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

[Crossover]

I was shocked to read about the “dental records”, but this was said in open court and reported on by the Mirror. It wasn’t carried by the BBC.

As a concept, I don’t believe it to be a new one, with many victims identified in this way.

 

[Journeyman]

That's a shocking interview. It's evasive and contradictory. It completely fails to engage with her officers actions, and shows no insight at all into why people are angry. She does appear to be profoundly affected, but possibly more by the growing realisation that she's not going to see out the week in her job than anything else.

I agree, she sounded cold, insincere and defensive, using the pandemic as an excuse for a catastrophic error of judgement. She speaks like a true petty authoritarian with no understanding of the public mood at all.

 

[AlterEgo]

As a concept, I don’t believe it to be a new one, with many victims identified in this way.

I think there are many people shocked that it was necessary for them to do that.

 

[Crossover]

I think there are many people shocked that it was necessary for them to do that.

Yes, it is rather grim

 

[yorkie]

I agree, she sounded cold, insincere and defensive, using the pandemic as an excuse for a catastrophic error of judgement. She speaks like a true petty authoritarian with no understanding of the public mood at all.

I see why authoritarians are lauding this interview!

I am not going to watch it; simply reading other peoples thoughts on it, and knowing what sort of an individual she is, is enough for me, and will save myself from the anger I would no doubt experience if I put myself through watching it.

I've heard enough of her diatribe in the past to know she's not worth listening to.


Here is an interesting article:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article...the-public-is-trusted-to-decide-how-to-behave

The scenes in Clapham Common have brutally exposed the problem with lockdown rules. People had gathered to mourn Sarah Everard and protest in defence of the right to walk the streets safely. The Metropolitan Police had been asked by the government to stop people going outside for anything other than a handful of allowed reasons: protest is not one of them. Given how many anti-lockdown protesters were arrested at Clapham Common earlier this year, the Met decided it could not be seen to pick and choose causes. Protesters were told it was 'unsafe' for them to be there due to Covid-19. Officers swooped. Chaos ensured...

...In a democracy, police cannot ultimately enforce laws for which there is no public consent. To do so risks damaging the public co-operation on which the police depend. Say a mother is recovering from a serious illness in lockdown and her friends club together to help her with childcare: all involved would be breaking the law. Three friends taking a walk together could be stopped by police.

This is clearly nonsensical. And the public know it. They are also aware that lockdown rules have affected people in very different ways. If you live in a large house with a large garden, and you have a professional career, with secure pay and pension, lockdown has not been a great hardship. It is a very different matter if you are poor and live alone in a small flat in a densely packed and highly policed urban area...

Keeping people oppressed for much longer is a very dangerous game that the Government and the police are playing. They need to end this madness now.

 

[HSTEd]

I really dont think this is the worst thing she has done in her career.....

 

[bramling]

I really dont think this is the worst thing she has done in her career.....

That's hardly saying much...

 

[AlterEgo]

I really dont think this is the worst thing she has done in her career.....

Indeed, some of us have long memories.

 

[Journeyman]

Indeed, some of us have long memories.

Are we talking 22nd July 2005 here?

 

[brad465]

That's a shocking interview. It's evasive and contradictory. It completely fails to engage with her officers actions, and shows no insight at all into why people are angry. She does appear to be profoundly affected, but possibly more by the growing realisation that she's not going to see out the week in her job than anything else.

I hope this is true, perhaps the fact she's said today she won't step down is a precursor that she will soon have to, given anyone in any high profile position who suddenly receives multiple calls to leave is by default in a bad place with regards to their position's tenability.

I really don't think this is the worst thing she has done in her career.....

I think a better question would to be to ask if she's got anything right/done any good?

 

[backontrack]

Oh please, egregious breaches of the law.....

We all know the real reason they went in for arrests, as @duncanp rightly points out, the vigil was bad PR for the Met and they wanted a show of force to break it up.

There has been one egregious breach of the law. That's the one that led to the vigil.

Are we talking 22nd July 2005 here?

Almost certainly.

Most people still wrongly think he jumped the barriers, y'know.

