More police misbehaviour: are they trying to deliberately wind the public up?

[backontrack]

They trampled on the flowers. They literally deliberately trampled on the flowers.

It was a vigil. It wasn't even a protest.

Hear the words of Patsy Stevenson, the vigil attendee who was pinned down and handcuffed by the police in those viral photos.

https://twitter.com/counterfireorg/status/1370855819152089088

"I was arrested by police for standing there, I wasn't doing anything. they threw me to the floor. I'm 5ft 2" and I weigh nothing. They arrested me in cuffs, dragged me away, surrounded by like 10 police officers. What should we do now? Bigger protests!"

 

[bramling]

They trampled on the flowers. They literally deliberately trampled on the flowers.

It was a vigil. It wasn't even a protest.

Hear the words of Patsy Stevenson, the vigil attendee who was pinned down and handcuffed by the police in those viral photos.

https://twitter.com/counterfireorg/status/1370855819152089088

View attachment 92418

The powers that be need to get on to this straight away, otherwise we could be heading for a proper summer of discontent.

Scenes like this are completely unacceptable in a (supposedly) civilised country, and should be inviting the strongest possible condemnation from those who carry the can - Cressida Dick and Priti Patel. Let’s see if it happens, I’m not holding my breath.

 

[Journeyman]

The powers that be need to get on to this straight away, otherwise we could be heading for a proper summer of discontent.

Scenes like this are completely unacceptable in a (supposedly) civilised country, and should be inviting the strongest possible condemnation from those who carry the can - Cressida Dick and Priti Patel. Let’s see if it happens, I’m not holding my breath.

The problem is that Priti Patel seems to love a bit of police brutality, and will completely approve of this.

 

[Watershed]

This is just about the only event that has the potential to dramatically affect public sentiment over Covid restrictions.

I really hope that there is a big enough outcry that Patel and Dick will be removed from their posts, and the restrictions eased (at the very least to unambiguously endorse protest again).

If that doesn't happen, it will simply serve to reinforce current views amongst top elite such as them, that they can get away with absolutely anything.

 

[DorkingMain]

I have to raise an eyebrow that there's now an outrage at the police bullying people over COVID restrictions, after a year of them doing so (including fining people for funerals where too many attend).

 

[Watershed]

I have to raise an eyebrow that there's now an outrage at the police bullying people over COVID restrictions, after a year of them doing so (including fining people for funerals where too many attend).

The difference is that this time, the public mood is behind those who are protesting, and in the circumstances it is beyond ironic for male police officers to be manhandling women.

 

[AlterEgo]

The fact that man charged is a serving officer is nothing to do with what is happening at the vigil. If anything the Police should be given credit for apparently clearing up this appalling crime promptly.

Looking forward to hearing lots about the police’s “investigation” of the suspect’s indecent exposure allegation some days prior, too.

The difference is that this time, the public mood is behind those who are protesting, and in the circumstances it is beyond ironic for male police officers to be manhandling women.

A significant difference here is that both progressives and conservatives can see the outrage in the police using excessive force against women. This wasn’t the case with the BLM and anti-lockdown protests, which the police bent over backward to facilitate (even taking a knee at the BLM one!). There is no faction of any political stripe who finds the behaviour tonight acceptable, and the Met has nowhere to go. Even Patel cannot defend the Commissioner on this one.

It’s also clear that there were malign troublemakers at Clapham tonight, who weren’t there for the vigil but to force their own agenda.

The police wilfully allowed mob rule last year during the BLM protests and right wing counter protests. I am afraid that when you decide to let the mob rule, you don’t get to decide what sort of mob turn up. I’ve no sympathy with the police here, who need to grow a backbone. They manhandled the women because they thought the risk of violence towards themselves was low - that’s about all there is to it.

 

[bramling]

I have to raise an eyebrow that there's now an outrage at the police bullying people over COVID restrictions, after a year of them doing so (including fining people for funerals where too many attend).

I’ve long thought the transition from winter to spring would mark a bit of a tidemark in terms of public mood. For me that tidemark is essentially the clocks going forward (the point at which decent days out become viable), however for others it could simply be temperatures being sufficiently warm to be pleasant for outdoor activities, or the advent of the Easter school holidays.

 

[Bensonby]

Like anything, there is more to the incident than a couple of short clips. I agree that the optics are terrible, but hopefully the statement from AC Helen Ball puts it into a bit more context:

Statement from AC Helen Ball following events in Clapham Common

A statement from Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball.

news.met.police.uk

Looking forward to hearing lots about the police’s “investigation” of the suspect’s indecent exposure allegation some days prior, too.

