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

[HSTEd]

Case numbers are no longer of any real consequence.

Exit from required restrictions depends almost solely on the R value in the absence of restrictions, which is dependant on the inherent properties of the virus and on the level of immunity in the population.

If case numbers are higher, all that will happen is that case numebrs will fall more rapidly as those effects take hold.

 

[DB]

These ort of gatherings of people are currently illegal. Just because other police forces do not enforce the rule does not mean the mET should not.
If this turns into a super spreader event and sets their (valid) argument back then so be it. But I bet the same people will be complaining on her if the roadmap to removing restrictions is delayed.

It's already been demonstrated that outdoor events aren't a problem, and it is not clear that such gatherings are illegal - badly drafted legislation makes it a grey area.

And we need to drop this unhealthy obsession with so-called superspreader events (which generally aren't and those using the term are just using emotive language to criticize others). Once those at risk have been vaccinated, it doesn't matter anyway.

 

[brad465]

I'm seeing pictures and clips circulating that protestors turned up in great numbers outside Parliament on the issue at hand today, but this time no signs of the police trying to repeat yesterday. What will be interesting is how long this particular issue goes on for.

 

[Ediswan]

A good crowd outside New Scotland Yard as welll. I suspect this is one reason the Met were not keen to let the vigil go ahead. Once one mass gathering is allowed, much harder to say no to the next.

 

[158756]

It's already been demonstrated that outdoor events aren't a problem, and it is not clear that such gatherings are illegal - badly drafted legislation makes it a grey area.

And we need to drop this unhealthy obsession with so-called superspreader events (which generally aren't and those using the term are just using emotive language to criticize others). Once those at risk have been vaccinated, it doesn't matter anyway.

I fully agree we need to drop the scaremongering about 'superspreader' events.

But prior to last night, whether they actually were or not, such gatherings were generally considered illegal, and were either policed as such (anti-lockdown protests, or the NHS workers fined £10000 for a much smaller protest recently) or followed by demands for a much harsher response (football supporters).

Millions of people haven't seen family or friends for months. I've been to two funerals family members were prohibited from attending, and been unable to attend two more because of the restrictions on public gatherings. If people have consistently opposed these rules fine, but I have very limited sympathy for anyone who supported lockdown previously but thinks it shouldn't apply to them

 

[brad465]

A good crowd outside New Scotland Yard as well. I suspect this is one reason the Met were not keen to let the vigil go ahead. Once one mass gathering is allowed, much harder to say no to the next.

I'm thinking other groups, including anti-lockdown groups will look at this and believe they can go ahead with more protesting in the days and weeks ahead, despite being rather quiet for most of this lockdown so far.

 

[yorkie]

These ort of gatherings of people are currently illegal.

On the contrary, banning them is illegal; I refer you to my opening post and the quotes of Adam Wagner.

Just because other police forces do not enforce the rule does not mean the Met should not.

This doesn't make sense but is the sort of nonsensical argument I've come to expect.

If this turns into a super spreader event and sets their (valid) argument back then so be it.

How could it?! It was outdoors!

But I bet the same people will be complaining on her if the roadmap to removing restrictions is delayed.

It won't be delayed

With the he talk of “brutality” and “beatings” can anyone provide a link to any footage or pictures that show any “beatings” at this incident? I’ve not seen any personally.

I refer you to the links I provided; I have no interest in getting into an argument over semantics of "beatings" or "brutality" but the behaviour of the police is completely and utterly unacceptable.

A good crowd outside New Scotland Yard as welll. I suspect this is one reason the Met were not keen to let the vigil go ahead. Once one mass gathering is allowed, much harder to say no to the next.

The police have had the opposite effect and caused today's gathering. They are not very intelligent, to put it mildly.

I fully agree we need to drop the scaremongering about 'superspreader' events.

Indeed. Authoritarians have been using such tactics for about 10 months, since May 2020, and yet the evidence has proven what we already knew: outdoor transmission is absolutely miniscule.

It doesn't take much intelligence to realise that, but some authoritarians are really lacking in that department.

But prior to last night, whether they actually were or not, such gatherings were generally considered illegal, and were either policed as such (anti-lockdown protests, or the NHS workers fined £10000 for a much smaller protest recently) or followed by demands for a much harsher response (football supporters).

Coronavirus legislation cannot override all other legislation; the police acted illegally.

Millions of people haven't seen family or friends for months.