 

[Bantamzen]

That's a shocking interview. It's evasive and contradictory. It completely fails to engage with her officers actions, and shows no insight at all into why people are angry. She does appear to be profoundly affected, but possibly more by the growing realisation that she's not going to see out the week in her job than anything else.

I only managed to get a couple of minutes in when she was talking officers deciding the vigil had become "a risk to public health". Its all I need to know about what was driving the decisions that night.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Including the ones who caught the murderer...?

Yep, just arse covering.

As well as the ones that tuned a blind eye to the flashing.

 

[nedchester]

I wonder whether those calling for the resignation of Cressida Dick could end up with a male head of the Met Police?

I reiterate the police were in a difficult position on Saturday night damn pedi if they did and damn if they didn’t. They followed the law as it stands at the moment.

As I don’t agree with the law then the blame lies at the Home Secretary’s door not the police who are there to enforce the law whether they like it or not.

I’m afraid there’s a lot of rubbish spoken on here about people who haven’t a clue about live situations like Saturday night but rant from the keyboard.

 

[Cdd89]

reiterate the police were in a difficult position on Saturday night damn pedi if they did and damn if they didn’t. They followed the law as it stands at the moment.

I agree that the police were in a potentially difficult position, given that the law no longer included the right to protest but didn’t include an explicit prohibition on doing so.

But they had an easy way out - which was not to take the actions they did. After all if the government wants to try banning protest they should do so explicitly (and await the inevitable legal challenges). This view was upheld by a judge. So why did they instead go for a tough response based on an illiberal interpretation of law which, you must agree, is subject to interpretation?

 

[Watershed]

They followed the law as it stands at the moment.

Except they didn't. Their position prior to the High Court hearing was "all protests are illegal". Immediately prior to the hearing they contested the point, and indeed the judge told them (in as many words) "nope, try again".

After the hearing they kept their fingers in their ears and continued to claim that no protest could be legal.

As I don’t agree with the law then the blame lies at the Home Secretary’s door not the police who are there to enforce the law whether they like it or not.

Some of the blame lies at the Home Secretary's door for (almost certainly) directing the police to take this course of action.

Another bit of the blame lies at the feet of the Health Secretary for putting protest in a useless no-man's-land where it's neither explicitly banned nor endorsed - thus leading to the now-resolved controversy over whether it can be legal at the moment.

But the lion's share of the blame is attributable to the Met itself, and the person that decided to ignore the judge's ruling, and that decided that using violence against women at a vigil about violence against women was a reasonable course of action.

Contrast the Met's reaction with that of Nottinghamshire Police, who collaborated with the organisers to ensure that the vigil could occur in a Covid secure manner without any arrests or violence happening. It's clear that the Met misjudged this - badly.

I wonder whether those calling for the resignation of Cressida Dick could end up with a male head of the Met Police?

What difference would it make? People should not be appointed to a role just because of their gender. The most suitable and experienced person should be appointed.

Now, there is an argument to say that appointing someone who is a member of one of the groups that have a poor relationship with the police may be conducive to better relations. But that is another issue entirely.

 

[takno]

I wonder whether those calling for the resignation of Cressida Dick could end up with a male head of the Met Police?

I reiterate the police were in a difficult position on Saturday night damn pedi if they did and damn if they didn’t. They followed the law as it stands at the moment.

As I don’t agree with the law then the blame lies at the Home Secretary’s door not the police who are there to enforce the law whether they like it or not.

I’m afraid there’s a lot of rubbish spoken on here about people who haven’t a clue about live situations like Saturday night but rant from the keyboard.

If Cressida Dick is the only woman in the Met "qualified" for the leadership role, that says something truly terrible about the Met. At this point however I'd say that attitude and aptitude are more important than gender, and they would likely be better off led by somebody who has a better record in handling "live situations such as this".

Whatever "the law says", the Met and other forces have been exercising discretion throughout in its enforcement. A judge indicated the day before that this was an unclear area of law, and they should be exercising more discretion in these circumstances.

The officers on the ground were in a difficult situation, dealing with the fallout of years of cutbacks, poor recruitment, direction from vindictive home secretaries, and hapless leadership from their own senior management.

