enacted by the politicians that their supporters vote for. in this instance the people who voted for this government have received the policing they deserve. perhaps it will encourage them to vote more wisely on a broader range of issues in the future rather than just the ones that affect their wallets Oh! If only. The police enact the Law with such a wide variance across the country as for it to be not be the same police force. But Regardless - we don't get to vote for our local sheriff." but we do get to vote for our local sheriff/police and crime comissioner since 2012 ... in fact i believe you have the chance to exercise your vote later this year. apparently, according to the conservative party who introduced the system, this gives you choice and democratic control of policing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is the violence used in the context of women and violence in the country in which we live. The police in this context are the institution, be they women or men. you appear to be advocating that if the protesters were men then they would be fair game for over-policing ... that's how it reads anyway. perhaps you could clarify No. I was pointing out that the tool of the police force is the 'police officer' - it does not matter in that context that the police officer is male or female. They just become the institution of policing and the way they are instructed to police. Today. The institution of policing, chose NOT to police the way they did yesterday. " the boss of the met and her boss, the home secretary carry the can on this one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That rabble where a discrace and let women down very much in my view Who are the "rabble", the women attending the vigil, or the police who got heavy handed with them?the crowd I'd presume and not all women. Oh standard right wing victim blaming nonsense then. Crack on." So when rights get trampled on if the consensus of people " Think" it's ok even if laws are in place that people circumvent those laws is ok. Covid kills but let's just gather. Then when it is enforced because people can die everyone screams foul. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it? Yes I did bring it up. Maybe ask yourself the context in which it was said seeing as you wanna talk context. If you struggle to figure it out I'll happily help. I'm fully aware of the context. There was a virgil for a woman who was murdered by a policeman(allegedly) During scuffles a window was smashed. So obviously this entitled them to go in mob handed. The person who caused criminal damage was not involved in a scuffle. Bte, the context is that not everyone at that vigil was peaceful." Neither were the police | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the Law has shown to be broken, then the Law actually hasn't been broken. Otherwise, we step clearly into the realm of Minority Report and the Pre-Crimes Division. All the police needed to see and understand was the context of violence and violence used. I always have had a good understanding that the police do a difficult job - this has actually rocked that view for me. The new proposed legislation may make this very much worse. the road to damascus ... but 30 years too late i fear Not so much a road to Damascus as it is a rationalising of two evils. People are bad. People need policing. Policing is bad. People need to be bad to stop bad policing. People . . . well you get the rest I guess. the police only enforce the laws that are enacted by the politicians that their supporters vote for. in this instance the people who voted for this government have received the policing they deserve. perhaps it will encourage them to vote more wisely on a broader range of issues in the future rather than just the ones that affect their wallets Oh! If only. The police enact the Law with such a wide variance across the country as for it to be not be the same police force. But Regardless - we don't get to vote for our local sheriff. but we do get to vote for our local sheriff/police and crime comissioner since 2012 ... in fact i believe you have the chance to exercise your vote later this year. apparently, according to the conservative party who introduced the system, this gives you choice and democratic control of policing." A crime commissioner is manna for the masses. It means little in terms of local policing and how policing is undertaken. The crime commissioner is a hoodwinking of 'the people have control' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bte, the context is that not everyone at that vigil was peaceful. Neither were the police " that is the historic policy for the met that many approve of though hey. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it? Yes I did bring it up. Maybe ask yourself the context in which it was said seeing as you wanna talk context. If you struggle to figure it out I'll happily help. I'm fully aware of the context. There was a virgil for a woman who was murdered by a policeman(allegedly) During scuffles a window was smashed. So obviously this entitled them to go in mob handed. The person who caused criminal damage was not involved in a scuffle. Bte, the context is that not everyone at that vigil was peaceful. Neither were the police " I don't think anyone has denied that there may have been some police who went overboard. Maybe, you should become a police officer and try to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders and show us all how easy it is  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A crime commissioner is manna for the masses. It means little in terms of local policing and how policing is undertaken. The crime commissioner is a hoodwinking of 'the people have control'" i agree, and also the standard right wingers reply of 'you have a say on every topic through the ballot box'. it's smoke screen nonsense | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is the violence used in the context of women and violence in the country in which we live. The police in this context are the institution, be they women or men. you appear to be advocating that if the protesters were men then they would be fair game for over-policing ... that's how it reads anyway. perhaps you could clarify No. I was pointing out that the tool of the police force is the 'police officer' - it does not matter in that context that the police officer is male or female. They just become the institution of policing and the way they are instructed to police. Today. The institution of policing, chose NOT to police the way they did yesterday. the boss of the met and her boss, the home secretary carry the can on this one." The Operational Commander carry the can for the day. The arguing that comes later is another thing entirely. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it? Yes I did bring it up. Maybe ask yourself the context in which it was said seeing as you wanna talk context. If you struggle to figure it out I'll happily help. I'm fully aware of the context. There was a virgil for a woman who was murdered by a policeman(allegedly) During scuffles a window was smashed. So obviously this entitled them to go in mob handed. The person who caused criminal damage was not involved in a scuffle. Bte, the context is that not everyone at that vigil was peaceful. Neither were the police I don't think anyone has denied that there may have been some police who went overboard. Maybe, you should become a police officer and try to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders and show us all how easy it is "Or have less officers because of "optics". We all seen how "optics" played out. Make up your minds you either going to enforce laws or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is the violence used in the context of women and violence in the country in which we live. The police in this context are the institution, be they women or men. you appear to be advocating that if the protesters were men then they would be fair game for over-policing ... that's how it reads anyway. perhaps you could clarify No. I was pointing out that the tool of the police force is the 'police officer' - it does not matter in that context that the police officer is male or female. They just become the institution of policing and the way they are instructed to police. Today. The institution of policing, chose NOT to police the way they did yesterday. the boss of the met and her boss, the home secretary carry the can on this one. The Operational Commander carry the can for the day. The arguing that comes later is another thing entirely." women being in charge of policing other women over the issue of violence against women and getting it terribly wrong whereby women being violent against other women is now a fact in this country. it's tragic but real and i think many women will be confused and feel cheated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don't think anyone has denied that there may have been some police who went overboard." Isn't that exactly what is bbeing argued here? "Maybe, you should become a police officer and try to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders and show us all how easy it is "And nobody needs to drive a car at 80mph on a 40mph street to know that doing so is wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Laugh all you like, police violence towards women isn't that funny to me. Especially given the context of the background to the vigil. It doesn't send a good message. maybe some bizarrely believe that wpc's being violent to other women over the issue of violence to women is fair enough? " Some people seem to have a massive boner for police violence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Laugh all you like, police violence towards women isn't that funny to me. Especially given the context of the background to the vigil. It doesn't send a good message. maybe some bizarrely believe that wpc's being violent to other women over the issue of violence to women is fair enough? Some people seem to have a massive boner for police violence. " our home secretary pretty repelant for one | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Isn't that exactly what is bbeing argued here? " Fair point, I said nobody has denied that, they have. " And nobody needs to drive a car at 80mph on a 40mph street to know that doing so is wrong. " Maybe it was wrong, I still haven't heard anyone offer an alternative way to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is the violence used in the context of women and violence in the country in which we live. The police in this context are the institution, be they women or men. you appear to be advocating that if the protesters were men then they would be fair game for over-policing ... that's how it reads anyway. perhaps you could clarify No. I was pointing out that the tool of the police force is the 'police officer' - it does not matter in that context that the police officer is male or female. They just become the institution of policing and the way they are instructed to police. Today. The institution of policing, chose NOT to police the way they did yesterday. the boss of the met and her boss, the home secretary carry the can on this one. The Operational Commander carry the can for the day. The arguing that comes later is another thing entirely. women being in charge of policing other women over the issue of violence against women and getting it terribly wrong whereby women being violent against other women is now a fact in this country. it's tragic but real and i think many women will be confused and feel cheated." I think that if you think that Cressida Dick was in Operational Control during the Vigil I think that you would be wrong. The Operational Commander on the evening would have given the orders to intervene they way they did. He'she had the choice to behave like they did today or behave like they did at the Vigil. And I suspect it will happen tomorrow just like it did today outside NSY and nothing like it did on Clapham Common. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is the violence used in the context of women and violence in the country in which we live. The police in this context are the institution, be they women or men. you appear to be advocating that if the protesters were men then they would be fair game for over-policing ... that's how it reads anyway. perhaps you could clarify No. I was pointing out that the tool of the police force is the 'police officer' - it does not matter in that context that the police officer is male or female. They just become the institution of policing and the way they are instructed to police. Today. The institution of policing, chose NOT to police the way they did yesterday. the boss of the met and her boss, the home secretary carry the can on this one. The Operational Commander carry the can for the day. The arguing that comes later is another thing entirely. women being in charge of policing other women over the issue of violence against women and getting it terribly wrong whereby women being violent against other women is now a fact in this country. it's tragic but real and i think many women will be confused and feel cheated. I think that if you think that Cressida Dick was in Operational Control during the Vigil I think that you would be wrong. The Operational Commander on the evening would have given the orders to intervene they way they did. He'she had the choice to behave like they did today or behave like they did at the Vigil. And I suspect it will happen tomorrow just like it did today outside NSY and nothing like it did on Clapham Common. " i disagree. a high profile situation such as this would have seen dick in constant communication with her officers on the ground. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Isn't that exactly what is bbeing argued here? Fair point, I said nobody has denied that, they have. And nobody needs to drive a car at 80mph on a 40mph street to know that doing so is wrong. Maybe it was wrong, I still haven't heard anyone offer an alternative way to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders." If you watch the video you can clearly see that Patsy Stevenson is dragged away from the fencing - she doesn't appear to be holding - or trying to stop the police, they just grab her - and the person next to her and throw her to the ground. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is the violence used in the context of women and violence in the country in which we live. The police in this context are the institution, be they women or men. you appear to be advocating that if the protesters were men then they would be fair game for over-policing ... that's how it reads anyway. perhaps you could clarify No. I was pointing out that the tool of the police force is the 'police officer' - it does not matter in that context that the police officer is male or female. They just become the institution of policing and the way they are instructed to police. Today. The institution of policing, chose NOT to police the way they did yesterday. the boss of the met and her boss, the home secretary carry the can on this one. The Operational Commander carry the can for the day. The arguing that comes later is another thing entirely. women being in charge of policing other women over the issue of violence against women and getting it terribly wrong whereby women being violent against other women is now a fact in this country. it's tragic but real and i think many women will be confused and feel cheated. I think that if you think that Cressida Dick was in Operational Control during the Vigil I think that you would be wrong. The Operational Commander on the evening would have given the orders to intervene they way they did. He'she had the choice to behave like they did today or behave like they did at the Vigil. And I suspect it will happen tomorrow just like it did today outside NSY and nothing like it did on Clapham Common. i disagree. a high profile situation such as this would have seen dick in constant communication with her officers on the ground. " And by that measure - she was in contact today too and chose not to behave like they did at Clapham Common. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you watch the video you can clearly see that Patsy Stevenson is dragged away from the fencing - she doesn't appear to be holding - or trying to stop the police, they just grab her - and the person next to her and throw her to the ground." sir steve house is actively lobbying the government to make it illegal for protesters to 'go floppy' when they are arrested and removed from demonstrations saying it is a form of resisting arrest. seems like more tory stalinism | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is the violence used in the context of women and violence in the country in which we live. The police in this context are the institution, be they women or men. you appear to be advocating that if the protesters were men then they would be fair game for over-policing ... that's how it reads anyway. perhaps you could clarify No. I was pointing out that the tool of the police force is the 'police officer' - it does not matter in that context that the police officer is male or female. They just become the institution of policing and the way they are instructed to police. Today. The institution of policing, chose NOT to police the way they did yesterday. the boss of the met and her boss, the home secretary carry the can on this one. The Operational Commander carry the can for the day. The arguing that comes later is another thing entirely. women being in charge of policing other women over the issue of violence against women and getting it terribly wrong whereby women being violent against other women is now a fact in this country. it's tragic but real and i think many women will be confused and feel cheated. I think that if you think that Cressida Dick was in Operational Control during the Vigil I think that you would be wrong. The Operational Commander on the evening would have given the orders to intervene they way they did. He'she had the choice to behave like they did today or behave like they did at the Vigil. And I suspect it will happen tomorrow just like it did today outside NSY and nothing like it did on Clapham Common. i disagree. a high profile situation such as this would have seen dick in constant communication with her officers on the ground. And by that measure - she was in contact today too and chose not to behave like they did at Clapham Common." yep ... it's just that it isn't the patriarchy responsible for the policy anymore. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it? Yes I did bring it up. Maybe ask yourself the context in which it was said seeing as you wanna talk context. If you struggle to figure it out I'll happily help. I'm fully aware of the context. There was a virgil for a woman who was murdered by a policeman(allegedly) During scuffles a window was smashed. So obviously this entitled them to go in mob handed. The person who caused criminal damage was not involved in a scuffle. Bte, the context is that not everyone at that vigil was peaceful. Neither were the police I don't think anyone has denied that there may have been some police who went overboard. Maybe, you should become a police officer and try to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders and show us all how easy it is "Ah the old well see if you can do better argument. If only there was some way they could have some sort of training. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Isn't that exactly what is bbeing argued here? Fair point, I said nobody has denied that, they have. And nobody needs to drive a car at 80mph on a 40mph street to know that doing so is wrong. Maybe it was wrong, I still haven't heard anyone offer an alternative way to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders." Do you not think when you try to kettle in protesters there might be some blowback? From what I saw yesterday..the violence was extremely minor compared to countless other demos. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you watch the video you can clearly see that Patsy Stevenson is dragged away from the fencing - she doesn't appear to be holding - or trying to stop the police, they just grab her - and the person next to her and throw her to the ground. sir steve house is actively lobbying the government to make it illegal for protesters to 'go floppy' when they are arrested and removed from demonstrations saying it is a form of resisting arrest. seems like more tory stalinism " Great bunch of lads. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it? Yes I did bring it up. Maybe ask yourself the context in which it was said seeing as you wanna talk context. If you struggle to figure it out I'll happily help. I'm fully aware of the context. There was a virgil for a woman who was murdered by a policeman(allegedly) During scuffles a window was smashed. So obviously this entitled them to go in mob handed. The person who caused criminal damage was not involved in a scuffle. Bte, the context is that not everyone at that vigil was peaceful. Neither were the police I don't think anyone has denied that there may have been some police who went overboard. Maybe, you should become a police officer and try to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders and show us all how easy it is
Or have less officers because of "optics". We all seen how "optics" played out. Make up your minds you either going to enforce laws or not."I think we are just not that used to policeman committing murder on the streets in this country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it? Yes I did bring it up. Maybe ask yourself the context in which it was said seeing as you wanna talk context. If you struggle to figure it out I'll happily help. I'm fully aware of the context. There was a virgil for a woman who was murdered by a policeman(allegedly) During scuffles a window was smashed. So obviously this entitled them to go in mob handed. The person who caused criminal damage was not involved in a scuffle. Bte, the context is that not everyone at that vigil was peaceful. Neither were the police I don't think anyone has denied that there may have been some police who went overboard. Maybe, you should become a police officer and try to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders and show us all how easy it is
Or have less officers because of "optics". We all seen how "optics" played out. Make up your minds you either going to enforce laws or not.
I think we are just not that used to policeman committing murder on the streets in this country."So when police officer kills someone with a gun the officer is bad. But when a badguy shoots people he is not to blame it's the gun. When laws put in effect to save lives from covid but the crowd gets to big and they enforce those laws for general safety it's the police force fault. Covid kills too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it? Yes I did bring it up. Maybe ask yourself the context in which it was said seeing as you wanna talk context. If you struggle to figure it out I'll happily help. I'm fully aware of the context. There was a virgil for a woman who was murdered by a policeman(allegedly) During scuffles a window was smashed. So obviously this entitled them to go in mob handed. The person who caused criminal damage was not involved in a scuffle. Bte, the context is that not everyone at that vigil was peaceful. Neither were the police I don't think anyone has denied that there may have been some police who went overboard. Maybe, you should become a police officer and try to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders and show us all how easy it is
Or have less officers because of "optics". We all seen how "optics" played out. Make up your minds you either going to enforce laws or not.
I think we are just not that used to policeman committing murder on the streets in this country.
So when police officer kills someone with a gun the officer is bad. But when a badguy shoots people he is not to blame it's the gun. When laws put in effect to save lives from covid but the crowd gets to big and they enforce those laws for general safety it's the police force fault. Covid kills too."I'm not sure I can even follow that. Who mentioned guns? There has been an outpouring of anger because a man who's job it is,is to protect the public,has allegedly murdered a woman Saying simplistic things like,oh they broke the law,misses The point somewhat(and that's not just aimed at you) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it? Yes I did bring it up. Maybe ask yourself the context in which it was said seeing as you wanna talk context. If you struggle to figure it out I'll happily help. I'm fully aware of the context. There was a virgil for a woman who was murdered by a policeman(allegedly) During scuffles a window was smashed. So obviously this entitled them to go in mob handed. The person who caused criminal damage was not involved in a scuffle. Bte, the context is that not everyone at that vigil was peaceful. Neither were the police I don't think anyone has denied that there may have been some police who went overboard. Maybe, you should become a police officer and try to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders and show us all how easy it is
Or have less officers because of "optics". We all seen how "optics" played out. Make up your minds you either going to enforce laws or not.
I think we are just not that used to policeman committing murder on the streets in this country.
So when police officer kills someone with a gun the officer is bad. But when a badguy shoots people he is not to blame it's the gun. When laws put in effect to save lives from covid but the crowd gets to big and they enforce those laws for general safety it's the police force fault. Covid kills too.
I'm not sure I can even follow that.
Who mentioned guns?
There has been an outpouring of anger because a man who's job it is,is to protect the public,has allegedly murdered a woman
Saying simplistic things like,oh they broke the law,misses The point somewhat(and that's not just aimed at you)"Was he caught ? Yes.. Is he going to be prosecuted? Yes.. You screamed over the summer that people supporting trump are idiots for gathering in large crowds. Yet when said crowds gather there where there is laws against it you scream foul when it is enforced. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Isn't that exactly what is bbeing argued here? Fair point, I said nobody has denied that, they have. And nobody needs to drive a car at 80mph on a 40mph street to know that doing so is wrong. Maybe it was wrong, I still haven't heard anyone offer an alternative way to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders. Do you not think when you try to kettle in protesters there might be some blowback? From what I saw yesterday..the violence was extremely minor compared to countless other demos. " They weren't trying to kettle them. They were trying to disperse them. It's quite the opposite | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it? Yes I did bring it up. Maybe ask yourself the context in which it was said seeing as you wanna talk context. If you struggle to figure it out I'll happily help. I'm fully aware of the context. There was a virgil for a woman who was murdered by a policeman(allegedly) During scuffles a window was smashed. So obviously this entitled them to go in mob handed. The person who caused criminal damage was not involved in a scuffle. Bte, the context is that not everyone at that vigil was peaceful. Neither were the police I don't think anyone has denied that there may have been some police who went overboard. Maybe, you should become a police officer and try to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders and show us all how easy it is
Or have less officers because of "optics". We all seen how "optics" played out. Make up your minds you either going to enforce laws or not.
I think we are just not that used to policeman committing murder on the streets in this country.
So when police officer kills someone with a gun the officer is bad. But when a badguy shoots people he is not to blame it's the gun. When laws put in effect to save lives from covid but the crowd gets to big and they enforce those laws for general safety it's the police force fault. Covid kills too.
I'm not sure I can even follow that.
Who mentioned guns?
There has been an outpouring of anger because a man who's job it is,is to protect the public,has allegedly murdered a woman
Saying simplistic things like,oh they broke the law,misses The point somewhat(and that's not just aimed at you)
Was he caught ? Yes..
Is he going to be prosecuted? Yes..
You screamed over the summer that people supporting trump are idiots for gathering in large crowds. Yet when said crowds gather there where there is laws against it you scream foul when it is enforced."It's the same old, same old. We want the law enforced, but only when it suits the agenda. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it? Yes I did bring it up. Maybe ask yourself the context in which it was said seeing as you wanna talk context. If you struggle to figure it out I'll happily help. I'm fully aware of the context. There was a virgil for a woman who was murdered by a policeman(allegedly) During scuffles a window was smashed. So obviously this entitled them to go in mob handed. The person who caused criminal damage was not involved in a scuffle. Bte, the context is that not everyone at that vigil was peaceful. Neither were the police I don't think anyone has denied that there may have been some police who went overboard. Maybe, you should become a police officer and try to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders and show us all how easy it is
Or have less officers because of "optics". We all seen how "optics" played out. Make up your minds you either going to enforce laws or not.
I think we are just not that used to policeman committing murder on the streets in this country.
So when police officer kills someone with a gun the officer is bad. But when a badguy shoots people he is not to blame it's the gun. When laws put in effect to save lives from covid but the crowd gets to big and they enforce those laws for general safety it's the police force fault. Covid kills too.
I'm not sure I can even follow that.
Who mentioned guns?
There has been an outpouring of anger because a man who's job it is,is to protect the public,has allegedly murdered a woman
Saying simplistic things like,oh they broke the law,misses The point somewhat(and that's not just aimed at you)
Was he caught ? Yes..
Is he going to be prosecuted? Yes..
You screamed over the summer that people supporting trump are idiots for gathering in large crowds. Yet when said crowds gather there where there is laws against it you scream foul when it is enforced.
It's the same old, same old.
We want the law enforced, but only when it suits the agenda. "Exactly if there is a law the population agrees with no one is immune to it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it? Yes I did bring it up. Maybe ask yourself the context in which it was said seeing as you wanna talk context. If you struggle to figure it out I'll happily help. I'm fully aware of the context. There was a virgil for a woman who was murdered by a policeman(allegedly) During scuffles a window was smashed. So obviously this entitled them to go in mob handed. The person who caused criminal damage was not involved in a scuffle. Bte, the context is that not everyone at that vigil was peaceful. Neither were the police I don't think anyone has denied that there may have been some police who went overboard. Maybe, you should become a police officer and try to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders and show us all how easy it is
Or have less officers because of "optics". We all seen how "optics" played out. Make up your minds you either going to enforce laws or not.
I think we are just not that used to policeman committing murder on the streets in this country.
So when police officer kills someone with a gun the officer is bad. But when a badguy shoots people he is not to blame it's the gun. When laws put in effect to save lives from covid but the crowd gets to big and they enforce those laws for general safety it's the police force fault. Covid kills too.
I'm not sure I can even follow that.
Who mentioned guns?
There has been an outpouring of anger because a man who's job it is,is to protect the public,has allegedly murdered a woman
Saying simplistic things like,oh they broke the law,misses The point somewhat(and that's not just aimed at you)
Was he caught ? Yes..
