Excellent piece. This gets to the nub of it for me:
"We need Ministers to have no truck with the all too prevalent belief that the police’s job is to provide therapy for victims, to believe them without question rather than properly investigate their allegations, that it is their job to police “hate” and, rather than investigate crimes, record matters which are not."
It feels to me like the police have simply become a self-serving highly-unionised public sector body, whose chief purpose is to lazily pursue their own priorities and interests (and it is far easier to snare motorists and sit online browsing Twitter than it is to investigate serious and disgusting crime) rather than those of the public. Elected P&C commissioners were supposed to do something about this but have been a total and abject failure, with almost all going native.
I know from my sister that the police can attract the bossiest and most borish of people, that gross incompetence and poor performance is routinely tolerated, for a variety of reasons, whilst high performance is sometimes viewed as 'bad form' on the basis it might show everyone else up and make them work harder.
It stinks. And I hope it is Gove because whilst no-one likes him much, and he won't make many friends, at least he'll try to do something about it.
And that is not even to mention their shameful lack of interest in fraud cases, the vast majority of which they barely make a pretence of investigating.
Doubly ironic that as women, attempting to protest Sarah Everard’s murder by a policeman, are wrestled to the ground by...policemen...PB’s finest pass the time with nob jokes.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Priti Patel introduces to Parliament a new policing bill that gives police even more powers to suppress peaceful protest.
That's because it's too fucking depressing.
The Met needs to be burnt to the ground and reconstituted.
Now even Tories want to defund the police...
No. This gentleman was a former colleague of mine. He was very tough on the Met and they hated him. And they lied, twisted and sought to destroy him. He survived, but was bankrupted and had his reputation ruined in the process. I have little time for them.
You're looking at it from the wrong perspective (okay, I know I said it was about victims). What matters is the perpetrator. If a black man gets killed by a cop, then it would be big news.
Okay but that is all part of the same problem. For some reason as a society we have this notion that certain types of victims or perpetrators make a crime more or less outrageous, ranging between the extremes of public frenzy to total disinterest. Our repsonse and interest is at odds with reality.
Jess Phillips read out the names of over a hundred murdered women this week in Parliament. This sort of random off the street murder is news because it is rare.
Women being made to feel unsafe by male harassment in the street is not a rare event though. Every woman has tales of this sort of male aggression and anger. Mrs Foxy was just telling me of such an event earlier.
A guy I know has been knocked unconscious once and threatened with a knife another time when trying to help a woman being harassed by a male or males.
One of the cases was in the middle of a major London train station
Doubly ironic that as women, attempting to protest Sarah Everard’s murder by a policeman, are wrestled to the ground by...policemen...PB’s finest pass the time with nob jokes.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Priti Patel introduces to Parliament a new policing bill that gives police even more powers to suppress peaceful protest.
You are totally right about the Met being out of their minds. And the contrast with previous protests is quite striking. They should be ashamed.
What are the new restrictions being imposed?
The bill will amend the Public Order Act 1986, which gave police power to restrict demonstrations if there is a risk to “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community.”
The amendment will further allow police to restrict demos if the *noise* of a protest “may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation” or have “a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession”.
This is a very low threshold which effectively renders any and all demonstration subject to potential restriction.
I assume this is not a time-limited measure related to the current pandemic?
The change you quote doesn't seem that drastic, risk of public disorder or serious damage to property are surely already criteria for stopping a protest? The one about noise does seem silly though.
I think you've misunderstood? The amendment doesn't change the law in relation to risk of damage to property etc. It's purely about the "noise".
Forgetting all of the puns for a minute - Cressida Dick is done. This heavy handed approach to women peacefully making a point about violence and harrasment they face is completely unnecessary.