Hopefully the officers can learn and grow from the experience. The senior management who put them in that situation, and gave them the guidance and standing orders are a different matter. The current home secretary is the absolute embodiment of the poor direction over the past 10 years, and Cressida Dick has presided over a consistently poor period for the Met where relations with almost everybody have got worse.

 

[bramling]

I only managed to get a couple of minutes in when she was talking officers deciding the vigil had become "a risk to public health". Its all I need to know about what was driving the decisions that night.

It’s very concerning how easily a “risk to public health” is now being used as a means to stop things.

This needs to be stamped upon, otherwise we have a big problem going forward.

 

[initiation]

I know people are critical of polling companies but a 'snap' poll showed split support on whether the vigil should have gone ahead.
Now even if this is biased to some degree, it is clear there is not an overwhelming majority saying it should have been allowed to happened. People are happy to give up their freedoms it seems...

Snap poll: public split on whether police should have allowed Sarah Everard vigil to take place | YouGov

Few think Cressida Dick should resign over police handling of vigil

yougov.co.uk

 

[takno]

I know people are critical of polling companies but a 'snap' poll showed split support on whether the vigil should have gone ahead.
Now even if this is biased to some degree, it is clear there is not an overwhelming majority saying it should have been allowed to happened. People are happy to give up their freedoms it seems...

Snap poll: public split on whether police should have allowed Sarah Everard vigil to take place | YouGov

Few think Cressida Dick should resign over police handling of vigil

yougov.co.uk

A snap poll of people who can bothered to fill that kind of thing out on a Sunday revealed that the over-60s didn't like the protest and feel that Dick should stay, while the under-30s thought the opposite. We're heading for a nasty situation in this country if we continue to pander exclusively to the wishes and needs of pensioners who fill out YouGov surveys.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I know people are critical of polling companies but a 'snap' poll showed split support on whether the vigil should have gone ahead.
Now even if this is biased to some degree, it is clear there is not an overwhelming majority saying it should have been allowed to happened. People are happy to give up their freedoms it seems...

Snap poll: public split on whether police should have allowed Sarah Everard vigil to take place | YouGov

Few think Cressida Dick should resign over police handling of vigil

yougov.co.uk

That's not the same as the police response though which I doubt has a 50:50 split. Not that you suggested it did.

 

[24Grange]

I had the misfortune to have 2 metropolitan police sergeants as tenants once . Never again

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Everyone. This is important. Whether you are for or against police actions at that vigil, please watch this video.

The redhead that was arrested is an actress.

The #reclaimthesestreets people have some unusual links in their backgrounds.

Folks, we are being played. And falling for it

FAKE NEWS? PSY-OP? / Hugo Talks #lockdown

⁣Subscribe to Website - https://hugotalks.com Support me on PATREON - https://www.patreon.com/hugotalks BACK UP YOUTUBE channel https://*******.com/sst8kjzf TELEGRAM CHANNEL - https://t.me/hugotalks * RUMBLE * - ht

brandnewtube.com

 

[takno]

Everyone. This is important. Whether you are for or against police actions at that vigil, please watch this video.

The redhead that was arrested is an actress.

The #reclaimthesestreets people have some unusual links in their backgrounds.

Folks, we are being played. And falling for it

FAKE NEWS? PSY-OP? / Hugo Talks #lockdown

⁣Subscribe to Website - https://hugotalks.com Support me on PATREON - https://www.patreon.com/hugotalks BACK UP YOUTUBE channel https://*******.com/sst8kjzf TELEGRAM CHANNEL - https://t.me/hugotalks * RUMBLE * - ht

brandnewtube.com

Obviously I'm not going to watch that video, but is your position that actresses aren't entitled to attend events or have opinions then? I mean the victim worked in media and lived in London - there's a very good chance she had good friends who were actresses

 

[Skimpot flyer]

‘Nothing’s gonna change my world’
Watch the video and dismiss it, by all means. Dismiss it without looking at the content?

 

[TPO]

I agree with almost everything you say - however on your last question, police officers are ultimately still people and still human beings. There is no reason why they should lose their common sense just because they put a uniform on.

It is plain common sense that if the law says that exercising together with someone else is OK, it makes no difference whether that happens starting at your front door, or at a park 5 or even 100 miles away.

Covid restrictions are there to protect public health. They do not exist because the behaviour they ban is inherently bad or dangerous.