Is he going to be prosecuted? Yes..
You screamed over the summer that people supporting trump are idiots for gathering in large crowds. Yet when said crowds gather there where there is laws against it you scream foul when it is enforced."I don't remember anyone saying that the police should start bashing trump supporters. Just that his super spreader rallies where a bad idea. But sure, some people seem to get pretty excited about some police brutality at a peaceful vigil against violence on women. So maybe they don't really care either way who is protesting what and why. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it? Yes I did bring it up. Maybe ask yourself the context in which it was said seeing as you wanna talk context. If you struggle to figure it out I'll happily help. I'm fully aware of the context. There was a virgil for a woman who was murdered by a policeman(allegedly) During scuffles a window was smashed. So obviously this entitled them to go in mob handed. The person who caused criminal damage was not involved in a scuffle. Bte, the context is that not everyone at that vigil was peaceful. Neither were the police I don't think anyone has denied that there may have been some police who went overboard. Maybe, you should become a police officer and try to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders and show us all how easy it is
Or have less officers because of "optics". We all seen how "optics" played out. Make up your minds you either going to enforce laws or not.
I think we are just not that used to policeman committing murder on the streets in this country.
So when police officer kills someone with a gun the officer is bad. But when a badguy shoots people he is not to blame it's the gun. When laws put in effect to save lives from covid but the crowd gets to big and they enforce those laws for general safety it's the police force fault. Covid kills too.
I'm not sure I can even follow that.
Who mentioned guns?
There has been an outpouring of anger because a man who's job it is,is to protect the public,has allegedly murdered a woman
Saying simplistic things like,oh they broke the law,misses The point somewhat(and that's not just aimed at you)
Was he caught ? Yes..
Is he going to be prosecuted? Yes..
You screamed over the summer that people supporting trump are idiots for gathering in large crowds. Yet when said crowds gather there where there is laws against it you scream foul when it is enforced.
I don't remember anyone saying that the police should start bashing trump supporters. Just that his super spreader rallies where a bad idea.
But sure, some people seem to get pretty excited about some police brutality at a peaceful vigil against violence on women. So maybe they don't really care either way who is protesting what and why."And a large gathering for a vigil is not a super spreader? Does covid just hide behind trees waiting until the event is over? Like it or not the law was put into place to prevent spread over there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it? Yes I did bring it up. Maybe ask yourself the context in which it was said seeing as you wanna talk context. If you struggle to figure it out I'll happily help. I'm fully aware of the context. There was a virgil for a woman who was murdered by a policeman(allegedly) During scuffles a window was smashed. So obviously this entitled them to go in mob handed. The person who caused criminal damage was not involved in a scuffle. Bte, the context is that not everyone at that vigil was peaceful. Neither were the police I don't think anyone has denied that there may have been some police who went overboard. Maybe, you should become a police officer and try to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders and show us all how easy it is
Or have less officers because of "optics". We all seen how "optics" played out. Make up your minds you either going to enforce laws or not.
I think we are just not that used to policeman committing murder on the streets in this country.
So when police officer kills someone with a gun the officer is bad. But when a badguy shoots people he is not to blame it's the gun. When laws put in effect to save lives from covid but the crowd gets to big and they enforce those laws for general safety it's the police force fault. Covid kills too.
I'm not sure I can even follow that.
Who mentioned guns?
There has been an outpouring of anger because a man who's job it is,is to protect the public,has allegedly murdered a woman
Saying simplistic things like,oh they broke the law,misses The point somewhat(and that's not just aimed at you)
Was he caught ? Yes..
Is he going to be prosecuted? Yes..
You screamed over the summer that people supporting trump are idiots for gathering in large crowds. Yet when said crowds gather there where there is laws against it you scream foul when it is enforced.
I don't remember anyone saying that the police should start bashing trump supporters. Just that his super spreader rallies where a bad idea.
But sure, some people seem to get pretty excited about some police brutality at a peaceful vigil against violence on women. So maybe they don't really care either way who is protesting what and why.
And a large gathering for a vigil is not a super spreader? Does covid just hide behind trees waiting until the event is over? Like it or not the law was put into place to prevent spread over there.
"Peaceful protest against violence on women seems like a more valid reason to get together than to massage the ego of a big man-baby. But I get your point, protesting during a pandemic isn't the best idea. Still don't think that justifies the police brutality. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it? Yes I did bring it up. Maybe ask yourself the context in which it was said seeing as you wanna talk context. If you struggle to figure it out I'll happily help. I'm fully aware of the context. There was a virgil for a woman who was murdered by a policeman(allegedly) During scuffles a window was smashed. So obviously this entitled them to go in mob handed. The person who caused criminal damage was not involved in a scuffle. Bte, the context is that not everyone at that vigil was peaceful. Neither were the police I don't think anyone has denied that there may have been some police who went overboard. Maybe, you should become a police officer and try to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders and show us all how easy it is
Or have less officers because of "optics". We all seen how "optics" played out. Make up your minds you either going to enforce laws or not.
I think we are just not that used to policeman committing murder on the streets in this country.
So when police officer kills someone with a gun the officer is bad. But when a badguy shoots people he is not to blame it's the gun. When laws put in effect to save lives from covid but the crowd gets to big and they enforce those laws for general safety it's the police force fault. Covid kills too.
I'm not sure I can even follow that.
Who mentioned guns?
There has been an outpouring of anger because a man who's job it is,is to protect the public,has allegedly murdered a woman
Saying simplistic things like,oh they broke the law,misses The point somewhat(and that's not just aimed at you)
Was he caught ? Yes..
Is he going to be prosecuted? Yes..
You screamed over the summer that people supporting trump are idiots for gathering in large crowds. Yet when said crowds gather there where there is laws against it you scream foul when it is enforced."Once again with the whatabouttery Did the crowds last night try to stage a revolution? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Isn't that exactly what is bbeing argued here? Fair point, I said nobody has denied that, they have. And nobody needs to drive a car at 80mph on a 40mph street to know that doing so is wrong. Maybe it was wrong, I still haven't heard anyone offer an alternative way to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders. Do you not think when you try to kettle in protesters there might be some blowback? From what I saw yesterday..the violence was extremely minor compared to countless other demos. They weren't trying to kettle them. They were trying to disperse them. It's quite the opposite "I've read several accounts of eye witnesses who said the police employed settling techniques. They must be mistaken | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Isn't that exactly what is bbeing argued here? Fair point, I said nobody has denied that, they have. And nobody needs to drive a car at 80mph on a 40mph street to know that doing so is wrong. Maybe it was wrong, I still haven't heard anyone offer an alternative way to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders. Do you not think when you try to kettle in protesters there might be some blowback? From what I saw yesterday..the violence was extremely minor compared to countless other demos. They weren't trying to kettle them. They were trying to disperse them. It's quite the opposite
I've read several accounts of eye witnesses who said the police employed settling techniques.
They must be mistaken "Maybe they aren't mistaken but I'll stick with the actual footage I've seen rather than any so called 'eye-witnesses'. I wonder what all of those who weren't bothered made of it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it? Yes I did bring it up. Maybe ask yourself the context in which it was said seeing as you wanna talk context. If you struggle to figure it out I'll happily help. I'm fully aware of the context. There was a virgil for a woman who was murdered by a policeman(allegedly) During scuffles a window was smashed. So obviously this entitled them to go in mob handed. The person who caused criminal damage was not involved in a scuffle. Bte, the context is that not everyone at that vigil was peaceful. Neither were the police I don't think anyone has denied that there may have been some police who went overboard. Maybe, you should become a police officer and try to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders and show us all how easy it is
Or have less officers because of "optics". We all seen how "optics" played out. Make up your minds you either going to enforce laws or not.
I think we are just not that used to policeman committing murder on the streets in this country.
So when police officer kills someone with a gun the officer is bad. But when a badguy shoots people he is not to blame it's the gun. When laws put in effect to save lives from covid but the crowd gets to big and they enforce those laws for general safety it's the police force fault. Covid kills too.
I'm not sure I can even follow that.
Who mentioned guns?
There has been an outpouring of anger because a man who's job it is,is to protect the public,has allegedly murdered a woman
Saying simplistic things like,oh they broke the law,misses The point somewhat(and that's not just aimed at you)
Was he caught ? Yes..
Is he going to be prosecuted? Yes..
You screamed over the summer that people supporting trump are idiots for gathering in large crowds. Yet when said crowds gather there where there is laws against it you scream foul when it is enforced.
I don't remember anyone saying that the police should start bashing trump supporters. Just that his super spreader rallies where a bad idea.
But sure, some people seem to get pretty excited about some police brutality at a peaceful vigil against violence on women. So maybe they don't really care either way who is protesting what and why.
And a large gathering for a vigil is not a super spreader? Does covid just hide behind trees waiting until the event is over? Like it or not the law was put into place to prevent spread over there.
Peaceful protest against violence on women seems like a more valid reason to get together than to massage the ego of a big man-baby.
But I get your point, protesting during a pandemic isn't the best idea.
Still don't think that justifies the police brutality."But like the riots here super spreader events. So what if someone was infected with a new strain at the vigil. Grant it here the majority do not care about covid . Hence why the strict lockdown there and because of laws. Where is the balance ? Should those laws have been implemented in the first place? Crazy arguments that cause more disdain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There were just 4 arrests - for public order and covid regs. So I really don't accept the notion that it was a widespread problem that the Police were dealing with. Probably more people attended today, and yet they did nothing but monitor. And now the crowd had gone home peacefully without incident. The Police chose to police it the way they did at the vigil - just like they chose how they policed it today. 4 arrests doesn't necessarily mean 4 offences committed. There could've been hundreds of minor offences that were dealt with softly. We weren't there so hard to know the full story. Anyway, hopefully going forward they deal with this situation softly, I think they will. I will say though, if they choose the tough approach then if it's within the law, it's within the law. We dont know the full story yet you have consistently claimed the police did nothing wrong and have compared a mirror beyond broken to several police officers pinning a woman to the ground I haven't once said the police did nothing wrong. Neither have I compared the 2 situations. I have pointed out that not all protestors were innocent though, hence the criminal damage I've pointed out. You brought up a mirror being smashed Hardly the crime off the century given the context was it? Yes I did bring it up. Maybe ask yourself the context in which it was said seeing as you wanna talk context. If you struggle to figure it out I'll happily help. I'm fully aware of the context. There was a virgil for a woman who was murdered by a policeman(allegedly) During scuffles a window was smashed. So obviously this entitled them to go in mob handed. The person who caused criminal damage was not involved in a scuffle. Bte, the context is that not everyone at that vigil was peaceful. Neither were the police I don't think anyone has denied that there may have been some police who went overboard. Maybe, you should become a police officer and try to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders and show us all how easy it is
Or have less officers because of "optics". We all seen how "optics" played out. Make up your minds you either going to enforce laws or not.
I think we are just not that used to policeman committing murder on the streets in this country.
So when police officer kills someone with a gun the officer is bad. But when a badguy shoots people he is not to blame it's the gun. When laws put in effect to save lives from covid but the crowd gets to big and they enforce those laws for general safety it's the police force fault. Covid kills too.
I'm not sure I can even follow that.
Who mentioned guns?
There has been an outpouring of anger because a man who's job it is,is to protect the public,has allegedly murdered a woman
Saying simplistic things like,oh they broke the law,misses The point somewhat(and that's not just aimed at you)
Was he caught ? Yes..