But you could have! (unless they were in somewhere like Australia, but that is down to those countries, not us)

I've been to two funerals family members were prohibited from attending, and been unable to attend two more because of the restrictions on public gatherings.

Such restrictions are inhumane and unlawful; we should all campaign against them.

If people have consistently opposed these rules fine, but I have very limited sympathy for anyone who supported lockdown previously but thinks it shouldn't apply to them

My view is that if people are prepared to change their minds, admit they were mislead, and have seen the light, I am prepared to accept that.

I doubt there are many people now who continue to support draconian lockdowns; we are about 4th in the world for vaccinations, a huge swathe of the population has immunity, we have very few cases, we are now entering Spring. People were mislead big style; if anyone took until last night to change their mind, it's disappointing it took them so long, but I won't hold it against them, if they now accept lockdown was wrong.

What I cannot respect is those authoritarians who stubbornly retain their views, even now, and will stick to their guns until the end of lockdown, and never accept they were mislead. Those people can absolutely sod off as far as I'm concerned; I want nothing to do with them.

 

[bramling]

On the contrary, banning them is illegal; I refer you to my opening post and the quotes of Adam Wagner.


This doesn't make sense but is the sort of nonsensical argument I've come to expect.


How could it?! It was outdoors!



It won't be delayed


I refer you to the links I provided; I have no interest in getting into an argument over semantics of "beatings" or "brutality" but the behaviour of the police is completely and utterly unacceptable.

I must admit I’m getting confused now. Dick is claiming that the initial stages of the protest were unlawful, and then became unlawful allegedly because of the numbers of people. This doesn’t really ring true to me.

I’m not clear on which law Dick is claiming was being broken, especially to the extent that having multiple officers wrestling a person (female or male) to the ground was ever a justifiable response.

This affair shouldn’t be let go, as it reflects very badly on our “policing by consent” ethos.

 

[Bensonby]

I refer you to the links I provided; I have no interest in getting into an argument over semantics of "beatings" or "brutality" but the behaviour of the police is completely and utterly unacceptable.

Well, I’m afraid you’ve just discredited yourself and made yourself look daft: you have used hyperbolic and emotive language but failed to actually provide evidence for your assertions.

For intelligent, balanced comment and appraisal of the situation see here:

 

[yorkie]

Well, I’m afraid you’ve just discredited yourself and made yourself look daft

On the contrary, you've discredited yourself throughout this thread, and made yourself look daft (to put it mildly).

: you have used hyperbolic and emotive language but failed to actually provide evidence for your assertions.

For intelligent, balanced comment and appraisal of the situation see here:

I have nothing but contempt for her; the public want rid of her and rightly so.

If you think I'm using hyperbole, you should take a look at social media! People are absolutely furious, and rightly so.

 

[Bensonby]

I must admit I’m getting confused now. Dick is claiming that the initial stages of the protest were unlawful, and then became unlawful allegedly because of the numbers of people. This doesn’t really ring true to me.

It was probably always unlawful, though only a court can determine lawfulness definitively, the police used discretion to allow the (probably unlawful) activity to continue to a certain degree until a tipping point was reached. It is this difficult and delicate balance that is at the heart of public order policing. Take a “normal” protest, it will almost certainly will result in the obstruction of a highway - a crime. As there is a right to protest under the Human Rights Act then enforcing highway obstruction will almost certainly be disproportionate in at least the first instance. If, however, the disruption to the wider community because disproportionate maybe it would be proportionate. Other offences may also become apparent and become appropriate to enforce. It’s a balancing act that police commanders perform every day in London at all sorts of events.

On the contrary, you've discredited yourself throughout this thread, and made yourself look daft (to put it mildly).


I have nothing but contempt for her; the public want rid of her and rightly so.

You have singularly failed to engage with any of my points meaningfully, merely repeating your emotive, and frankly hysterical, opinions without any actual analysis of evidence to back them up. That makes you look silly to anyone who isn’t in your echo chamber, but then again, I suppose that’s what the internet is all about.

Quite how you are qualified to speak for “the public” I don’t know...

