Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Chat about anything not specifically aviation related
Post Reply
IATthenRIAT
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat 23 Jun 2018, 3:05 am

Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by IATthenRIAT »

What a disgrace what the Police backed by the Government in light of the killing of that women by one of there own - the scenes in Clapham common was disgusting, and on top of that the Tories are trying to push through a new set of powers making it all but impossible to protest as a group or on your own.

This country is Seriously going to the dogs.

R.I.P Freedom of Speech.

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 7273
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Tommy »

IATthenRIAT wrote:
Sat 13 Mar 2021, 11:47 pm
and on top of that the Tories are trying to push through a new set of powers making it all but impossible to protest as a group or on your own.
For context, if people don’t know what ItR means:
The policing bill does this by amending an old piece of legislation called the Public Order Act 1986. This older Act gave police officers powers which they have used against protestors ever since. If they believe that a demonstration risked “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community”, they could impose restrictions on it – for instance on where it went, whether it moved or how many people could be present.

This week’s policing bill adds a further justification for the restrictions: noise. If the noise of the protest “may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation” – for instance by distracting employees in a nearby office, then the police can impose restrictions. It goes without saying that this applies to almost any protest at all around parliament, the whole purpose of which is to get the attention of politicians. It can therefore cause “serious disruption” of an organisation.

It also applies to passers-by. If the noise of the protest could have “a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession”, the police can impose restrictions. The standard for this threshold is very low indeed: If the police believe that just one person nearby could be caused “serious unease, alarm or distress”, they can impose restrictions.
https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021 ... otest-law/

The Tories are famously bad at writing laws, and most of it stems from bare incompetence swirling in combination with pig-eyed nastiness.

On a legal footing, the above amendment is really quite shockingly bad. Both by what it intends to do, and how it’s drafted to do it.

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 7273
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Tommy »

And yes, this evening’s behaviour by the Met is absolutely unconscionable. I can’t see how Cressida Dick can remain in her role, but then again, she had direct responsibility over the an innocent civilian shot in the head by the Met in broad daylight, and her career was not only over, it flourished, so on current track she’ll receive some sort commendation in about 3 months’ time.

IATthenRIAT
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat 23 Jun 2018, 3:05 am

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by IATthenRIAT »

Tommy wrote:
Sat 13 Mar 2021, 11:56 pm
IATthenRIAT wrote:
Sat 13 Mar 2021, 11:47 pm
and on top of that the Tories are trying to push through a new set of powers making it all but impossible to protest as a group or on your own.
For context, if people don’t know what ItR means:
The policing bill does this by amending an old piece of legislation called the Public Order Act 1986. This older Act gave police officers powers which they have used against protestors ever since. If they believe that a demonstration risked “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community”, they could impose restrictions on it – for instance on where it went, whether it moved or how many people could be present.

This week’s policing bill adds a further justification for the restrictions: noise. If the noise of the protest “may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation” – for instance by distracting employees in a nearby office, then the police can impose restrictions. It goes without saying that this applies to almost any protest at all around parliament, the whole purpose of which is to get the attention of politicians. It can therefore cause “serious disruption” of an organisation.

It also applies to passers-by. If the noise of the protest could have “a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession”, the police can impose restrictions. The standard for this threshold is very low indeed: If the police believe that just one person nearby could be caused “serious unease, alarm or distress”, they can impose restrictions.
https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021 ... otest-law/

The Tories are famously bad at writing laws, and most of it stems from bare incompetence swirling in combination with pig-eyed nastiness.

On a legal footing, the above amendment is really quite shockingly bad. Both by what it intends to do, and how it’s drafted to do it.
Thank You Tommy, its disgusting the way things are going most peoples civil liberties will be gone, and will be like living in a controlled state.

IATthenRIAT
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat 23 Jun 2018, 3:05 am

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by IATthenRIAT »

Twitter is on Fire over it.

FGR2
Posts: 2887
Joined: Mon 15 Sep 2008, 12:12 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by FGR2 »

Cressida Dick has got to go. Useless against Extinction Rebellion, Useless against BLM and against the backdrop of one of her serving officers being charged with kidnap and murder (and investigations by the IOPC, about 5 I recall in relation to the case), the police have used heavy handed tactics at this vigil instead of some common sense.

The optics aren’t good, this will be all over the press tomorrow, and will be an embarrassment for London.

The Police could have arranged this in a COVID secure way, but apparently refused.