Is he going to be prosecuted? Yes..
You screamed over the summer that people supporting trump are idiots for gathering in large crowds. Yet when said crowds gather there where there is laws against it you scream foul when it is enforced.
I don't remember anyone saying that the police should start bashing trump supporters. Just that his super spreader rallies where a bad idea.
But sure, some people seem to get pretty excited about some police brutality at a peaceful vigil against violence on women. So maybe they don't really care either way who is protesting what and why.
And a large gathering for a vigil is not a super spreader? Does covid just hide behind trees waiting until the event is over? Like it or not the law was put into place to prevent spread over there.
Peaceful protest against violence on women seems like a more valid reason to get together than to massage the ego of a big man-baby.
But I get your point, protesting during a pandemic isn't the best idea.
Still don't think that justifies the police brutality."So many bad things over the whole affair. Policing the demonstration was obviously not thought through and to heavy handed. The demonstration taking place in a pandemic (super spreader). Watching the BBC I see some demonstrators were wearing masks so fear trouble makers infiltrating as has happened in other events. Let's not forget the the family in grieving after their loved one was taken by a person employed to protect her | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Isn't that exactly what is bbeing argued here? Fair point, I said nobody has denied that, they have. And nobody needs to drive a car at 80mph on a 40mph street to know that doing so is wrong. Maybe it was wrong, I still haven't heard anyone offer an alternative way to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders. Do you not think when you try to kettle in protesters there might be some blowback? From what I saw yesterday..the violence was extremely minor compared to countless other demos. They weren't trying to kettle them. They were trying to disperse them. It's quite the opposite
I've read several accounts of eye witnesses who said the police employed settling techniques.
They must be mistaken
Maybe they aren't mistaken but I'll stick with the actual footage I've seen rather than any so called 'eye-witnesses'.
I wonder what all of those who weren't bothered made of it?"Werent bothered with what? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Isn't that exactly what is bbeing argued here? Fair point, I said nobody has denied that, they have. And nobody needs to drive a car at 80mph on a 40mph street to know that doing so is wrong. Maybe it was wrong, I still haven't heard anyone offer an alternative way to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders. Do you not think when you try to kettle in protesters there might be some blowback? From what I saw yesterday..the violence was extremely minor compared to countless other demos. They weren't trying to kettle them. They were trying to disperse them. It's quite the opposite
I've read several accounts of eye witnesses who said the police employed settling techniques.
They must be mistaken
Maybe they aren't mistaken but I'll stick with the actual footage I've seen rather than any so called 'eye-witnesses'.
I wonder what all of those who weren't bothered made of it?
Werent bothered with what?"They weren't bothered by the police. Quiet words were had and 95% of people dispersed peacefully | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Isn't that exactly what is bbeing argued here? Fair point, I said nobody has denied that, they have. And nobody needs to drive a car at 80mph on a 40mph street to know that doing so is wrong. Maybe it was wrong, I still haven't heard anyone offer an alternative way to deal with aggressive/resistant offenders. Do you not think when you try to kettle in protesters there might be some blowback? From what I saw yesterday..the violence was extremely minor compared to countless other demos. They weren't trying to kettle them. They were trying to disperse them. It's quite the opposite
I've read several accounts of eye witnesses who said the police employed settling techniques.
They must be mistaken
Maybe they aren't mistaken but I'll stick with the actual footage I've seen rather than any so called 'eye-witnesses'.
I wonder what all of those who weren't bothered made of it?
Werent bothered with what?
They weren't bothered by the police. Quiet words were had and 95% of people dispersed peacefully "I've no idea. Like I said before its been a total cock up and instead of trying to win people over they have succeeded in making it worse. That image of the girl being pinned down with be in all the papers tomorrow.. apart from the mail obviously who will have a 22 page spread calling for megan to be banned from the uk. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Controlling large groups of illegally gathering people is always easy lol you just have a quiet word, use a bit of humour and its all under control, police don't even need tazers and batons, just a friendly smile "It's amazing how many people are so enthused by some police violence that they will say anything to justify it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Controlling large groups of illegally gathering people is always easy lol you just have a quiet word, use a bit of humour and its all under control, police don't even need tazers and batons, just a friendly smile
It's amazing how many people are so enthused by some police violence that they will say anything to justify it.
"Who's that? I'm saying it's easy to control hundreds of people, even if some are intent on being a problem lol i bet you could do it easy! Personally I find it strange how some people revel in disorder, as if thats a good thing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That rabble where a discrace and let women down very much in my view Who are the "rabble", the women attending the vigil, or the police who got heavy handed with them?the crowd I'd presume and not all women. Oh standard right wing victim blaming nonsense then. Crack on. victim don't make me laugh only victim was the lady murdered. Laugh all you like, police violence towards women isn't that funny to me. Especially given the context of the background to the vigil. It doesn't send a good message." I cannot and will not condone Police violence. Shades here of the Miners Strike and Orgreave - there is often more than one way to deal with a difficult situation. Violence is an unsatisfactory outcome. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Given it was a Met Officer arrested for murder, a bit more subtlty was called for. No other protest led to violence. This was wrongly handled by the Met and the on site Commander should go, followed by Cressida Dick. How will women ever feel safe if they can’t protest against murder - especially when the murderer is a policeman. Truly shocking "#dickout | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Given it was a Met Officer arrested for murder, a bit more subtlty was called for. No other protest led to violence. This was wrongly handled by the Met and the on site Commander should go, followed by Cressida Dick. How will women ever feel safe if they can’t protest against murder - especially when the murderer is a policeman. Truly shocking "Clearly it's a UK social issue since it all about equality and men's attitude twords women. No repercussions no safety net. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Letter of the law! Spirit of the law! Can you honestly answer “yes” to both of those in this circumstance? If not, then how about using some common sense... Is a vigil for a murdered person and going to a rave really comparable? If not..... don’t do it! "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At the end of the day they could have all stayed at home held a candlelit vigil on their doorsteps which would have caused plenty of media coverage for the right reasons a bit like clap for carers did. Instead they chose to go against the law at the moment of mass gatherings and are now getting media coverage for the wrong reasons, the poor woman who was murdered seems to be a sideline now. The pandemic is not over and these people are not helping any one of us by breaking the rules,i do find it funny that people who were so up in arms about someone driving his family to his home in the 1st lockdown are now defending hundreds who are clearly breaking the law after being told not to." One of your lowest comments. At the end of the day the policeman could have chosen not to murder. Your misogyny is coming out strongly here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At the end of the day they could have all stayed at home held a candlelit vigil on their doorsteps which would have caused plenty of media coverage for the right reasons a bit like clap for carers did. Instead they chose to go against the law at the moment of mass gatherings and are now getting media coverage for the wrong reasons, the poor woman who was murdered seems to be a sideline now. The pandemic is not over and these people are not helping any one of us by breaking the rules,i do find it funny that people who were so up in arms about someone driving his family to his home in the 1st lockdown are now defending hundreds who are clearly breaking the law after being told not to. One of your lowest comments. At the end of the day the policeman could have chosen not to murder. Your misogyny is coming out strongly here. " I think the whole thing has shown up a few true colours. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At the end of the day they could have all stayed at home held a candlelit vigil on their doorsteps which would have caused plenty of media coverage for the right reasons a bit like clap for carers did. Instead they chose to go against the law at the moment of mass gatherings and are now getting media coverage for the wrong reasons, the poor woman who was murdered seems to be a sideline now. The pandemic is not over and these people are not helping any one of us by breaking the rules,i do find it funny that people who were so up in arms about someone driving his family to his home in the 1st lockdown are now defending hundreds who are clearly breaking the law after being told not to. One of your lowest comments. At the end of the day the policeman could have chosen not to murder. Your misogyny is coming out strongly here. " Ever murderer has the choice not to murder i dont see your point. Am i wrong saying their actions have highjacked the whole point of it and the message is stay at home and save lives? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At the end of the day they could have all stayed at home held a candlelit vigil on their doorsteps which would have caused plenty of media coverage for the right reasons a bit like clap for carers did. Instead they chose to go against the law at the moment of mass gatherings and are now getting media coverage for the wrong reasons, the poor woman who was murdered seems to be a sideline now. The pandemic is not over and these people are not helping any one of us by breaking the rules,i do find it funny that people who were so up in arms about someone driving his family to his home in the 1st lockdown are now defending hundreds who are clearly breaking the law after being told not to. One of your lowest comments. At the end of the day the policeman could have chosen not to murder. Your misogyny is coming out strongly here. Ever murderer has the choice not to murder i dont see your point. Am i wrong saying their actions have highjacked the whole point of it and the message is stay at home and save lives? " Yes you are | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At the end of the day they could have all stayed at home held a candlelit vigil on their doorsteps which would have caused plenty of media coverage for the right reasons a bit like clap for carers did. Instead they chose to go against the law at the moment of mass gatherings and are now getting media coverage for the wrong reasons, the poor woman who was murdered seems to be a sideline now. The pandemic is not over and these people are not helping any one of us by breaking the rules,i do find it funny that people who were so up in arms about someone driving his family to his home in the 1st lockdown are now defending hundreds who are clearly breaking the law after being told not to. One of your lowest comments. At the end of the day the policeman could have chosen not to murder. Your misogyny is coming out strongly here. Ever murderer has the choice not to murder i dont see your point. Am i wrong saying their actions have highjacked the whole point of it and the message is stay at home and save lives? Yes you are "Well thats cleared that up then i know where you stand on lockdown rules i guess you are another who is not helping the situation end.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So just skip the lockdown rules and open everything back up if you allowed to go against the law in the first place. People have a right to earn a living. Freedom of travel ect ect ect...." It wasnt against the law | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At the end of the day they could have all stayed at home held a candlelit vigil on their doorsteps which would have caused plenty of media coverage for the right reasons a bit like clap for carers did. Instead they chose to go against the law at the moment of mass gatherings and are now getting media coverage for the wrong reasons, the poor woman who was murdered seems to be a sideline now. The pandemic is not over and these people are not helping any one of us by breaking the rules,i do find it funny that people who were so up in arms about someone driving his family to his home in the 1st lockdown are now defending hundreds who are clearly breaking the law after being told not to. One of your lowest comments. At the end of the day the policeman could have chosen not to murder. Your misogyny is coming out strongly here. " Ah, the old i disagree, so i will accuse them of something, wow
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So basically it is like here. You go to a riot burn cities and loot that is a acceptable fom of free speech. "Not saying you are rioting there." But go to a rally it is not a "right". Even tho both have the same effect during a pandemic. The logic is mind boggling." Is it a pre requisite to bring the blm protests into every debate? What cities were burnt down again? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At the end of the day they could have all stayed at home held a candlelit vigil on their doorsteps which would have caused plenty of media coverage for the right reasons a bit like clap for carers did. Instead they chose to go against the law at the moment of mass gatherings and are now getting media coverage for the wrong reasons, the poor woman who was murdered seems to be a sideline now. The pandemic is not over and these people are not helping any one of us by breaking the rules,i do find it funny that people who were so up in arms about someone driving his family to his home in the 1st lockdown are now defending hundreds who are clearly breaking the law after being told not to. One of your lowest comments. At the end of the day the policeman could have chosen not to murder. Your misogyny is coming out strongly here. Ah, the old i disagree, so i will accuse them of something, wow
"Tbf I think its quite a fair comparison to make between someone driving during lockdown and a protest about a woman being murdered by a policeman They are both the same when you think about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At the end of the day they could have all stayed at home held a candlelit vigil on their doorsteps which would have caused plenty of media coverage for the right reasons a bit like clap for carers did. Instead they chose to go against the law at the moment of mass gatherings and are now getting media coverage for the wrong reasons, the poor woman who was murdered seems to be a sideline now. The pandemic is not over and these people are not helping any one of us by breaking the rules,i do find it funny that people who were so up in arms about someone driving his family to his home in the 1st lockdown are now defending hundreds who are clearly breaking the law after being told not to. One of your lowest comments. At the end of the day the policeman could have chosen not to murder. Your misogyny is coming out strongly here. Ever murderer has the choice not to murder i dont see your point. Am i wrong saying their actions have highjacked the whole point of it and the message is stay at home and save lives? Yes you are Well thats cleared that up then i know where you stand on lockdown rules i guess you are another who is not helping the situation end. "Quite the opposite. I fully follow all the Covid rules, but I also recognise that when people are provoked by circumstances - I think murder is reasonable provocation, then they have the right to protest. Obviously it should be peaceful & marshalled as many have been. I object to idiots, not people with principle. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At the end of the day they could have all stayed at home held a candlelit vigil on their doorsteps which would have caused plenty of media coverage for the right reasons a bit like clap for carers did. Instead they chose to go against the law at the moment of mass gatherings and are now getting media coverage for the wrong reasons, the poor woman who was murdered seems to be a sideline now. The pandemic is not over and these people are not helping any one of us by breaking the rules,i do find it funny that people who were so up in arms about someone driving his family to his home in the 1st lockdown are now defending hundreds who are clearly breaking the law after being told not to. One of your lowest comments. At the end of the day the policeman could have chosen not to murder. Your misogyny is coming out strongly here. Ever murderer has the choice not to murder i dont see your point. Am i wrong saying their actions have highjacked the whole point of it and the message is stay at home and save lives? Yes you are Well thats cleared that up then i know where you stand on lockdown rules i guess you are another who is not helping the situation end.