 

[bramling]

It was probably always unlawful, though only a court can determine lawfulness definitively, the police used discretion to allow the (probably unlawful) activity to continue to a certain degree until a tipping point was reached. It is this difficult and delicate balance that is at the heart of public order policing. Take a “normal” protest, it will almost certainly will result in the obstruction of a highway - a crime. As there is a right to protest under the Human Rights Act then enforcing highway obstruction will almost certainly be disproportionate in at least the first instance. If, however, the disruption to the wider community because disproportionate maybe it would be proportionate. Other offences may also become apparent and become appropriate to enforce. It’s a balancing act that police commanders perform every day in London at all sorts of events.


You have singularly failed to engage with any of my points meaningfully, merely repeating your emotive, and frankly hysterical, opinions without any actual analysis of evidence to back them up. That makes you look silly to anyone who isn’t in your echo chamber, but then again, I suppose that’s what the internet is all about.

Quite how you are qualified to speak for “the public” I don’t know...

I must say, regardless of any lawfulness or otherwise, I don’t find breaking up something on a grass space just for health reasons a particularly good use of my tax.

 

[DB]

Quite how you are qualified to speak for “the public” I don’t know...

Have a look on the internet (anywhere, to avoid accusations of echo chambers) and see what the general mood is. You won't find many people defendint the police actions.

 

[yorkie]

It was probably always unlawful, though only a court can determine lawfulness definitively, the police used discretion to allow the (probably unlawful) activity to continue to a certain degree until a tipping point was reached. It is this difficult and delicate balance that is at the heart of public order policing. Take a “normal” protest, it will almost certainly will result in the obstruction of a highway - a crime. As there is a right to protest under the Human Rights Act then enforcing highway obstruction will almost certainly be disproportionate in at least the first instance. If, however, the disruption to the wider community because disproportionate maybe it would be proportionate. Other offences may also become apparent and become appropriate to enforce. It’s a balancing act that police commanders perform every day in London at all sorts of events.


You have singularly failed to engage with any of my points meaningfully, merely repeating your emotive, and frankly hysterical, opinions without any actual analysis of evidence to back them up. That makes you look silly to anyone who isn’t in your echo chamber, but then again, I suppose that’s what the internet is all about.

Quite how you are qualified to speak for “the public” I don’t know...

Regarding your incorrect assertions of the legal matters, I refer you to @Watershed's posts; you have not engaged with those issues, so it's ironic that you complain with others not engaging with you!

Regarding the public mood, I refer you to the tweets I have linked to and quoted which give you an idea of the gravity of the situation. Do you want me to provide a few more quotes from Twitter, to give you more of an idea of what the public thinks?

You are out of touch and deepening the divide even further; my trust in the police is at an absolute low point, but keep digging if that's what you want to do!

Is your dismissive attitude typical of the police?

 

[43096]

With the he talk of “brutality” and “beatings” can anyone provide a link to any footage or pictures that show any “beatings” at this incident? I’ve not seen any personally.

It's not a good look for police to be holding women down on the floor. Even more so when it's in response to a murder where the prime suspect is a police officer and it has been suggested that part of the investigation is to whether the (off duty) officer used his warrant card to entice the victim.

 

[VauxhallandI]

The Police have shown themselves up as the insensitive trained thugs that they are.

No respect and no desire to interact with them ever again.

Just little sad not very bright bullies with a uniform on.

 

[the sniper]

The Police have shown themselves up as the insensitive trained thugs that they are.

No respect and no desire to interact with them ever again.

Just little sad not very bright bullies with a uniform on.

Including the ones who caught the murderer...?

 

[Journeyman]

On the contrary, you've discredited yourself throughout this thread, and made yourself look daft (to put it mildly).


I have nothing but contempt for her; the public want rid of her and rightly so.

If you think I'm using hyperbole, you should take a look at social media! People are absolutely furious, and rightly so.

I lost all my respect for Cressida Dick when she urged people to snitch on their neighbours, and to shame people into compliance with lockdown rules. She can't go any lower in my opinion.

 

[Mojo]

Including the ones who caught the murderer...?

This has been my biggest worry all along; the police have been put in a very difficult situation by our government, and by their own leaders.

Frontline police officers are the ones keeping our streets quiet, the ones protecting our property and our loved ones. They should not have been put in a position whereby the majority of the population do not like and do not trust them, because their superiors are pushing them to take action that affects our human rights and our livelihoods.