Therefore the restrictions should only be enforced to the extent that it is sensible and proportionate to do so, and to the extent that enforcement is actually conductive to the protection of public health.

In many cases, even if someone is in breach of the restrictions, the action that will minimise the overall risk to public health may well be to take someone's details and give them words of advice.

It is this latter point that underscores why the Met were completely wrong to attempt to arrest people. If it is too dangerous to go outdoors and undertake a socially distanced, mask-wearing vigil, then how can it be safe to arrest someone?

Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to recognise the hypocrisy and incompatibility of causing a risk to public health in the name of protecting public health?

Indeed.

This paranoid focus on "well its against the COVID regulations" also misses totally the fact that the police NEVER enforce ALL the law they could.

I mean, when did you last see someone ticketed by plod for sitting idling their car outside a school when waiting to pick up their kids? There's an argument that the car emissions are far more damaging to health of the children than COVID is, so will we see the same enthusiasm of enforcement from now on? After all the law is being broken............

Fact is, the police choose what laws they actually enforce and to what extent. That is at least in part what "discretion" boils down to.

And that's the point many are missing, including (worryingly) serving police officers commenting on here.

(Aside from the fact the courts ruled that the protest was not necessarily unlawful).

TPO

 

[Ediswan]

The redhead that was arrested is an actress.

Jane Fonda is an actress and has been arrested multiple times for particpating in protests.

 

[TPO]

Aye.

Obviously the Authoritarian proto-fascists realise they are losing the argument, so they have resorted to the tried-and-tested tactic of "play the (wo)man, not the ball."

I have noticed over the years that whenever someone resorts to that, it is because they have lost the argument in terms of facts and logic.

Irrespective of the background of the lady in question, lets consider a few things:

The police needed 5 officers to manhandle a 5'2'' slight lady. Think on this, FIVE. Actor she might have been- but she was still a small slight lady being manhandled by 5 officers much larger than she was. The police officers were not acting, this was not a drama so the lady's occupation has absolutely nothing to do with it.

And (to pre-empt the inevitable excuses) even if she was "winding the police up," well then shame on them for being so immature that they let themselves go overboard like this for some words. "We arrested her with force (i.e. violence) because her words wound me up so it's her fault she was asking for it" is just another form of victim blaming, and one which is scarily close to the sort of words violent men use about women they beat up in domestic settings.

Eyewitnesses on an LBC call-in yesterday claimed that that whilst there was some graffiti and name-calling, the graffiti was not put there by those arrested but rather by some males on the fringe.

Looks to me (a totally uninvolved older woman) like the police were determined to show force to shut up the words being said because they didn't like them. The word for that is "bullying."

Also consider, this is the same "service" (i.e. police) who are inevitably too frit to intervene at raves, they just stand around doing nowt until it finishes and nick a few leavers as examples to the others. What's the difference?

It's my opinion that the difference is that the peaceful women at Clapham were not big enough and violent enough to fight back. Are the police cowards? Certainly looks that way.

As Yorkie says- "shame on you, police"

TPO

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I mention her acting background because there is a suggestion she was placed there to get footage on TV.
Then she gets 12-minute appearance on Good Morning Britain, a programme that Morgan & Reid in the past used to berate people breaking lockdown rules ‘attending protests in the middle of a pandemic’. Now there’s a different agenda seemingly, where it’s ok to break the law?
All I’m saying is watch the video and the confirmed links to government quangos

 

[TPO]

If she did then good on 'er. This sort of police behaviour and govt supression of protests needs calling out, and the focus this has placed on the new policing law the govt was trying to sneak through and which would make it basically impossible to gather or protect (in non-COVID times) is also highly welcome. Perhaps this means some good will come of the situation.

(All members of trades unions should be applauding this as if this bill passes then the practical outcome is that you've basically lost your right to picket or even assemble.)

As for Met police behaviour, watch this video

Officer made a mistake in cutting up a cyclist then blames the victim (note: there is no speed limit for a bicycle on a public road in UK).

Polis have more than enough powers already and don't get held to account for when the abuse them. So defo no more powers for them until they are properly accountable to the communities they are supposed to serve.

TPO