Quite the opposite. I fully follow all the Covid rules, but I also recognise that when people are provoked by circumstances - I think murder is reasonable provocation, then they have the right to protest. Obviously it should be peaceful & marshalled as many have been. I object to idiots, not people with principle."Of course people have the right to protest no one is disputing that, but lawfully.How are they provoked by circumstances? the rule on mass gatherings is there to try and end this nightmare of the last year but some seem to think it doesn't apply to them. Im sure all those people who have been denied a chance to go to loved ones funerals because they followed the rules are well happy seeing the event of the other night let alone the poor family of the dead girl having her death highjacked. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her'" Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. " I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. " In no circumstances did it require the Police to move in mob handed. One of theirs mudered a woman, common sense suggests they should be working to reduce fear and not increase it. This was badly handled by the Police. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. " To put the record straight.... Lucy Letby hasn't been convicted of anything yet, and is still waiting her trial. Happy for you to use Beverly Allitt should you need an example. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. In no circumstances did it require the Police to move in mob handed. One of theirs mudered a woman, common sense suggests they should be working to reduce fear and not increase it. This was badly handled by the Police. " And you base this on what? We're going to suggest your opinion? It's easy for us all to stand and judge based on our emotions, but opinion and emotion is the enemy of fact. Yes they should be working to reduce fear, but they're also charged with ensuring public order, enforcing covid regulations, regulations surrounding mass gathering. Again we refuse to assign blame to either side or promote either side as being in the right purely as we were not there. It just makes our eyes roll how many experts can say they once side is 100% wrong... based on opinion! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion." They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. " Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.?" So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. " I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. " We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. " Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at." There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. " Why did they decide to ban.it when other virgils went ahead? And why didnt they even.engage in a dialogue with the organisers? Why have numerous other gatherings allowed to take place? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. " You're wasting your time with that one  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. You're wasting your time with that one "For clarity: Original organisers approached the Police to run a marshalled vigil in Clapham Common Police threatened them with £10,000 fines if they went ahead as it broke Covid rules Organisers and Met went to High Court. High Court said it was not illegal and the Organisers and Met should sort it out. The Met weren’t interested in an organised vigil and maintained the treat of £10,000 fines, so the Organisers withdrew. As so much sorrow, passion and annoyance existed, it was evident that people would attend the vigil - see other peaceful protests across the country. Vigil goes ahead and is peaceful. Met Police decide it is time to stop it being peaceful and start kettling and jostling people. Strangely, all this passion then leads to confrontation. The Met knew this was going to lead to problems and still went ahead. So, especially given that it was a Met Police Officer that murdered Sarah Everard, they should have handled this way better. Ignoring this is simply condoning violence against women | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. Why did they decide to ban.it when other virgils went ahead? And why didnt they even.engage in a dialogue with the organisers? Why have numerous other gatherings allowed to take place?" Perhaps the same reason they banned various other protests that still went ahead, each with different outcomes because each was a different situation. Numerous other gatherings haven't been allowed to take place, that doesn't mean that they haven't taken place. We do a good job of answering your questions.. you seem to ignore answering ours  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. You're wasting your time with that one
For clarity:
Original organisers approached the Police to run a marshalled vigil in Clapham Common
Police threatened them with £10,000 fines if they went ahead as it broke Covid rules
Organisers and Met went to High Court. High Court said it was not illegal and the Organisers and Met should sort it out.
The Met weren’t interested in an organised vigil and maintained the treat of £10,000 fines, so the Organisers withdrew.
As so much sorrow, passion and annoyance existed, it was evident that people would attend the vigil - see other peaceful protests across the country.
Vigil goes ahead and is peaceful.
Met Police decide it is time to stop it being peaceful and start kettling and jostling people.
Strangely, all this passion then leads to confrontation. The Met knew this was going to lead to problems and still went ahead.
So, especially given that it was a Met Police Officer that murdered Sarah Everard, they should have handled this way better. Ignoring this is simply condoning violence against women "do you know what kettling is , how were so few police going to kettle the crowd on clapham common have you ever been there its vast? The police were trying to get the speakers from the grandstand, what were they doing with placards and loudhailers? it was supposed to be a vigil and it obviously wasn't to some. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" For clarity: Original organisers approached the Police to run a marshalled vigil in Clapham Common Police threatened them with £10,000 fines if they went ahead as it broke Covid rules Organisers and Met went to High Court. High Court said it was not illegal and the Organisers and Met should sort it out. The Met weren’t interested in an organised vigil and maintained the treat of £10,000 fines, so the Organisers withdrew. As so much sorrow, passion and annoyance existed, it was evident that people would attend the vigil - see other peaceful protests across the country. Vigil goes ahead and is peaceful. Met Police decide it is time to stop it being peaceful and start kettling and jostling people. Strangely, all this passion then leads to confrontation. The Met knew this was going to lead to problems and still went ahead. So, especially given that it was a Met Police Officer that murdered Sarah Everard, they should have handled this way better. Ignoring this is simply condoning violence against women "The big problem we see is that the Met got involved, if initial accounts are reliable it appears a good dialogue was established between the original organiser and the borough police for the area. We're confident that had the vigil taken place and been policed by a local borough it would probably have played out better for all involved. The problem is though where do you draw the line, if the police allow this vigil how can it be considered fair that they refused other protests such as BLM marches. Does it then open the flood gates for legal challenges? Can you be seen to be upholding the law if you're complicit with allowing it to be broken by working with people looking to hold a mass gathering in contravention of current laws and guidelines? We have to admit though, everything the Met touches usually turns into a ball of flames. That's not to say the individual officers are the problem, but we definitely think the leadership and direction given is out of touch with public opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. Why did they decide to ban.it when other virgils went ahead? And why didnt they even.engage in a dialogue with the organisers? Why have numerous other gatherings allowed to take place? Perhaps the same reason they banned various other protests that still went ahead, each with different outcomes because each was a different situation. Numerous other gatherings haven't been allowed to take place, that doesn't mean that they haven't taken place. We do a good job of answering your questions.. you seem to ignore answering ours "Nope I said the narrative of the protest being hijacked I tend to take a sceptical view of the police as they have history of leaking these types of stories where they were not at fault in the slightest As for the tales of woe point,I've already said from what I've seen ,the protest was no where as violent as others have been in the past Other gatherings were allowed to take place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So next weekend when someone else decides to hold a protest they should now be allowed to "Well numerous other protests have gone ahead | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So next weekend when someone else decides to hold a protest they should now be allowed to "Well numerous other protests have gone ahead As an aside..where you this vociferous about the pretext the statues protests in the summer? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. You're wasting your time with that one
For clarity:
Original organisers approached the Police to run a marshalled vigil in Clapham Common
Police threatened them with £10,000 fines if they went ahead as it broke Covid rules
Organisers and Met went to High Court. High Court said it was not illegal and the Organisers and Met should sort it out.
The Met weren’t interested in an organised vigil and maintained the treat of £10,000 fines, so the Organisers withdrew.
As so much sorrow, passion and annoyance existed, it was evident that people would attend the vigil - see other peaceful protests across the country.
Vigil goes ahead and is peaceful.
Met Police decide it is time to stop it being peaceful and start kettling and jostling people.
Strangely, all this passion then leads to confrontation. The Met knew this was going to lead to problems and still went ahead.
So, especially given that it was a Met Police Officer that murdered Sarah Everard, they should have handled this way better. Ignoring this is simply condoning violence against women "The judge said a protest wasn't illegal. However, a mass gathering is. The met threatened the fine under the guidelines of mass gatherings. The met and the governement asked people to hold the vigil safely (at home on doorsteps would've worked). The original organisers accepted this and that is what they done. Why are people still arguing that this wasn't hijacked by a politically motivated action group? I've said already further up this thread that 95% of people there went home safely and soundly, yet all we see is the met being mob handed. Maybe they were mob handed with dissidents, which for me is fine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So next weekend when someone else decides to hold a protest they should now be allowed to
Well numerous other protests have gone ahead
As an aside..where you this vociferous about the pretext the statues protests in the summer?"The statues protest were a joke, if they want to get rid of statues then get rid of all of them we don’t need them anyway stick everyone of them in museums | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" For clarity: Original organisers approached the Police to run a marshalled vigil in Clapham Common Police threatened them with £10,000 fines if they went ahead as it broke Covid rules Organisers and Met went to High Court. High Court said it was not illegal and the Organisers and Met should sort it out. The Met weren’t interested in an organised vigil and maintained the treat of £10,000 fines, so the Organisers withdrew. As so much sorrow, passion and annoyance existed, it was evident that people would attend the vigil - see other peaceful protests across the country. Vigil goes ahead and is peaceful. Met Police decide it is time to stop it being peaceful and start kettling and jostling people. Strangely, all this passion then leads to confrontation. The Met knew this was going to lead to problems and still went ahead. So, especially given that it was a Met Police Officer that murdered Sarah Everard, they should have handled this way better. Ignoring this is simply condoning violence against women
The big problem we see is that the Met got involved, if initial accounts are reliable it appears a good dialogue was established between the original organiser and the borough police for the area. We're confident that had the vigil taken place and been policed by a local borough it would probably have played out better for all involved.
The problem is though where do you draw the line, if the police allow this vigil how can it be considered fair that they refused other protests such as BLM marches. Does it then open the flood gates for legal challenges?
Can you be seen to be upholding the law if you're complicit with allowing it to be broken by working with people looking to hold a mass gathering in contravention of current laws and guidelines?
We have to admit though, everything the Met touches usually turns into a ball of flames. That's not to say the individual officers are the problem, but we definitely think the leadership and direction given is out of touch with public opinion.