 

[Randomer]

Taking a wider view of the Mets' conduct around the protest rather than at the protest itself I have 3 issues:

- Why did the barrister for the Met state at court that the current policy was to assess protests in line with Article 11 of the ECHR (in an attempt to prevent an adverse judgement being made by making the hearing moot) when they have previously publicly stated that demonstrations were unlawful without consideration to this? A cynic might think that they didn't want a finding against them to be made resulting in actions from people previously prevented from protesting or having been arrested for doing so (for being in breach of the Coronavirus regulations). From my perspective it seems that the Met instructed its legal team to do everything they could to not have a judgement either way be made, which is what effectively happened. The picture being painted that the Met won the caught ruling on Friday seems to have been generated as a narrative by somebody, whilst at best it was a draw and at worst for them showed there previously stated policy of all protests being unlawful under the coronavirus regulations to itself be unlawful.

- Why did the Met not engage with the original organisers of the event as seemed to be assumed would be the case by the judge in his ruling:

"Given what has happened in the hearing there may well be further communication between the claimants & the police to deal with the application of the regulations [& the right to protest] to this particular event."

Taken from BBC reporter here. The full judgement has not yet been published probably will be tomorrow. Essentially they put the organisers in an impossible position by refusing to communicate about how the event could be done in a Covid safe way with sufficient distancing and stewards as had been discussed with both the local council and neighbourhood policing team who were ordered to cease communicating with the organisers by a senior officer. That the event went ahead in a non Covid safe way could be entirely blamed on this deliberate lack of communication.

- Post the protest event taking place why are senior police officers trying to evade responsibility as in this Tweet:

"We absolutely did not want to be in a position where enforcement action was necessary. But we were placed in this position because of the overriding need to protect people’s safety."

When the Met absolutely had the opportunity to engage with the organisers of the event to allow it to go ahead in a safe manner and that the refusal to engage with the organisers directly caused the events in question. To me it looks distinctly like the Met didn't want to allow the protest to go ahead, didn't like the judge's comments do decided to completely ignore them and then seem surprised when a protest went ahead in a non Covid safe manner after having refused to engage with organisers who were endeavouring to make it so.

To me it seems distinctly that a person or persons in the senior leadership at the Met didn't like that there policy since January around policing protests was shown to be on very shaky ground legally and decided that policing this event in a similar way to the anti-lockdown protests that have been going on weekly would be proportionate.

Please don't read this post as anti-police in general, other forces have engaged with protestors to facilitate a protest having seen the judgement if they believed it to be proportionate when balancing ECHR and Covid concerns (e.g. Nottinghamshire and South Wales.) I don't really blame the officers on the ground for carrying out what they thought to be lawful orders using pretty minimal force when compared to other countries. My problem here is with the leadership within the Met setting policy as the strategic commander then making statements defecting blame afterwards.

The anti-police narrative really needs to be seen as something that should be directed towards some fairly awful command decisions not necessarily towards the police sent to actually enforce them. The guidance for rank and file officers has in several forces (and indeed that published by the NPCC and COP) not kept up with the legislation and wrongly interpreted guidance as equivalent to the regulations. Is the individual officer who then enforces the regulations wrongly really at fault, as happened in the Derbyshire case with the two women taking a walk last year?

 

[Watershed]

Taking a wider view of the Mets' conduct around the protest rather than at the protest itself I have 3 issues:

- Why did the barrister for the Met state at court that the current policy was to assess protests in line with Article 11 of the ECHR (in an attempt to prevent an adverse judgement being made by making the hearing moot) when they have previously publicly stated that demonstrations were unlawful without consideration to this? A cynic might think that they didn't want a finding against them to be made resulting in actions from people previously prevented from protesting or having been arrested for doing so (for being in breach of the Coronavirus regulations). From my perspective it seems that the Met instructed its legal team to do everything they could to not have a judgement either way be made, which is what effectively happened. The picture being painted that the Met won the caught ruling on Friday seems to have been generated as a narrative by somebody, whilst at best it was a draw and at worst for them showed there previously stated policy of all protests being unlawful under the coronavirus regulations to itself be unlawful.

- Why did the Met not engage with the original organisers of the event as seemed to be assumed would be the case by the judge in his ruling:

Taken from BBC reporter here. The full judgement has not yet been published probably will be tomorrow. Essentially they put the organisers in an impossible position by refusing to communicate about how the event could be done in a Covid safe way with sufficient distancing and stewards as had been discussed with both the local council and neighbourhood policing team who were ordered to cease communicating with the organisers by a senior officer. That the event went ahead in a non Covid safe way could be entirely blamed on this deliberate lack of communication.