A significant difference here is that both progressives and conservatives can see the outrage in the police using excessive force against women. This wasn’t the case with the BLM and anti-lockdown protests, which the police bent over backward to facilitate (even taking a knee at the BLM one!). There is no faction of any political stripe who finds the behaviour tonight acceptable, and the Met has nowhere to go. Even Patel cannot defend the Commissioner on this one.

It’s also clear that there were malign troublemakers at Clapham tonight, who weren’t there for the vigil but to force their own agenda.

The police wilfully allowed mob rule last year during the BLM protests and right wing counter protests. I am afraid that when you decide to let the mob rule, you don’t get to decide what sort of mob turn up. I’ve no sympathy with the police here, who need to grow a backbone. They manhandled the women because they thought the risk of violence towards themselves was low - that’s about all there is to it.

One problem that you don't acknowledge is that the regulations have changed hugely over the past year - changing several times from one month to the next. So whilst one particular protest may have been allowed, and another not, that is not a reflection of the cause or the types of people attending, but the differing legislative context.

Further, "the police" did not "take the knee" a couple of rather ill-advised officers did off their own backs. I find it irritating that this is often trotted out as if it was some kind of policy decision. It clearly wasn't.

At the end of the day, whatever a protest is about, and the merits of whatever the cause may be, bears no relation to the policing response. Which is only right and proper. What does inform a policing response is legislation, risk assessments, and human rights considerations (and the right to protest is a qualified, not absolute right under the Human Rights Act).

 

[Ascotroyal]

All the police had to do was back off and let people light candles, sing songs etc.

Instead they went with an aggressive plan that only serves to reduce women's trust in policing, at a time it is already taking a hit.

Assaults on women are already hugely underreported due to a lack of faith in both policing and the courts.

 

[initiation]

I hope the media pick up on the hypocrisy from any politician condemning the police actions but who also voted for the lockdown legislation.

It shouldn't be surprising that when you enact authoritarian laws you get arbitrary authoritarian actions by the police.

It is utterly disgraceful that protests were treated in this way.

 

[Bensonby]

All the police had to do was back off and let people light candles, sing songs etc.

Instead they went with an aggressive plan that only serves to reduce women's trust in policing, at a time it is already taking a hit.

Assaults on women are already hugely underreported due to a lack of faith in both policing and the courts.

According to AC Helen Ball's statement they have been doing that all day without issue and, indeed, were allowed to. It became an issue later on when some people stood on the bandstand and started giving speeches. This caused a large crowd to gather, when the people concerned repeatedly refused they were ultimately arrested.

Four people were arrested at the protest - that is hardly symptomatic of the police wading in indiscriminately. In respect of the force used on an individual basis, I can't really see anything that would suggest "brutality": having numerous officers carry/holding an individual is generally safer all round and is pretty standard with a person passively or actively resisting.

 

[superjohn]

We do NOT consent!

Can you clarify who you are referring to as “We”?

Whatever one’s views on the matter, purporting to speak on behalf of the whole is in the territory of the Daily Mail readers’ comments.

Some people may not consent. They may even be a majority but that doesn’t mean they represent everybody.

 

[yorkie]

Can you clarify who you are referring to as “We”?

Whatever one’s views on the matter, purporting to speak on behalf of the whole is in the territory of the Daily Mail readers’ comments.

Some people may not consent. They may even be a majority but that doesn’t mean they represent everybody.

Take a look on social media and you will see I speak for a lot of people when I say we do not consent

It's really interesting to see who the supporters of authoritarianism are though.

I see authoritarianism as a huge threat to our society.

People like me and you will have to agree to disagree on this issue but if you thought you were in the majority, a quick look on social media will demonstrate otherwise.

I believe this is the beginning of the end for the rampant authoritarianism we have seen in the past 12 months.

This moment is a massive turning point as many people now realise how wrong last night's police actions were, but you have every right to disagree and underestimate it if you wish.

 

[Bantamzen]

You know the lack of empathy displayed by some is nothing short of shocking. A innocent woman was brutally murdered (which we can assume because she could only be identified by her dental records) by a serving police officer, and people are incredibly angry as a result. So they hold a vigil for this woman to show that this must not be forgotten, and the organized gang of thugs commonly known as The Met turn up and use excessive force to "keep people safe". Yet some people seem to think this is OK because some politicians made it so that this kind of gathering is illegal.

Well it isn't OK. Nobody should be defending the Met, because in a civilized society it is indefensible.

 

[VauxhallandI]

These are the same police that were “scared” of kids playing in a field.....

Utter disgrace, worthless scum are enjoying it.

 

[birchesgreen]

Well they said we were sleepwalking towards fascism, I think we have arrived.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Perhaps the officers could have better spent their time patrolling Our Streets. What might have happened had they not stepped in at the vigil, but just observed quietly? I think the demonstrators would not have sought confrontation, it was a vigil not a protest. Best to avoid contact with the cops as far as possible I think.