The Met really have a long way to go to regain any public trust, the first stop must be to get rid of Dick.

The second question must be the around draconian COVID laws, which are now impinging on basic human rights. Being outside is low risk, so why are gatherings effectively banned for at least another 4 months.

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 7273
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Tommy »

COVID laws themselves do not necessitate this level of brutality. These were just people (mostly women) who wanted to light a candle and lay flowers quietly. By all evidence, it was a peaceful affair. Boozed-up chavs and knobs on the way from the pubs to the football stadium it was absolutely not. It only turned ugly when the Police decided to get involved. Crazy stuff. That’s literally the opposite of what they’re supposed to do.

I agree that outdoor stuff is proven to be low risk, and I want events to return, too, but don’t be fooled by anyone supporting the Met that it was COVID laws that were the issue here.

Obviously we can have that discussion, but I think they’re only very weakly linked.

After all, the police didn’t go smashing onto all those packed beaches, did they? All those anti-lockdown protests, football fans, XR, BLM, VE Day conga lines. And that was all at a time when we didn’t have the data to prove outdoor safety, nor mandated wearing of face-masks...

This very evening, a silent and socially-distanced vigil took place in Nottingham with (apparently) no issues at all.

Covid laws fair enough to discuss, but the Met’a actions tonight go far beyond this stuff.

IATthenRIAT
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat 23 Jun 2018, 3:05 am

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by IATthenRIAT »

Tommy wrote:
Sun 14 Mar 2021, 12:22 am
COVID laws themselves do not necessitate this level of brutality. These were just people (mostly women) who wanted to light a candle and lay flowers quietly. By all evidence, it was a peaceful affair. Boozed-up chavs and knobs on the way from the pubs to the football stadium it was absolutely not. It only turned ugly when the Police decided to get involved. Crazy stuff. That’s literally the opposite of what they’re supposed to do.

I agree that outdoor stuff is proven to be low risk, and I want events to return, too, but don’t be fooled by anyone supporting the Met that it was COVID laws that were the issue here.

Obviously we can have that discussion, but I think they’re only very weakly linked.

After all, the police didn’t go smashing onto all those packed beaches, did they? All those anti-lockdown protests, football fans, XR, BLM, VE Day conga lines. And that was all at a time when we didn’t have the data to prove outdoor safety, nor mandated wearing of face-masks...

This very evening, a silent and socially-distanced vigil took place in Nottingham with (apparently) no issues at all.

Covid laws fair enough to discuss, but the Met’a actions tonight go far beyond this stuff.
Exactly :thumbsup:

FGR2
Posts: 2887
Joined: Mon 15 Sep 2008, 12:12 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by FGR2 »

Tommy wrote:
Sun 14 Mar 2021, 12:22 am
COVID laws themselves do not necessitate this level of brutality. These were just people (mostly women) who wanted to light a candle and lay flowers quietly.

I agree that outdoor stuff is proven to be low risk, and I want events to return, too, but don’t be fooled by anyone supporting the Met that it was COVID laws that were the issue here.

Obviously we can have that discussion, but I think they’re only very weakly linked.

After all, the police didn’t go smashing onto all those packed beaches, did they? All those anti-lockdown protests, football fans, XR, BLM, VE Day conga lines. And that was all at a time when we didn’t have the data to prove outdoor safety, nor mandated wearing of face-masks...

This very evening, a silent and socially-distanced vigil took place in Nottingham with (apparently) no issues at all.

Covid laws fair enough to discuss, but the Met’a actions tonight go far beyond this stuff.
I think it sometimes comes down to the Police’s interpretation of COVID laws and their new found powers. We have seen them get it wrong a number of times in the last year, and seem to interpret the law as they wish.

I am not so sure they would have had as much justification to break it up if they couldn’t fall back on the COVID rules as a reason.

It is not a good look regardless.

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 7273
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Tommy »

Perhaps.

That’s the nub of it, isn’t it.

The High Court did rule on Friday that protests or vigils (this was the latter) were not “automatically unlawful” per COVID rules. A lot of police forces have been treating them as though they were automatically unlawful. It’s a basic obligation of police forces to facilitate lawful protest.

I’m sure much will come out over the next few days. But this feels like a big moment. The Met haven’t just had a nightmare here, it’s an absolute catastrophe.