Whatever the "public health" concerns are don't even come close to the issues women face on the streets every single fucking day. I'm not saying that all of them are in danger of being kidnapped, raped and murdered like that poor girl last week. Obviously. What I'm saying is that women's voices and their genuine concerns over the kind of city centre culture we have of them not being able to walk alone after dark needs to be challenged. The Met especially haven't done any kind of job in keeping the streets safe from those who seek to harm women at night, you can quote all of stats about gang members killing each other as much as you want - ultimately, a woman walking alone at night is a taxpayer, a gang member is in the game.
I want London to be a safe city for my wife, my mum, my sister, my niece, my future daughters that might exist one day. Every woman is someone's wife, someone's girlfriend, someone's daughter and so on. The way we listen to their concerns and then action change based on what they have said casts a very poor light on our society.
I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, I'm not some woke wanker trying to point score, I want to make London safe for women. I have no idea how to do that but I think step one is listening and not arresting those who are protesting about it. Fuck lockdown rules and fuck the double standards for allowing the BLM protests to go ahead. The Met are a disgrace and need to a root and branch level of reform, @Cyclefree has a very timely thread today.
Amen. Screw the men are evil Woke stuff, but just get the streets safe for women (everywhere), reform the police and change attitudes so both men and women can both do their own thing, and have fun together too, and enjoy the world on equal terms.
Doubly ironic that as women, attempting to protest Sarah Everard’s murder by a policeman, are wrestled to the ground by...policemen...PB’s finest pass the time with nob jokes.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Priti Patel introduces to Parliament a new policing bill that gives police even more powers to suppress peaceful protest.
You are totally right about the Met being out of their minds. And the contrast with previous protests is quite striking. They should be ashamed.
What are the new restrictions being imposed?
The bill will amend the Public Order Act 1986, which gave police power to restrict demonstrations if there is a risk to “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community.”
The amendment will further allow police to restrict demos if the *noise* of a protest “may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation” or have “a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession”.
This is a very low threshold which effectively renders any and all demonstration subject to potential restriction.
If this sort of crap is passed banning demonstrations, this will be the year that I get arrested. Fuck it, I am senior enough that my career is unaffected by a criminal record.
Doubly ironic that as women, attempting to protest Sarah Everard’s murder by a policeman, are wrestled to the ground by...policemen...PB’s finest pass the time with nob jokes.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Priti Patel introduces to Parliament a new policing bill that gives police even more powers to suppress peaceful protest.
You are totally right about the Met being out of their minds. And the contrast with previous protests is quite striking. They should be ashamed.
What are the new restrictions being imposed?
The bill will amend the Public Order Act 1986, which gave police power to restrict demonstrations if there is a risk to “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community.”
The amendment will further allow police to restrict demos if the *noise* of a protest “may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation” or have “a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession”.
This is a very low threshold which effectively renders any and all demonstration subject to potential restriction.
I assume this is not a time-limited measure related to the current pandemic?
The change you quote doesn't seem that drastic, risk of public disorder or serious damage to property are surely already criteria for stopping a protest? The one about noise does seem silly though.
I think you've misunderstood? The amendment doesn't change the law in relation to risk of damage to property etc. It's purely about the "noise".
Ah, thanks. The first paragraph was a summary of the law as it stands.
Sorry, we all waved through the laws. This is the conclusion.
Maybe, just maybe, the laws should not have been waved through.
There was an argument regarding public health trumpeting personal and public liberties. To a degree that still applies, but a principled objection was always present on those grounds from the start (which made the objections based on Covid denialism all the more unnecessary).
As the public health situation improved the necessity, or rather proportional justification for such restriction of liberty was always going to reduce severely. An incident like this, though very emotive, doesn't really add much that was not always there in terms of either the arguments for such legislation, and the inevitable pressure to repeal (or not extend) such lesiglation, which is why Baker's linking of the two was unnecessary.
However, in terms of crystallising some of the arguments against that not many will have cared about with crazy Piers Corbyn, those seeking an earlier end to the legislative restrictions have a powerful example to utilise.
Doubly ironic that as women, attempting to protest Sarah Everard’s murder by a policeman, are wrestled to the ground by...policemen...PB’s finest pass the time with nob jokes.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Priti Patel introduces to Parliament a new policing bill that gives police even more powers to suppress peaceful protest.