"Yep not heard a peep out of Sadiq khan | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. You're wasting your time with that one
For clarity:
Original organisers approached the Police to run a marshalled vigil in Clapham Common
Police threatened them with £10,000 fines if they went ahead as it broke Covid rules
Organisers and Met went to High Court. High Court said it was not illegal and the Organisers and Met should sort it out.
The Met weren’t interested in an organised vigil and maintained the treat of £10,000 fines, so the Organisers withdrew.
As so much sorrow, passion and annoyance existed, it was evident that people would attend the vigil - see other peaceful protests across the country.
Vigil goes ahead and is peaceful.
Met Police decide it is time to stop it being peaceful and start kettling and jostling people.
Strangely, all this passion then leads to confrontation. The Met knew this was going to lead to problems and still went ahead.
So, especially given that it was a Met Police Officer that murdered Sarah Everard, they should have handled this way better. Ignoring this is simply condoning violence against women
The judge said a protest wasn't illegal. However, a mass gathering is.
The met threatened the fine under the guidelines of mass gatherings.
The met and the governement asked people to hold the vigil safely (at home on doorsteps would've worked).
The original organisers accepted this and that is what they done.
Why are people still arguing that this wasn't hijacked by a politically motivated action group?
I've said already further up this thread that 95% of people there went home safely and soundly, yet all we see is the met being mob handed. Maybe they were mob handed with dissidents, which for me is fine."I suggest you do some research on what the judge actually said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. You're wasting your time with that one
For clarity:
Original organisers approached the Police to run a marshalled vigil in Clapham Common
Police threatened them with £10,000 fines if they went ahead as it broke Covid rules
Organisers and Met went to High Court. High Court said it was not illegal and the Organisers and Met should sort it out.
The Met weren’t interested in an organised vigil and maintained the treat of £10,000 fines, so the Organisers withdrew.
As so much sorrow, passion and annoyance existed, it was evident that people would attend the vigil - see other peaceful protests across the country.
Vigil goes ahead and is peaceful.
Met Police decide it is time to stop it being peaceful and start kettling and jostling people.
Strangely, all this passion then leads to confrontation. The Met knew this was going to lead to problems and still went ahead.
So, especially given that it was a Met Police Officer that murdered Sarah Everard, they should have handled this way better. Ignoring this is simply condoning violence against women
The judge said a protest wasn't illegal. However, a mass gathering is.
The met threatened the fine under the guidelines of mass gatherings.
The met and the governement asked people to hold the vigil safely (at home on doorsteps would've worked).
The original organisers accepted this and that is what they done.
Why are people still arguing that this wasn't hijacked by a politically motivated action group?
I've said already further up this thread that 95% of people there went home safely and soundly, yet all we see is the met being mob handed. Maybe they were mob handed with dissidents, which for me is fine."Was the girl who was pinned down a 'dissident? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. You're wasting your time with that one
For clarity:
Original organisers approached the Police to run a marshalled vigil in Clapham Common
Police threatened them with £10,000 fines if they went ahead as it broke Covid rules
Organisers and Met went to High Court. High Court said it was not illegal and the Organisers and Met should sort it out.
The Met weren’t interested in an organised vigil and maintained the treat of £10,000 fines, so the Organisers withdrew.
As so much sorrow, passion and annoyance existed, it was evident that people would attend the vigil - see other peaceful protests across the country.
Vigil goes ahead and is peaceful.
Met Police decide it is time to stop it being peaceful and start kettling and jostling people.
Strangely, all this passion then leads to confrontation. The Met knew this was going to lead to problems and still went ahead.
So, especially given that it was a Met Police Officer that murdered Sarah Everard, they should have handled this way better. Ignoring this is simply condoning violence against women
The judge said a protest wasn't illegal. However, a mass gathering is.
The met threatened the fine under the guidelines of mass gatherings.
The met and the governement asked people to hold the vigil safely (at home on doorsteps would've worked).
The original organisers accepted this and that is what they done.
Why are people still arguing that this wasn't hijacked by a politically motivated action group?
I've said already further up this thread that 95% of people there went home safely and soundly, yet all we see is the met being mob handed. Maybe they were mob handed with dissidents, which for me is fine."And I'm really not sure where you are getting this from but the organisers didnt 'accept'this. They organised a legal challenge against it The judge them told to them.sort it out between themselves It's now being suggested The met decided to pull the plug when talks were ongoing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At the end of the day they could have all stayed at home held a candlelit vigil on their doorsteps which would have caused plenty of media coverage for the right reasons a bit like clap for carers did. Instead they chose to go against the law at the moment of mass gatherings and are now getting media coverage for the wrong reasons, the poor woman who was murdered seems to be a sideline now. The pandemic is not over and these people are not helping any one of us by breaking the rules,i do find it funny that people who were so up in arms about someone driving his family to his home in the 1st lockdown are now defending hundreds who are clearly breaking the law after being told not to." Yeah baby, exactly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. You're wasting your time with that one
For clarity:
Original organisers approached the Police to run a marshalled vigil in Clapham Common
Police threatened them with £10,000 fines if they went ahead as it broke Covid rules
Organisers and Met went to High Court. High Court said it was not illegal and the Organisers and Met should sort it out.
The Met weren’t interested in an organised vigil and maintained the treat of £10,000 fines, so the Organisers withdrew.
As so much sorrow, passion and annoyance existed, it was evident that people would attend the vigil - see other peaceful protests across the country.
Vigil goes ahead and is peaceful.
Met Police decide it is time to stop it being peaceful and start kettling and jostling people.
Strangely, all this passion then leads to confrontation. The Met knew this was going to lead to problems and still went ahead.
So, especially given that it was a Met Police Officer that murdered Sarah Everard, they should have handled this way better. Ignoring this is simply condoning violence against women
The judge said a protest wasn't illegal. However, a mass gathering is.
The met threatened the fine under the guidelines of mass gatherings.
The met and the governement asked people to hold the vigil safely (at home on doorsteps would've worked).
The original organisers accepted this and that is what they done.
Why are people still arguing that this wasn't hijacked by a politically motivated action group?
I've said already further up this thread that 95% of people there went home safely and soundly, yet all we see is the met being mob handed. Maybe they were mob handed with dissidents, which for me is fine.
And I'm really not sure where you are getting this from but the organisers didnt 'accept'this.
They organised a legal challenge against it
The judge them told to them.sort it out between themselves
It's now being suggested The met decided to pull the plug when talks were ongoing."Wow, 3 posts all for me?? I feel special. They accepted the decision by not turning up and cancelling the vigil. The girl who was pinned dissent? No idea, neither do you. You really should've read the word 'maybe', it helps contextually. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. You're wasting your time with that one
For clarity:
Original organisers approached the Police to run a marshalled vigil in Clapham Common
Police threatened them with £10,000 fines if they went ahead as it broke Covid rules
Organisers and Met went to High Court. High Court said it was not illegal and the Organisers and Met should sort it out.
The Met weren’t interested in an organised vigil and maintained the treat of £10,000 fines, so the Organisers withdrew.
As so much sorrow, passion and annoyance existed, it was evident that people would attend the vigil - see other peaceful protests across the country.
Vigil goes ahead and is peaceful.
Met Police decide it is time to stop it being peaceful and start kettling and jostling people.
Strangely, all this passion then leads to confrontation. The Met knew this was going to lead to problems and still went ahead.
So, especially given that it was a Met Police Officer that murdered Sarah Everard, they should have handled this way better. Ignoring this is simply condoning violence against women
The judge said a protest wasn't illegal. However, a mass gathering is.
The met threatened the fine under the guidelines of mass gatherings.
The met and the governement asked people to hold the vigil safely (at home on doorsteps would've worked).
The original organisers accepted this and that is what they done.
Why are people still arguing that this wasn't hijacked by a politically motivated action group?
I've said already further up this thread that 95% of people there went home safely and soundly, yet all we see is the met being mob handed. Maybe they were mob handed with dissidents, which for me is fine.
And I'm really not sure where you are getting this from but the organisers didnt 'accept'this.
They organised a legal challenge against it
The judge them told to them.sort it out between themselves
It's now being suggested The met decided to pull the plug when talks were ongoing.
Wow, 3 posts all for me?? I feel special.
They accepted the decision by not turning up and cancelling the vigil.
The girl who was pinned dissent? No idea, neither do you. You really should've read the word 'maybe', it helps contextually.
"They probally accepted it after the met threatened to fine a vigil for a murdered woman Great bunch of lads. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. You're wasting your time with that one
For clarity:
Original organisers approached the Police to run a marshalled vigil in Clapham Common
Police threatened them with £10,000 fines if they went ahead as it broke Covid rules
Organisers and Met went to High Court. High Court said it was not illegal and the Organisers and Met should sort it out.
The Met weren’t interested in an organised vigil and maintained the treat of £10,000 fines, so the Organisers withdrew.
As so much sorrow, passion and annoyance existed, it was evident that people would attend the vigil - see other peaceful protests across the country.
Vigil goes ahead and is peaceful.
Met Police decide it is time to stop it being peaceful and start kettling and jostling people.
Strangely, all this passion then leads to confrontation. The Met knew this was going to lead to problems and still went ahead.
So, especially given that it was a Met Police Officer that murdered Sarah Everard, they should have handled this way better. Ignoring this is simply condoning violence against women
The judge said a protest wasn't illegal. However, a mass gathering is.
The met threatened the fine under the guidelines of mass gatherings.
The met and the governement asked people to hold the vigil safely (at home on doorsteps would've worked).
The original organisers accepted this and that is what they done.
Why are people still arguing that this wasn't hijacked by a politically motivated action group?
I've said already further up this thread that 95% of people there went home safely and soundly, yet all we see is the met being mob handed. Maybe they were mob handed with dissidents, which for me is fine.
And I'm really not sure where you are getting this from but the organisers didnt 'accept'this.
They organised a legal challenge against it
The judge them told to them.sort it out between themselves
It's now being suggested The met decided to pull the plug when talks were ongoing.
Wow, 3 posts all for me?? I feel special.
They accepted the decision by not turning up and cancelling the vigil.
The girl who was pinned dissent? No idea, neither do you. You really should've read the word 'maybe', it helps contextually.
They probally accepted it after the met threatened to fine a vigil for a murdered woman
Great bunch of lads."People accepted that breaking the law has consequences? How decent of them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. You're wasting your time with that one
For clarity:
Original organisers approached the Police to run a marshalled vigil in Clapham Common
Police threatened them with £10,000 fines if they went ahead as it broke Covid rules
Organisers and Met went to High Court. High Court said it was not illegal and the Organisers and Met should sort it out.
The Met weren’t interested in an organised vigil and maintained the treat of £10,000 fines, so the Organisers withdrew.
As so much sorrow, passion and annoyance existed, it was evident that people would attend the vigil - see other peaceful protests across the country.
Vigil goes ahead and is peaceful.
Met Police decide it is time to stop it being peaceful and start kettling and jostling people.
Strangely, all this passion then leads to confrontation. The Met knew this was going to lead to problems and still went ahead.
So, especially given that it was a Met Police Officer that murdered Sarah Everard, they should have handled this way better. Ignoring this is simply condoning violence against women
The judge said a protest wasn't illegal. However, a mass gathering is.
The met threatened the fine under the guidelines of mass gatherings.
The met and the governement asked people to hold the vigil safely (at home on doorsteps would've worked).
The original organisers accepted this and that is what they done.