I mean, let’s build the blocks:

- A woman, who just wanted to walk home, was murdered, allegedly by a serving Met police officer;
-Many many women have been very brave to come forward and recount their previous horrifying experiences at the hands of predatory men;
-A lot of those experiences involved reporting events to the Police, who seldom ever came out of those stories with glowing references. Often quite bad ones;
- More women need to report crimes against them by men, and right at the crucial time where emotions are running high and people wanted to grieve for the murder victim in a peaceful vigil (that all evidence points to as being quite safe to do), the police acted awfully and brutally, for zero reason;
- the vigil was not automatically unlawful, so what justification the police might have tried to rely on is about as thin as papyrus;
-And, to add petrol onto to the fire, the Home Secretary is handing almost absolute discretion on protests to the police in her new Bill before parliament on Monday.

A perfect storm of absolute and utter one-sided chaos.

This is going to have huge repercussions. Cressida Dick should absolutely be gone, but I wonder if this will go further than that.

All of it driven by lack of empathy, kindness, and basic decent humanity.

How absolutely horrific.

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 7273
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Tommy »

And that’s not to mention a clear divide of opinion between those who think that Meghan Markle should be taken seriously when she said she had suicidal thoughts, to Piers Morgan loudly declaring (based on nothing) that he didn’t believe her.

There’s a hell of a lot of static in the air at the moment.

But this, all of this, is exactly why “she didn’t come forward” when you see historic allegations of rape or abuse.

The treatment of those women by the Met, when feelings are already pretty grim, will shatter the confidence of women to have faith in the police and report their attackers.

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 3432
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 8:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by iainpeden »

What happened to Sarah Everard was wicked, tragic, horrific; my daughter is 25 and I still worry about her when she is out.

However, the people who gathered on Clapham Common simply should not have been there and were breaking the law. Had they done the same in France, Spain, Italy - then the tear gas would have come out.

The reason it was unlawful is because of the Covid regulations; if one of the people attending last night caught Covid and then took it into a care home many more deaths could have been caused.

My wife's cousin attended a BLM rally - which were also illegal; then she is grumbling because she hasn't been able to see her mum who is in a dementia care home for 12 months. There's been plenty of criticism on here of people breaking the Covid rules and demanding harsher police action- what's the difference?

(Human) rights come from being responsible and following the rules - which in this case have a very clear reason.
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 7273
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Tommy »

iainpeden wrote:
Sun 14 Mar 2021, 8:52 am

However, the people who gathered on Clapham Common simply should not have been there and were breaking the law.
The High Court ruled on Friday that vigils and protests were not “automatically unlawful” per the COVID guidance, so no they weren’t.

And again, as I said, if that’s the case, why were the crowded beaches not broken up in such a violent manner? What about the Victory Day congas, the anti-lockdown protests, the Bristol protests, XR, whatever the bolycs Piers Corbyn was protesting, even Rangers celebrating their win just *last week*.

Against the law or not, the Met has at its disposal discretion in how to handle these gatherings. Even if it was “against the law”, that does not mean that the most effective form of policing is to act as they did last night, and that’s putting aside for a second the Met reading the friggin’ room.

Kate Middleton went to the vigil, too, without a mask (or at least, went periods without a mask). Presumably the Met will be obligated to arrest her, too?

The “against the law” argument is flimsy at the very best.

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 3432
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 8:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by iainpeden »

It's just like the chav who steals a car and gets killed in the resulting police chase - if they hadn't broken the law it wouldn't have happened.

By definition - Not "automatically unlawful" can also be read as "not automatically lawful".

The judge made a mistake by leaving the grey area.

The Kate Middleton attendance - I had not heard about and wearing/not wearing a mask is irrelevant in this argument. Only 4 people were arrested at Clapham - had 100% been arrested then the argument to arrest all those attending all the illegal groupings would be supported. I would expect there were aggravating circumstances in the 4 arrests.
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

FGR2
Posts: 2887
Joined: Mon 15 Sep 2008, 12:12 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by FGR2 »

This is quite an emotive subject, and considering a serving Met Policeman is charged with murder, makes things even more sensitive. Those higher up in the Met should have appreciated that.

The Police should have allowed a properly organised COVID secure vigil to take place, and filtered out or segregated those who wanted to protest.

Emotions can run high and you will get some “protesters/rabble rousers” who will infiltrate and cause a scene.

It is when Police on the frontline are left with having to forcibly remove people, that you end up with the pictures as seen in the press today.

It is a failure of foresight and planning that led to this mess. It is the people higher up the chain like Dick that need to bear the responsibility for this, not necessarily the rank and file officers dealing with a very difficult situation.