You are totally right about the Met being out of their minds. And the contrast with previous protests is quite striking. They should be ashamed.
What are the new restrictions being imposed?
The bill will amend the Public Order Act 1986, which gave police power to restrict demonstrations if there is a risk to “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community.”
The amendment will further allow police to restrict demos if the *noise* of a protest “may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation” or have “a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession”.
This is a very low threshold which effectively renders any and all demonstration subject to potential restriction.
I assume this is not a time-limited measure related to the current pandemic?
The change you quote doesn't seem that drastic, risk of public disorder or serious damage to property are surely already criteria for stopping a protest? The one about noise does seem silly though.
Not time limited.
You misunderstand (and I was not clear enough).
The *new* power is to restrict to demos if they are deemed to be too noisy to neighbouring businesses or passers by.
Jess Phillips read out the names of over a hundred murdered women this week in Parliament. This sort of random off the street murder is news because it is rare.
The list of murdered men would be much larger. Anyone planning on reading that out? I doubt it.
Women being made to feel unsafe by male harassment in the street is not a rare event though. Every woman has tales of this sort of male aggression and anger. Mrs Foxy was just telling me of such an event earlier.
I don't doubt it at all. It would be interesting to get a similar survey of men being made to feel unsafe due to abuse, violence, threats, robberies and similar on our streets. I suspect it would be quite sobering as well.
I'm not against ending harrassment, and making the world safer for women. I just find it perplexing that so many of the great and the good, and the wider public, are outraged by murder 23 (I think that's correct) in London in 2021, and yet utterly silent about the other 22.
Doubly ironic that as women, attempting to protest Sarah Everard’s murder by a policeman, are wrestled to the ground by...policemen...PB’s finest pass the time with nob jokes.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Priti Patel introduces to Parliament a new policing bill that gives police even more powers to suppress peaceful protest.
That's because it's too fucking depressing.
The Met needs to be burnt to the ground and reconstituted.
You lot all agreed with it when it was two people meeting in a fucking park.
Doubly ironic that as women, attempting to protest Sarah Everard’s murder by a policeman, are wrestled to the ground by...policemen...PB’s finest pass the time with nob jokes.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Priti Patel introduces to Parliament a new policing bill that gives police even more powers to suppress peaceful protest.
You are totally right about the Met being out of their minds. And the contrast with previous protests is quite striking. They should be ashamed.
What are the new restrictions being imposed?
The bill will amend the Public Order Act 1986, which gave police power to restrict demonstrations if there is a risk to “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community.”
The amendment will further allow police to restrict demos if the *noise* of a protest “may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation” or have “a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession”.
This is a very low threshold which effectively renders any and all demonstration subject to potential restriction.
I assume this is not a time-limited measure related to the current pandemic?
The change you quote doesn't seem that drastic, risk of public disorder or serious damage to property are surely already criteria for stopping a protest? The one about noise does seem silly though.
Not time limited.
You misunderstand (and I was not clear enough).
The *new* power is to restrict to demos if they are deemed to be too noisy to neighbouring businesses or passers by.
So that’s pretty much any demo ever.
Thanks, I had misunderstood. Does seem absurd, since even a peaceful demo is noisy.
Doubly ironic that as women, attempting to protest Sarah Everard’s murder by a policeman, are wrestled to the ground by...policemen...PB’s finest pass the time with nob jokes.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Priti Patel introduces to Parliament a new policing bill that gives police even more powers to suppress peaceful protest.
That's because it's too fucking depressing.
The Met needs to be burnt to the ground and reconstituted.
You lot all agreed with it when it was two people meeting in a fucking park.
We don't pick and choose which protests we allow when NO protests are allowed.
This is true. Like many of the Coronavirus laws it is a sledgehammer restriction, and one that really relies on voluntary compliance since if people ignore it then as Black Rook points out that is not much that can be done, though as others have said the authorities have been inconsistent.