Why are people still arguing that this wasn't hijacked by a politically motivated action group?
I've said already further up this thread that 95% of people there went home safely and soundly, yet all we see is the met being mob handed. Maybe they were mob handed with dissidents, which for me is fine.
And I'm really not sure where you are getting this from but the organisers didnt 'accept'this.
They organised a legal challenge against it
The judge them told to them.sort it out between themselves
It's now being suggested The met decided to pull the plug when talks were ongoing.
Wow, 3 posts all for me?? I feel special.
They accepted the decision by not turning up and cancelling the vigil.
The girl who was pinned dissent? No idea, neither do you. You really should've read the word 'maybe', it helps contextually.
They probally accepted it after the met threatened to fine a vigil for a murdered woman
Great bunch of lads.
People accepted that breaking the law has consequences? How decent of them. "They did not break the law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. You're wasting your time with that one
For clarity:
Original organisers approached the Police to run a marshalled vigil in Clapham Common
Police threatened them with £10,000 fines if they went ahead as it broke Covid rules
Organisers and Met went to High Court. High Court said it was not illegal and the Organisers and Met should sort it out.
The Met weren’t interested in an organised vigil and maintained the treat of £10,000 fines, so the Organisers withdrew.
As so much sorrow, passion and annoyance existed, it was evident that people would attend the vigil - see other peaceful protests across the country.
Vigil goes ahead and is peaceful.
Met Police decide it is time to stop it being peaceful and start kettling and jostling people.
Strangely, all this passion then leads to confrontation. The Met knew this was going to lead to problems and still went ahead.
So, especially given that it was a Met Police Officer that murdered Sarah Everard, they should have handled this way better. Ignoring this is simply condoning violence against women
The judge said a protest wasn't illegal. However, a mass gathering is.
The met threatened the fine under the guidelines of mass gatherings.
The met and the governement asked people to hold the vigil safely (at home on doorsteps would've worked).
The original organisers accepted this and that is what they done.
Why are people still arguing that this wasn't hijacked by a politically motivated action group?
I've said already further up this thread that 95% of people there went home safely and soundly, yet all we see is the met being mob handed. Maybe they were mob handed with dissidents, which for me is fine.
And I'm really not sure where you are getting this from but the organisers didnt 'accept'this.
They organised a legal challenge against it
The judge them told to them.sort it out between themselves
It's now being suggested The met decided to pull the plug when talks were ongoing.
Wow, 3 posts all for me?? I feel special.
They accepted the decision by not turning up and cancelling the vigil.
The girl who was pinned dissent? No idea, neither do you. You really should've read the word 'maybe', it helps contextually.
They probally accepted it after the met threatened to fine a vigil for a murdered woman
Great bunch of lads.
People accepted that breaking the law has consequences? How decent of them.
They did not break the law."They broke the law on mass gatherings. It's really not hard to comprehend. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. You're wasting your time with that one
For clarity:
Original organisers approached the Police to run a marshalled vigil in Clapham Common
Police threatened them with £10,000 fines if they went ahead as it broke Covid rules
Organisers and Met went to High Court. High Court said it was not illegal and the Organisers and Met should sort it out.
The Met weren’t interested in an organised vigil and maintained the treat of £10,000 fines, so the Organisers withdrew.
As so much sorrow, passion and annoyance existed, it was evident that people would attend the vigil - see other peaceful protests across the country.
Vigil goes ahead and is peaceful.
Met Police decide it is time to stop it being peaceful and start kettling and jostling people.
Strangely, all this passion then leads to confrontation. The Met knew this was going to lead to problems and still went ahead.
So, especially given that it was a Met Police Officer that murdered Sarah Everard, they should have handled this way better. Ignoring this is simply condoning violence against women
The judge said a protest wasn't illegal. However, a mass gathering is.
The met threatened the fine under the guidelines of mass gatherings.
The met and the governement asked people to hold the vigil safely (at home on doorsteps would've worked).
The original organisers accepted this and that is what they done.
Why are people still arguing that this wasn't hijacked by a politically motivated action group?
I've said already further up this thread that 95% of people there went home safely and soundly, yet all we see is the met being mob handed. Maybe they were mob handed with dissidents, which for me is fine.
And I'm really not sure where you are getting this from but the organisers didnt 'accept'this.
They organised a legal challenge against it
The judge them told to them.sort it out between themselves
It's now being suggested The met decided to pull the plug when talks were ongoing.
Wow, 3 posts all for me?? I feel special.
They accepted the decision by not turning up and cancelling the vigil.
The girl who was pinned dissent? No idea, neither do you. You really should've read the word 'maybe', it helps contextually.
They probally accepted it after the met threatened to fine a vigil for a murdered woman
Great bunch of lads.
People accepted that breaking the law has consequences? How decent of them.
They did not break the law.
They broke the law on mass gatherings.
It's really not hard to comprehend."https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56394344 Indeed its not | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. You're wasting your time with that one
For clarity:
Original organisers approached the Police to run a marshalled vigil in Clapham Common
Police threatened them with £10,000 fines if they went ahead as it broke Covid rules
Organisers and Met went to High Court. High Court said it was not illegal and the Organisers and Met should sort it out.
The Met weren’t interested in an organised vigil and maintained the treat of £10,000 fines, so the Organisers withdrew.
As so much sorrow, passion and annoyance existed, it was evident that people would attend the vigil - see other peaceful protests across the country.
Vigil goes ahead and is peaceful.
Met Police decide it is time to stop it being peaceful and start kettling and jostling people.
Strangely, all this passion then leads to confrontation. The Met knew this was going to lead to problems and still went ahead.
So, especially given that it was a Met Police Officer that murdered Sarah Everard, they should have handled this way better. Ignoring this is simply condoning violence against women
The judge said a protest wasn't illegal. However, a mass gathering is.
The met threatened the fine under the guidelines of mass gatherings.
The met and the governement asked people to hold the vigil safely (at home on doorsteps would've worked).
The original organisers accepted this and that is what they done.
Why are people still arguing that this wasn't hijacked by a politically motivated action group?
I've said already further up this thread that 95% of people there went home safely and soundly, yet all we see is the met being mob handed. Maybe they were mob handed with dissidents, which for me is fine.
And I'm really not sure where you are getting this from but the organisers didnt 'accept'this.
They organised a legal challenge against it
The judge them told to them.sort it out between themselves
It's now being suggested The met decided to pull the plug when talks were ongoing.
Wow, 3 posts all for me?? I feel special.
They accepted the decision by not turning up and cancelling the vigil.
The girl who was pinned dissent? No idea, neither do you. You really should've read the word 'maybe', it helps contextually.
They probally accepted it after the met threatened to fine a vigil for a murdered woman
Great bunch of lads.
People accepted that breaking the law has consequences? How decent of them.
They did not break the law.
They broke the law on mass gatherings.
It's really not hard to comprehend.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56394344
Indeed its not"You're still refusing to see it. Everything was fine until 18:00 when people got onto the bandstand to speak. This then made people crowd around increasing the risk of infection. Had everyone stayed distanced as they were earlier in the day, the police may not have moved in. Maybe we should ask why the police didn't move in earlier seeing as they were only there to be bastards according to some. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. You're wasting your time with that one
For clarity:
Original organisers approached the Police to run a marshalled vigil in Clapham Common
Police threatened them with £10,000 fines if they went ahead as it broke Covid rules
Organisers and Met went to High Court. High Court said it was not illegal and the Organisers and Met should sort it out.
The Met weren’t interested in an organised vigil and maintained the treat of £10,000 fines, so the Organisers withdrew.
As so much sorrow, passion and annoyance existed, it was evident that people would attend the vigil - see other peaceful protests across the country.
Vigil goes ahead and is peaceful.
Met Police decide it is time to stop it being peaceful and start kettling and jostling people.
Strangely, all this passion then leads to confrontation. The Met knew this was going to lead to problems and still went ahead.
So, especially given that it was a Met Police Officer that murdered Sarah Everard, they should have handled this way better. Ignoring this is simply condoning violence against women
The judge said a protest wasn't illegal. However, a mass gathering is.
The met threatened the fine under the guidelines of mass gatherings.
The met and the governement asked people to hold the vigil safely (at home on doorsteps would've worked).
The original organisers accepted this and that is what they done.
Why are people still arguing that this wasn't hijacked by a politically motivated action group?
I've said already further up this thread that 95% of people there went home safely and soundly, yet all we see is the met being mob handed. Maybe they were mob handed with dissidents, which for me is fine.
And I'm really not sure where you are getting this from but the organisers didnt 'accept'this.
They organised a legal challenge against it
The judge them told to them.sort it out between themselves
It's now being suggested The met decided to pull the plug when talks were ongoing.
Wow, 3 posts all for me?? I feel special.
They accepted the decision by not turning up and cancelling the vigil.
The girl who was pinned dissent? No idea, neither do you. You really should've read the word 'maybe', it helps contextually.
They probally accepted it after the met threatened to fine a vigil for a murdered woman
Great bunch of lads.
People accepted that breaking the law has consequences? How decent of them.
They did not break the law.
They broke the law on mass gatherings.
It's really not hard to comprehend.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56394344
Indeed its not
You're still refusing to see it.
Everything was fine until 18:00 when people got onto the bandstand to speak. This then made people crowd around increasing the risk of infection.
Had everyone stayed distanced as they were earlier in the day, the police may not have moved in.
Maybe we should ask why the police didn't move in earlier seeing as they were only there to be bastards according to some."Right..so you were wrong about it being illegal aswell? You have spent the last 2 days quite frankly defending the indefensible. Yesterday it was because someone smashed a window. Now it's because someone decided to give a speech. Its getting desperate | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There have also been fines at vigils in Liverpool and Brighton. " 2 fines at liverpool A socially distanced vigil and no women pinned to the ground. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. You're wasting your time with that one
For clarity:
Original organisers approached the Police to run a marshalled vigil in Clapham Common
Police threatened them with £10,000 fines if they went ahead as it broke Covid rules
Organisers and Met went to High Court. High Court said it was not illegal and the Organisers and Met should sort it out.
The Met weren’t interested in an organised vigil and maintained the treat of £10,000 fines, so the Organisers withdrew.
As so much sorrow, passion and annoyance existed, it was evident that people would attend the vigil - see other peaceful protests across the country.
Vigil goes ahead and is peaceful.
Met Police decide it is time to stop it being peaceful and start kettling and jostling people.
Strangely, all this passion then leads to confrontation. The Met knew this was going to lead to problems and still went ahead.
So, especially given that it was a Met Police Officer that murdered Sarah Everard, they should have handled this way better. Ignoring this is simply condoning violence against women
The judge said a protest wasn't illegal. However, a mass gathering is.
The met threatened the fine under the guidelines of mass gatherings.
The met and the governement asked people to hold the vigil safely (at home on doorsteps would've worked).
The original organisers accepted this and that is what they done.
Why are people still arguing that this wasn't hijacked by a politically motivated action group?
I've said already further up this thread that 95% of people there went home safely and soundly, yet all we see is the met being mob handed. Maybe they were mob handed with dissidents, which for me is fine.
And I'm really not sure where you are getting this from but the organisers didnt 'accept'this.
They organised a legal challenge against it
The judge them told to them.sort it out between themselves
It's now being suggested The met decided to pull the plug when talks were ongoing.
Wow, 3 posts all for me?? I feel special.
They accepted the decision by not turning up and cancelling the vigil.