Ken Shabby
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon 29 Sep 2008, 1:23 pm
Location: Romford, Essex
Contact:

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Ken Shabby »

Yet another example of how the police just don’t ‘get’ it. Why were so many of them there at all? Even a brain-dead moron must have seen their mere presence will have been provocative, given it’s one of their own who’s been charged with the murder.

A token presence, perhaps, comprising mainly WPCs might have been more proportional. It was, after all, a bloody vigil, not a demo. Is no one high up in the police capable of making a judgement call on things like this? Any troublemakers could have been dealt with without the blunt force tactics we saw last night. We are, after all, always being told about how highly-trained the police are in dealing with such matters.

No, it was just another chance for them to throw their weight around under the pretence they were stopping the spread of COVID-19. A disease for which there is now minimal proof can be be spread outdoors.

And I’d still like to know where all these bloody police officers come from? For an organisation that’s always bleating about how under-resourced it is, there always seems to be plenty of them about when you least need them.

If Johnson, Khan or whoever is responsible for the Met has any mettle about them, Dick should be gone by close of play today.
Ken

Afghanistan - so what was the point of all that then?

Ken Shabby
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon 29 Sep 2008, 1:23 pm
Location: Romford, Essex
Contact:

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Ken Shabby »

Tommy wrote:
Sun 14 Mar 2021, 9:19 am
iainpeden wrote:
Sun 14 Mar 2021, 8:52 am

However, the people who gathered on Clapham Common simply should not have been there and were breaking the law.
The High Court ruled on Friday that vigils and protests were not “automatically unlawful” per the COVID guidance, so no they weren’t.

And again, as I said, if that’s the case, why were the crowded beaches not broken up in such a violent manner? What about the Victory Day congas, the anti-lockdown protests, the Bristol protests, XR, whatever the bolycs Piers Corbyn was protesting, even Rangers celebrating their win just *last week*.

Against the law or not, the Met has at its disposal discretion in how to handle these gatherings. Even if it was “against the law”, that does not mean that the most effective form of policing is to act as they did last night, and that’s putting aside for a second the Met reading the friggin’ room.

Kate Middleton went to the vigil, too, without a mask (or at least, went periods without a mask). Presumably the Met will be obligated to arrest her, too?

The “against the law” argument is flimsy at the very best.
Exactly.
Ken

Afghanistan - so what was the point of all that then?

Aquarious
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri 23 Jun 2017, 9:58 am

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Aquarious »

Question. Why does the buck have to stop at Cressida Dick and not the Home Secretary, Priti Patel? If there is a question to answer, should it not be the 'Gold' commander on the day?

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 7273
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Tommy »

iainpeden wrote:
Sun 14 Mar 2021, 9:31 am
It's just like the chav who steals a car and gets killed in the resulting police chase - if they hadn't broken the law it wouldn't have happened.

By definition - Not "automatically unlawful" can also be read as "not automatically lawful".
The sole justification for your entire post was that “they were breaking the law”, well, as a default position, no they were not.

If something was not automatically unlawful, then it’s not breaking the law, as you asserted. For something to “break the law” it has to, by definition, be unlawful. If something is not unlawful, but also possibly not lawful, that just means that the law doesn’t necessarily prevent it, but not permits it.

We live in a society where you get punished for breaking the law, not for doing something where the law is silent.

If everything “not permitted, or “not lawful” was punishable, they wouldn’t make any prohibitive laws not to do things.
iainpeden wrote:
Sun 14 Mar 2021, 9:31 am
The judge made a mistake by leaving the grey area.
Stand to be corrected but the judge made a specific ruling on the point. The grey area was deliberate.
iainpeden wrote:
Sun 14 Mar 2021, 9:31 am
The Kate Middleton attendance - I had not heard about and wearing/not wearing a mask is irrelevant in this argument. Only 4 people were arrested at Clapham - had 100% been arrested then the argument to arrest all those attending all the illegal groupings would be supported. I would expect there were aggravating circumstances in the 4 arrests.
Your entire justification for the police’s heavy-handedness was because those at the vigil were “breaking the law”. Well, if that’s the case, then Kate Middleton was, indeed, “breaking the law” and justified equal heavy-handedness treatment, didn’t she? How was she different to any of the other women there who wanted to plant a flower and light a candle?

I’m just trying to decode and understand your argument, mate, that’s all.