I railed against the police earlier, and I won't defend mishandling a protest either, but I don't blame them for what the law currently permits or does not permit, unless through their own guidance or interpretation they enforce it incorrectly, or operationally mishandle things (which I am sure is what will be decided is the case here).
Thank you Cyclefree for yet another excellent topic for discussion. The first post covid PB gathering really needs to be in your daughter’s pub! Worrying question. Why would anyone without authoritarian or facistic tendencies choose the police as a career?
Because, have you watched police interceptors? In amongst a difficult job, it looks more exciting than most jobs.Who wouldn't want to spend their days catching baddies? Granted the real world is more complex than that. But I can see the attraction.
Can anyone explain to me, why the Duchess is NOT wearing a face mask in public????
No doubt she's been vaccinated (special category) BUT yours truly has also been jabbed (twice) and I wear the mask.
Because it is the RIGHT thing to do!
I'd wager she won't have been vaccinated, the only reason the Queen was done was because of her age. If she was in the USA she absolubtely would have been though.
Jess Phillips read out the names of over a hundred murdered women this week in Parliament. This sort of random off the street murder is news because it is rare.
The list of murdered men would be much larger. Anyone planning on reading that out? I doubt it.
Women being made to feel unsafe by male harassment in the street is not a rare event though. Every woman has tales of this sort of male aggression and anger. Mrs Foxy was just telling me of such an event earlier.
I don't doubt it at all. It would be interesting to get a similar survey of men being made to feel unsafe due to abuse, violence, threats, robberies and similar on our streets. I suspect it would be quite sobering as well.
I'm not against ending harrassment, and making the world safer for women. I just find it perplexing that so many of the great and the good, and the wider public, are outraged by murder 23 (I think that's correct) in London in 2021, and yet utterly silent about the other 22.
Yes but the perpetrators of murders on both men and women are overwhelmingly men.
There is a real issue of male violence in the world. It is not women that I am watching out for when walking home late at night.
Can anyone explain to me, why the Duchess is NOT wearing a face mask in public????
No doubt she's been vaccinated (special category) BUT yours truly has also been jabbed (twice) and I wear the mask.
Because it is the RIGHT thing to do!
Outside, on her own and socially distanced.
Sure didn't look like it on this clip.
Royalty is supposed to be a model of proper, good behavior. Not the opposite.
Of course, Prince Andrew never did get THAT memo.
My guess is that Kate's visit was planned by Palace PR as part of their push-back versus Meghan. Thus important to make sure that folks could recognize her. And public health be damned.
Harold Wilson once said "a week is a long time in politics". Tonight's rather poignant thread has already been overtaken by events within it's lifetime.
Jess Phillips read out the names of over a hundred murdered women this week in Parliament. This sort of random off the street murder is news because it is rare.
The list of murdered men would be much larger. Anyone planning on reading that out? I doubt it.
Women being made to feel unsafe by male harassment in the street is not a rare event though. Every woman has tales of this sort of male aggression and anger. Mrs Foxy was just telling me of such an event earlier.
I don't doubt it at all. It would be interesting to get a similar survey of men being made to feel unsafe due to abuse, violence, threats, robberies and similar on our streets. I suspect it would be quite sobering as well.
I'm not against ending harrassment, and making the world safer for women. I just find it perplexing that so many of the great and the good, and the wider public, are outraged by murder 23 (I think that's correct) in London in 2021, and yet utterly silent about the other 22.
How many of the others were carried out by serving police officers?
A serving officer who was armed and notwithstanding "erratic" behaviour was allowed to keep on carrying that gun?
And with the added murky waters of the incident he was involved in a few days earlier
Can anyone explain to me, why the Duchess is NOT wearing a face mask in public????
No doubt she's been vaccinated (special category) BUT yours truly has also been jabbed (twice) and I wear the mask.
Because it is the RIGHT thing to do!
Outside, on her own and socially distanced.
Sure didn't look like it on this clip.