I regret to report that I do not trust or respect the police.
..
The Observer has a good editorial about this.

 

[Bensonby]

You know the lack of empathy displayed by some is nothing short of shocking. A innocent woman was brutally murdered (which we can assume because she could only be identified by her dental records) by a serving police officer, and people are incredibly angry as a result. So they hold a vigil for this woman to show that this must not be forgotten, and the organized gang of thugs commonly known as The Met turn up and use excessive force to "keep people safe". Yet some people seem to think this is OK because some politicians made it so that this kind of gathering is illegal.

Well it isn't OK. Nobody should be defending the Met, because in a civilized society it is indefensible.

The lack of ability for some people to engage in some level of critical thought and to immediately descend into histrionics is shocking. An innocent woman was (brutally) murdered and a police officer has been charged with her murder (not "by a serving police officer"....he has not been found guilty). People are incredibly angry as a result? Perhaps, but it mystifying why they should be angry at the whole police service as a result... I'm sure the same people still trust and visit their GP's despite Shipman.

They hold an illegal vigil for the woman and despite being repeatedly told that it is illegal, and despite people being allowed to attend all day the police told some people who had started to hold some speeches on a bandstand to stop as it was causing a crowd to form - again, illegally. Despite being told repeatedly to stop they were arrested. They resisted that arrest (passively or actively) so the police were compelled to use (minimal, by the looks of it) force to remove them.

Four people - out of hundreds present - were arrested (and by the looks of it at least one was released at the scene as she was speaking to the press). Also of note, what kind of vigil involves people attending with banners that say "ACAB" etc? It looks suspiciously like at least some of the people (by no means all) were from the "rent-a-mob brigade"

Perhaps the officers could have better spent their time patrolling Our Streets. What might have happened had they not stepped in at the vigil, but just observed quietly? I think the demonstrators would not have sought confrontation, it was a vigil not a protest. Best to avoid contact with the cops as far as possible I think.

I regret to report that I do not trust or respect the police.
..
The Observer has a good editorial about this.

The officers would have been patrolling the streets if they hadn't been forced to attend this incident.

You have just said in the same sentence that they were "demonstrators" but in the next clause that it was "not a protest". Well, which was it?

Why don't you trust the police?

 

[Bantamzen]

The lack of ability for some people to engage in some level of critical thought and to immediately descend into histrionics is shocking. An innocent woman was (brutally) murdered and a police officer has been charged with her murder (not "by a serving police officer"....he has not been found guilty). People are incredibly angry as a result? Perhaps, but it mystifying why they should be angry at the whole police service as a result... I'm sure the same people still trust and visit their GP's despite Shipman.

They hold an illegal vigil for the woman and despite being repeatedly told that it is illegal, and despite people being allowed to attend all day the police told some people who had started to hold some speeches on a bandstand to stop as it was causing a crowd to form - again, illegally. Despite being told repeatedly to stop they were arrested. They resisted that arrest (passively or actively) so the police were compelled to use (minimal, by the looks of it) force to remove them.

Four people - out of hundreds present - were arrested (and by the looks of it at least one was released at the scene as she was speaking to the press). Also of note, what kind of vigil involves people attending with banners that say "ACAB" etc? It looks suspiciously like at least some of the people (by no means all) were from the "rent-a-mob brigade"


The officers would have been patrolling the streets if they hadn't been forced to attend this incident.

You have just said in the same sentence that they were "demonstrators" but in the next clause that it was "not a protest". Well, which was it?

Why don't you trust the police?

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Bensonby]

Thank you for proving my point.

Care to actually engage with the points in hand? See the Assistant Commissioner's statement copied above.

Histrionics does nobody any good. Let's just rationally look at what happened. I've posted a rational appraisal of what appears to have happened: it's clear many may not agree with me, but actually explain why.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

@Bensonby
It was a vigil. Something like standing silently in a church holding candles.

I do not trust the police because they choose not to enforce traffic law, they allow huge numbers of preventable deaths and injuries to occur. (Please do not start drifting to talking about that on this thread!)

 

[Bantamzen]

Care to actually engage with the points in hand? See the Assistant Commissioner's statement copied above.

Histrionics does nobody any good. Let's just rationally look at what happened. I've posted a rational appraisal of what appears to have happened: it's clear many may not agree with me, but actually explain why.

Yes, let's look at what happened. A group of people gathered for a vigil for a murdered woman whose suspected murderer is a serving police officer with the Met. They wanted to highlight that women in particular were at threat from violence, and that something needs to be done. The Met responded using unnecessary force against women.

Think about that for a second or two. Hopefully you'll get there....

 

[Bensonby]

@Bensonby
It was a vigil. Something like standing silently in a church holding candles.

I do not trust the police because they choose not to enforce traffic law, they allow huge numbers of preventable deaths and injuries to occur. (Please do not start drifting to talking about that on this thread!)