The girl who was pinned dissent? No idea, neither do you. You really should've read the word 'maybe', it helps contextually.
They probally accepted it after the met threatened to fine a vigil for a murdered woman
Great bunch of lads.
People accepted that breaking the law has consequences? How decent of them.
They did not break the law.
They broke the law on mass gatherings.
It's really not hard to comprehend.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56394344
Indeed its not
You're still refusing to see it.
Everything was fine until 18:00 when people got onto the bandstand to speak. This then made people crowd around increasing the risk of infection.
Had everyone stayed distanced as they were earlier in the day, the police may not have moved in.
Maybe we should ask why the police didn't move in earlier seeing as they were only there to be bastards according to some.
Right..so you were wrong about it being illegal aswell?
You have spent the last 2 days quite frankly defending the indefensible.
Yesterday it was because someone smashed a window.
Now it's because someone decided to give a speech.
Its getting desperate "I'm not wrong about it being illegal. It was an illegal gathering, there's no denying that. I didn't at any point say the police went into the crowd because of a smashed window, no window was smashed. I said that not everyone who was there was peaceful. I used a smashed vehicle mirror as an example. I do wish you wouldn't get so kerfuffled all the time | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A bunch of women breaching parliament will send a message. "What a strange thing to say. Apparently the police are taking a much more hands off approach to the protests tonight. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i dare say the usual 'silent majority' of tory voters are getting over excited at the prospect of the police sooner or later rounding up and arresting all these leftist socialist corbynistas who are daring to defy the government to express their views" What crap pathetic | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. You're wasting your time with that one
For clarity:
Original organisers approached the Police to run a marshalled vigil in Clapham Common
Police threatened them with £10,000 fines if they went ahead as it broke Covid rules
Organisers and Met went to High Court. High Court said it was not illegal and the Organisers and Met should sort it out.
The Met weren’t interested in an organised vigil and maintained the treat of £10,000 fines, so the Organisers withdrew.
As so much sorrow, passion and annoyance existed, it was evident that people would attend the vigil - see other peaceful protests across the country.
Vigil goes ahead and is peaceful.
Met Police decide it is time to stop it being peaceful and start kettling and jostling people.
Strangely, all this passion then leads to confrontation. The Met knew this was going to lead to problems and still went ahead.
So, especially given that it was a Met Police Officer that murdered Sarah Everard, they should have handled this way better. Ignoring this is simply condoning violence against women
The judge said a protest wasn't illegal. However, a mass gathering is.
The met threatened the fine under the guidelines of mass gatherings.
The met and the governement asked people to hold the vigil safely (at home on doorsteps would've worked).
The original organisers accepted this and that is what they done.
Why are people still arguing that this wasn't hijacked by a politically motivated action group?
I've said already further up this thread that 95% of people there went home safely and soundly, yet all we see is the met being mob handed. Maybe they were mob handed with dissidents, which for me is fine.
And I'm really not sure where you are getting this from but the organisers didnt 'accept'this.
They organised a legal challenge against it
The judge them told to them.sort it out between themselves
It's now being suggested The met decided to pull the plug when talks were ongoing.
Wow, 3 posts all for me?? I feel special.
They accepted the decision by not turning up and cancelling the vigil.
The girl who was pinned dissent? No idea, neither do you. You really should've read the word 'maybe', it helps contextually.
They probally accepted it after the met threatened to fine a vigil for a murdered woman
Great bunch of lads.
People accepted that breaking the law has consequences? How decent of them.
They did not break the law.
They broke the law on mass gatherings.
It's really not hard to comprehend.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56394344
Indeed its not
You're still refusing to see it.
Everything was fine until 18:00 when people got onto the bandstand to speak. This then made people crowd around increasing the risk of infection.
Had everyone stayed distanced as they were earlier in the day, the police may not have moved in.
Maybe we should ask why the police didn't move in earlier seeing as they were only there to be bastards according to some.
Right..so you were wrong about it being illegal aswell?
You have spent the last 2 days quite frankly defending the indefensible.
Yesterday it was because someone smashed a window.
Now it's because someone decided to give a speech.
Its getting desperate
I'm not wrong about it being illegal. It was an illegal gathering, there's no denying that.
I didn't at any point say the police went into the crowd because of a smashed window, no window was smashed. I said that not everyone who was there was peaceful. I used a smashed vehicle mirror as an example.
I do wish you wouldn't get so kerfuffled all the time "It is not illegal to protest. The High Court judge confirmed this. Stop making things up to support your reactive stance. The Met Police got is wrong, big time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really interesting how quickly a narrative is established isnt it? The people who were that angry at upset at what happened have now suddenly "hijacked 'the whole issue. I wonder how quickly it will turn into 'they dont really care about her' Yes it is amazing how quickly people seek to establish a narrative. A vile man who worked as a police officer killed a woman.. so all cops are bastards apparently. And this clearly deranged fuc$wit should be held accountable for his actions as an individual. I don't recall us saying all doctors are bastards after Harold Shipman... All nurses are bastards after Lucy Letby... All firemen are bastards after John McGinn r*ped a young girl he had rescued from a blaze... All teachers are bastards following issues surrounding abuse of trust... Was the handling of situation badly done, possibly, we weren't there. Did some people break the law, possibly we weren't there, did the police act in preservation of the law... well possibly, we weren't there! So many arm chair experts peddling there own biased agender. Every one is going to have an opinion, but few will have the facts. I dont recall anyone saying on here all police are responsible however there is clearly a concern about how attacks are investigated and reported at the police should be fully accountable for that. It's a forum. Everyone is entitled to Express an opinion. They most certainly are, I don't recall anyone saying people aren't entitled to an opinion. Just as people have expressed their opinion we are expressing ours. We're pretty sure the police are accountable for it, in fact they're being investigated over the first offence he committed and the follow up to it, by, an independent body setup to investigate the police. Funny how some people turned up to the peaceful "Vigil" with All cops are bastards signs, some may suggest certain members of the crowd had ulterior motives. Or maybe they were extremely angry that a person who is supposed to be protecting that has allegedly murdered a woman.? So they didn't attend a vigil to pay respects to a woman who was murdered by a man... they came to protest about the police, and change the narrative for their own agenda and hi jack a vigil. It was meant to be about people showing their respects to a woman wrongly murdered, to raise awareness of the dangers some women face at the hands of men from all walks of life. The fact is that sign is a statement against all police officers. Perhaps a number of others attended to show anger towards the police, perhaps this then led to a flash point.. Perhaps we can keep guessing, we weren't there. Our point is there appears to be more to this that meets the eye. I dont know as I wasnt there bit I'm guessing there was sadness and anger there. I don't see why there is an issue of any of those 2 emotions in the light of what has happened. We wouldn't say there is, but we could imagine a peaceful vigil can turn very sour very quickly if there are a number of people who have strong feelings towards a particular group of people who have to be there. Based on what we have seen the physical response from some of the officers appears to be to heavy handed, that's not to say we don't accept some physical force in necessary in situations. Our argument is that to purely blame the police response is flawed. It's a whole complex melting pot, peoples emotions on both sides, the balance of upholding law and expectations of society and balancing it against the rights of those attending a vigil and public expectations around that.. Throw into the mix people who may have hi jacked the vigil for political purposes and it's a whole level of muck on both sides. Said it before but they could have engaged beforehand but they chose not too. They must have knew people were going to turn up and the eye witness accounts I've read,said it was peaceful till they decided to move in. All this hijacking stuff,I find quite disenguouous tbh as it implies people were not there for valid reasons. As for the violence,from what I've seen,it was a tea party compared to other recent protests,and there certainly didnt seem no justification for some of those scenes. But instead of admitting they could potentially have handled it better,straight away they are on the offensive with well placed tales of police officers being spat at. There's a number of videos circulating of them trying to negotiate with the girls in the bandstand prior to becoming what would appear to be overly physical. Could it be them who refused to listen and engage in attempt to provoke a physical response? So you find the information provided by one side to be genuine and reliable but information provided by the other to be unreliable and disingenuous? What makes the eye witnesses more credible? Could it not be considered that some of the eye witnesses were on the offensive too, telling tales of woe? The original organisers of the vigil cancelled the event, a secondary group called sisters uncut, who describe themselves as a direct action group opposed to government cuts then took it up. I would suggest that this in some way has been hijacked as this is not the original organiser and had been taken up by a secondary group with political aims against the decision of the primary organiser. As we've said we do agree it appears they were heavy handed, but without being armed with all the facts it's hard to condone either side. For the vast majority of people, it went of peacefully, for a small minority it didn't. You're wasting your time with that one
For clarity:
Original organisers approached the Police to run a marshalled vigil in Clapham Common
Police threatened them with £10,000 fines if they went ahead as it broke Covid rules
Organisers and Met went to High Court. High Court said it was not illegal and the Organisers and Met should sort it out.
The Met weren’t interested in an organised vigil and maintained the treat of £10,000 fines, so the Organisers withdrew.
As so much sorrow, passion and annoyance existed, it was evident that people would attend the vigil - see other peaceful protests across the country.
Vigil goes ahead and is peaceful.
Met Police decide it is time to stop it being peaceful and start kettling and jostling people.
Strangely, all this passion then leads to confrontation. The Met knew this was going to lead to problems and still went ahead.
So, especially given that it was a Met Police Officer that murdered Sarah Everard, they should have handled this way better. Ignoring this is simply condoning violence against women
The judge said a protest wasn't illegal. However, a mass gathering is.
The met threatened the fine under the guidelines of mass gatherings.
The met and the governement asked people to hold the vigil safely (at home on doorsteps would've worked).
The original organisers accepted this and that is what they done.
Why are people still arguing that this wasn't hijacked by a politically motivated action group?
I've said already further up this thread that 95% of people there went home safely and soundly, yet all we see is the met being mob handed. Maybe they were mob handed with dissidents, which for me is fine.
And I'm really not sure where you are getting this from but the organisers didnt 'accept'this.
They organised a legal challenge against it
The judge them told to them.sort it out between themselves
It's now being suggested The met decided to pull the plug when talks were ongoing.
Wow, 3 posts all for me?? I feel special.
They accepted the decision by not turning up and cancelling the vigil.
The girl who was pinned dissent? No idea, neither do you. You really should've read the word 'maybe', it helps contextually.
They probally accepted it after the met threatened to fine a vigil for a murdered woman
Great bunch of lads.
People accepted that breaking the law has consequences? How decent of them.
They did not break the law.
They broke the law on mass gatherings.
It's really not hard to comprehend.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56394344
Indeed its not
You're still refusing to see it.
Everything was fine until 18:00 when people got onto the bandstand to speak. This then made people crowd around increasing the risk of infection.
Had everyone stayed distanced as they were earlier in the day, the police may not have moved in.
Maybe we should ask why the police didn't move in earlier seeing as they were only there to be bastards according to some.
Right..so you were wrong about it being illegal aswell?
You have spent the last 2 days quite frankly defending the indefensible.
Yesterday it was because someone smashed a window.
Now it's because someone decided to give a speech.
Its getting desperate
I'm not wrong about it being illegal. It was an illegal gathering, there's no denying that.
I didn't at any point say the police went into the crowd because of a smashed window, no window was smashed. I said that not everyone who was there was peaceful. I used a smashed vehicle mirror as an example.
I do wish you wouldn't get so kerfuffled all the time
It is not illegal to protest. The High Court judge confirmed this. Stop making things up to support your reactive stance.
The Met Police got is wrong, big time."I haven't said it's illegal to protest. And you accuse me of making things up? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