Royalty is supposed to be a model of proper, good behavior. Not the opposite.
Of course, Prince Andrew never did get THAT memo.
My guess is that Kate's visit was planned by Palace PR as part of their push-back versus Meghan. Thus important to make sure that folks could recognize her. And public health be damned.
You think she didn't wear a mask so she would be recognised? Given that the press were already there I find that incredibly hard to believe.
1. The police have been presented with regulations that instruct them that all demonstrations are effectively forbidden 2. However, the regulations contain the fundamental flaw that, depending upon the size of the demo, they may be very hard to enforce: if the demonstration in question is both big enough, and contains a sufficient risk of violence if it is broken up, then the rules are at risk of being rendered meaningless. This is, of course, what happened with BLM 3. Unable to do anything about the large demonstrations, the police then fail to apply a consistency of approach to the smaller ones and instead insist on dispersing them, using force if necessary
Thus, the law and those enforcing it are brought into disrepute, through a combination of regulations that have either not been properly thought through or which the political leadership, which has ultimate power of direction, lacks the backbone to see properly enforced; and an inability to act with sensitivity and discretion.
If BLM was allowed then so should tonight's protest - and was any serious effort made to compromise with those people and ask nicely if they might at least two metre distance, which there was plenty of space to do, or did the police simply insist that they go home?
What a mess.
I agree totally. However, that situation is not sustainable - the police cannot be intimidated by large mobs whilst cracking down on small protests. It's not good enough.
Patel will want resignations on her desk tomorrow - if she doesn't, it could be her job on the line.
If I were in her place I'd be sorely tempted to use this as an opportunity to do what Charles suggested and bring the Met itself down.
The kind of serious messes it becomes embroiled in are rarely heard of in smaller county constabularies. I wonder if there's any case to be made for splitting London up into several force areas? More manageable organisations, shorter chains of command?
Jess Phillips read out the names of over a hundred murdered women this week in Parliament. This sort of random off the street murder is news because it is rare.
The list of murdered men would be much larger. Anyone planning on reading that out? I doubt it.
Women being made to feel unsafe by male harassment in the street is not a rare event though. Every woman has tales of this sort of male aggression and anger. Mrs Foxy was just telling me of such an event earlier.
I don't doubt it at all. It would be interesting to get a similar survey of men being made to feel unsafe due to abuse, violence, threats, robberies and similar on our streets. I suspect it would be quite sobering as well.
I'm not against ending harrassment, and making the world safer for women. I just find it perplexing that so many of the great and the good, and the wider public, are outraged by murder 23 (I think that's correct) in London in 2021, and yet utterly silent about the other 22.
Perhaps because this one was done by one of the few people who women are supposed to feel absolutely safe around. As a kid it was a mantra - if you get lost or are in trouble then find a policeman. They will look after you.
This is such a massive abuse of trust - particularly if it turns out he was using his status to achieve his aims - that it shakes everyone's foundational beliefs. I mean I already have a pretty low opinion of the police as an institution but even I am shocked by the idea of one of them using his position of power to lift a woman off the streets and murder her.
Jess Phillips read out the names of over a hundred murdered women this week in Parliament. This sort of random off the street murder is news because it is rare.
The list of murdered men would be much larger. Anyone planning on reading that out? I doubt it.
Women being made to feel unsafe by male harassment in the street is not a rare event though. Every woman has tales of this sort of male aggression and anger. Mrs Foxy was just telling me of such an event earlier.
I don't doubt it at all. It would be interesting to get a similar survey of men being made to feel unsafe due to abuse, violence, threats, robberies and similar on our streets. I suspect it would be quite sobering as well.
I'm not against ending harrassment, and making the world safer for women. I just find it perplexing that so many of the great and the good, and the wider public, are outraged by murder 23 (I think that's correct) in London in 2021, and yet utterly silent about the other 22.
How many of murders 1-22 were gang members killing each other? There's your answer. A lot of Londoners either directly identify with the girl who was murdered or, like me, recognise the situation facing my wife on a daily basis in this city.