- Post the protest event taking place why are senior police officers trying to evade responsibility as in this Tweet:


When the Met absolutely had the opportunity to engage with the organisers of the event to allow it to go ahead in a safe manner and that the refusal to engage with the organisers directly caused the events in question. To me it looks distinctly like the Met didn't want to allow the protest to go ahead, didn't like the judge's comments do decided to completely ignore them and then seem surprised when a protest went ahead in a non Covid safe manner after having refused to engage with organisers who were endeavouring to make it so.

To me it seems distinctly that a person or persons in the senior leadership at the Met didn't like that there policy since January around policing protests was shown to be on very shaky ground legally and decided that policing this event in a similar way to the anti-lockdown protests that have been going on weekly would be proportionate.

Please don't read this post as anti-police in general, other forces have engaged with protestors to facilitate a protest having seen the judgement if they believed it to be proportionate when balancing ECHR and Covid concerns (e.g. Nottinghamshire and South Wales.) I don't really blame the officers on the ground for carrying out what they thought to be lawful orders using pretty minimal force when compared to other countries. My problem here is with the leadership within the Met setting policy as the strategic commander then making statements defecting blame afterwards.

The anti-police narrative really needs to be seen as something that should be directed towards some fairly awful command decisions not necessarily towards the police sent to actually enforce them. The guidance for rank and file officers has in several forces (and indeed that published by the NPCC and COP) not kept up with the legislation and wrongly interpreted guidance as equivalent to the regulations. Is the individual officer who then enforces the regulations wrongly really at fault, as happened in the Derbyshire case with the two women taking a walk last year?

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?

 

[Mojo]

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.

That is actually an excellent way of considering the situation and one that I’d not considered before. I still remember people in the original lockdown telling people off for driving for nonessential journeys because “there might be a crash and that would put more pressure on our NHS”

 

[DDB]

There seem to be details of the case being discussed on here that I haven't caught on the news. Is that because I missed them or is this forum risking finding itself in contempt of court and threating the trial?

 

[Journeyman]

That is actually an excellent way of considering the situation and one that I’d not considered before. I still remember people in the original lockdown telling people off for driving for nonessential journeys because “there might be a crash and that would put more pressure on our NHS”

Yeah, that always struck me as a ridiculous argument, and travel restrictions simply result in more people gathering in already busy places.

 

[yorkie]

There seem to be details of the case being discussed on here that I haven't caught on the news. Is that because I missed them or is this forum risking finding itself in contempt of court and threating the trial?

If anyone has any concerns regarding any forum post, the procedure is to press the report button on the post in question, including any relevant concerns and information in the report.

We do also ask that any such content is not referenced (quoted or replied to) in any thread.

 

[sheff1]

Other forces around the UK seemed to manage that perfectly well last night. I don't understand why the Met were so utterly tone deaf.

The reason becomes clear when you see things like this

For intelligent, balanced comment and appraisal of the situation see here:

Far from being balanced Ms Dick avoids answering questions asked and makes it clear she believes 'outsiders' should not be challenging the actions of "her people".

 

[AlterEgo]

There seem to be details of the case being discussed on here that I haven't caught on the news. Is that because I missed them or is this forum risking finding itself in contempt of court and threating the trial?

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.

 

[sheff1]

With the thread on The Netherlands protests being locked, here seemed the best place to post this about baton wielding and mounted police breaking up a peaceful demonstration in The Hague

Covid-19: Dutch police break up anti-lockdown protest

Police used water cannon and mounted officers to clear anti-government demonstrators in The Hague.

www.bbc.co.uk

Police in the Netherlands have used water cannon to clear anti-government demonstrators from a park in The Hague.
Some 2,000 demonstrators rallied in the centre of the city to protest against Covid-19 restrictions and other government policies.
Mounted officers as well as riot police with batons and dogs moved in after some of the protesters refused to leave at the end of the demonstration.
The protests come a day before voting begins in a general election.
The vote is taking place over three days to avoid congestion that would risk spreading coronavirus at polling stations.

 

[takno]

Well, I’m afraid you’ve just discredited yourself and made yourself look daft: you have used hyperbolic and emotive language but failed to actually provide evidence for your assertions.

For intelligent, balanced comment and appraisal of the situation see here:

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.

 

[DustyBin]

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.

Rather than write a lengthy post I’ll simply second what you’ve said.