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 3432
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 8:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by iainpeden »

Tommy - don't worry about decoding or disagreeing - I thoroughly enjoy our discussions and it'll be nice when we get back to discussing aeroplanes.

Anyway a few more thoughts.
Had somebody given prewarning a week ago that they were organising a meeting/rally/protest would you have approved or supported it? Given your condemnation of beach parties etc, I suspect not.

Given the large numbers - apparently - who took part in the on-line vigil, why could not the Clapham group do the same? Every right thinking person is appalled by what happened to Sarah Everard and agrees that something deep needs to be done. By doing something which we have been told not to do for 12 months now - with very good reason - the protesters have taken the spotlight off the big issue here which is the death of a young woman. Apparently 107 women have been killed so far this year (Radio 5 but I was half asleep) - that's the sort of information which should be used.


What are the rules on gatherings in England?
Under the current lockdown rules two people can meet for recreation outside, which can include "coffee on a bench"
From 29 March people will be allowed to meet outdoors, either with one other household or within the "rule of six"
Police can break up illegal gatherings and issue fines of £10,000 to someone holding a gathering of more than 30 people

Now - heavy handed - almost certainly from the pictures published but I haven't seen pictures of police in riot gear or with batons out and there were only 4 arrests out of hundreds attending.

Answers for the Met to find - certainly but that "protest" (and I have repeatedly heard that word) was against the current rules in England
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 3432
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 8:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by iainpeden »

PS
From what I read the future queen was at the bandstand during the afternoon not at the vigil and not being in an enclosed space means she was not required to wear a mask. Her understated but clear message to politicians will have done a thousand times more to lead to positive action than a group breaking the English rules on meetings and confronting a police force which we love to love but love to hate at the same time.
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 3432
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 8:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by iainpeden »

PPS
My wife - who, in these PC times, is a woman - is disgusted that the group met on Clapham Common and thinks it totally counter productive.
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

Ken Shabby
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon 29 Sep 2008, 1:23 pm
Location: Romford, Essex
Contact:

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Ken Shabby »

A few more questions:

1. Why didn’t the police gradually break up the numbers attending during daylight hours and erect a cordon around the area to prevent the later gathering from happening?

2. Why did they wait until it was dark to take enforcement action?

3. Why did they feel it necessary to break through the gathering to occupy the bandstand, an action they must have know would be provocative and would serve no purpose in actually disbanding the gathering?

4. Why didn’t Dick order her officers to take an observing stance, as per the BLM marches, rather than create a situation that would inevitably result in images being beamed around the world of her male police officers physically detaining women attending a vigil for a woman allegedly murdered by one of her male police officers? (This point alone calls into question her judgement and suitability to carry out her role IMO.)
Ken

Afghanistan - so what was the point of all that then?

User avatar
ericbee123
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:13 am
Location: Blackpool

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by ericbee123 »

    iainpeden wrote:
    Sun 14 Mar 2021, 11:23 am
    Apparently 107 women have been killed so far this year (Radio 5 but I was half asleep) - that's the sort of information which should be used.

    Where were the vigils for the other 106 ?

    Where are the protests about black lives mattering for the young black kids killed in the U.K. this year ?

    Could there be a connection with both of these killings ?

    Are the organisations organising these protests more bothered about who died and why they died or they more concerned about who killed them ( or who is alleged to have killed them ) ?

    Anyway - if it’s as I suspect they are highlighting these deaths as they were caused ( or probably caused ) by policemen ( and therefore the establishment by default ) then it’s a massive own goal to give them pictures of policemen being heavy handed, when that’s probably the exact thing some of them wanted.

    If the judge had said , no problem , have your vigil and the police hadn’t turned up to break it up, then either it would have had people who cared about the death having a vigil or the people who turned up because they wanted to show us how awful the police are, would have had to try harder to provoke the reaction from the police. Instead they were handed an early own goal by the establishment side.
    Disclaimer-I have spell/grammar checked this post, it may still contain mistakes that might cause offence.

    User avatar
    starbuck
    Posts: 1261
    Joined: Tue 28 Mar 2017, 10:35 pm

    Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

    Post by starbuck »

    Aquarious wrote:
    Sun 14 Mar 2021, 10:22 am
    Question. Why does the buck have to stop at Cressida Dick and not the Home Secretary, Priti Patel? If there is a question to answer, should it not be the 'Gold' commander on the day?
    You're missing out the mayor of London in your buck stopping.

    Post Reply