I think the fact that there were people with ACAB banners etc would suggest that, for some at least, it was a protest. Irrespective of that, the gathering was illegal, and had been cancelled by the main organisers.

Now, there is certainly a debate to be had about the proportionally of the regulations that made it illegal, but I fear that may drift into a different (albeit related) topic.

re not enforcing traffic law and discussions around “preventable deaths”, I’d be more than happy to have a discussion outside of this thread about the resourcing, demands on, and complexity of modern policing.

Yes, let's look at what happened. A group of people gathered for a vigil for a murdered woman whose suspected murderer is a serving police officer with the Met. They wanted to highlight that women in particular were at threat from violence, and that something needs to be done. The Met responded using unnecessary force against women.

Think about that for a second or two. Hopefully you'll get there....

Four women who were trying to give speeches causing a crowd to form did not move on when told to repeatedly. They were then arrested. They resisted that arrest: how else could they have been moved without the force seen?

 

[Bantamzen]

I think the fact that there were people with ACAB banners etc would suggest that, for some at least, it was a protest. Irrespective of that, the gathering was illegal, and had been cancelled by the main organisers.

Now, there is certainly a debate to be had about the proportionally of the regulations that made it illegal, but I fear that may drift into a different (albeit related) topic.

re not enforcing traffic law and discussions around “preventable deaths”, I’d be more than happy to have a discussion outside of this thread about the resourcing, demands on, and complexity of modern policing.


Four women who were trying to give speeches causing a crowd to form did not move on when told to repeatedly. They were then arrested. They resisted that arrest: how else could they have been moved without the force seen?

Incredible, you really don't get it do you?

 

[Bensonby]

Incredible, you really don't get it do you?

Neither do you!

 

[Bantamzen]

Neither do you!

No I do get it. The Met chose to use force & violence against people at a vigil for a woman murdered by one of their own. Any reasonable person would have thought that it would have been better to just let the vigil happen, but not it seems the meatheads at the Met. It is totally and utterly indefensible, as is your support of their actions.

 

[Bensonby]

Neither do you!

Let’s try and spell it out:

1. The worthiness, or otherwise, of the cause is irrelevant.

2. The police are there to uphold the law. This gathering was prima-facie illegal under the current Health Protection Regulations due to the current Covid-19 pandemic.

3. Police do have some discretion regarding how the law is enforced: actions must also be compatible with the Human Rights Act. Only a court can adjudicate that, but whoever is commanding a police operation must justify their decision making within a human rights context.

4. The police clearly tried to demonstrate some discretion by allowing people to attend all day.

5. clearly the officer charge felt a “tipping point” was reached when several people started giving speeches, causing a dense crowd to form.

6. The people giving the speeches didn’t move when repeatedly advised to.

7. They were therefore arrested.

8. the police can use force to effect that arrest. Using force isn’t these circumstances is not “using violence against people at a vigil”.

 

[Bantamzen]

Let’s try and spell it out:

1. The worthiness, or otherwise, of the cause is irrelevant.

2. The police are there to uphold the law. This gathering was prima-facie illegal under the current Health Protection Regulations due to the current Covid-19 pandemic.

3. Police do have some discretion regarding how the law is enforced: actions must also be compatible with the Human Rights Act. Only a court can adjudicate that, but whoever is commanding a police operation must justify their decision making within a human rights context.

4. The police clearly tried to demonstrate some discretion by allowing people to attend all day.

5. clearly the officer charge felt a “tipping point” was reached when several people started giving speeches, causing a dense crowd to form.

6. The people giving the speeches didn’t move when repeatedly advised to.

7. They were therefore arrested.

8. the police can use force to effect that arrest. Using force isn’t these circumstances is not “using violence against people at a vigil”.

1. Wrong on all counts.
2. I didn't bother reading 2-8 because you destroyed your argument at #1.

 

[duncanp]

No I do get it. The Met chose to use force & violence against people at a vigil for a woman murdered by one of their own. Any reasonable person would have thought that it would have been better to just let the vigil happen, but not it seems the meatheads at the Met. It is totally and utterly indefensible, as is your support of their actions.

I think the Met are embarrassed about the fact that the alleged murderer is a serving police officer. (I say alleged because he has been charged, but not convicted)

Breaking up the vigil last night in that heavy handed way had nothing to do with "keeping people safe" from COVID-19.

It had everything to do with trying to lessen the bad publicity that the Met were getting as a result of the vigil/protest.

Compare what happened last night with what happened at the Black Lives Matter protests last year, which were also not permitted under COVID-19 legislation.

The sight of police officers taking the knee in a show of virtue signalling at these protests was truly nauseating, but when the police are themselves the subject of criticism, they don't seem to be so keen in allowing the protest to continue.