Sarah Everard was a taxpayer - this is a taxpayer murder, that's why it offends us all so much. Gang members deep in the game stabbing each other over territory doesn't.
Forgetting all of the puns for a minute - Cressida Dick is done. This heavy handed approach to women peacefully making a point about violence and harrasment they face is completely unnecessary.
Whatever the "public health" concerns are don't even come close to the issues women face on the streets every single fucking day. I'm not saying that all of them are in danger of being kidnapped, raped and murdered like that poor girl last week. Obviously. What I'm saying is that women's voices and their genuine concerns over the kind of city centre culture we have of them not being able to walk alone after dark needs to be challenged. The Met especially haven't done any kind of job in keeping the streets safe from those who seek to harm women at night, you can quote all of stats about gang members killing each other as much as you want - ultimately, a woman walking alone at night is a taxpayer, a gang member is in the game.
I want London to be a safe city for my wife, my mum, my sister, my niece, my future daughters that might exist one day. Every woman is someone's wife, someone's girlfriend, someone's daughter and so on. The way we listen to their concerns and then action change based on what they have said casts a very poor light on our society.
I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, I'm not some woke wanker trying to point score, I want to make London safe for women. I have no idea how to do that but I think step one is listening and not arresting those who are protesting about it. Fuck lockdown rules and fuck the double standards for allowing the BLM protests to go ahead. The Met are a disgrace and need to a root and branch level of reform, @Cyclefree has a very timely thread today.
Totally agree Max, and well said.
I've never seen a single issue unite all my friendship groups and family AGAINST the police.
This is an absolute travesty. Senior resignations are required over this.
She broke a law we all waved in for the good of us all.
Who needs to take the long look at ourselves?
What's this 'we' business? It's certainly the case that every indication is that the public supported and supports very harsh Covid-19 restrictions, up to when cases like this emerge at least, but 'we' didn't wave in anything.
Our representatives made the call for the reason you give - and this event would not, I think, change whether someone believes it to have been the correct call or not - and they will determine if they are not longer necessary or appropriate. If they did not intend for this sort of thing to be restricted they are very bad at their jobs as it has not been a secret large gatherings are not permitted, and if they did but consider there should be exceptions but didn't list these then they did a not as bad but still poor job not legislating for that.
Can anyone explain to me, why the Duchess is NOT wearing a face mask in public????
No doubt she's been vaccinated (special category) BUT yours truly has also been jabbed (twice) and I wear the mask.
Because it is the RIGHT thing to do!
Outside, on her own and socially distanced.
Sure didn't look like it on this clip.
Royalty is supposed to be a model of proper, good behavior. Not the opposite.
Of course, Prince Andrew never did get THAT memo.
My guess is that Kate's visit was planned by Palace PR as part of their push-back versus Meghan. Thus important to make sure that folks could recognize her. And public health be damned.
There’s never been an outdoor mask mandate in the UK. Most people don’t wear them even if they religiously observe the rule indoors.
Forgetting all of the puns for a minute - Cressida Dick is done. This heavy handed approach to women peacefully making a point about violence and harrasment they face is completely unnecessary.
Whatever the "public health" concerns are don't even come close to the issues women face on the streets every single fucking day. I'm not saying that all of them are in danger of being kidnapped, raped and murdered like that poor girl last week. Obviously. What I'm saying is that women's voices and their genuine concerns over the kind of city centre culture we have of them not being able to walk alone after dark needs to be challenged. The Met especially haven't done any kind of job in keeping the streets safe from those who seek to harm women at night, you can quote all of stats about gang members killing each other as much as you want - ultimately, a woman walking alone at night is a taxpayer, a gang member is in the game.
I want London to be a safe city for my wife, my mum, my sister, my niece, my future daughters that might exist one day. Every woman is someone's wife, someone's girlfriend, someone's daughter and so on. The way we listen to their concerns and then action change based on what they have said casts a very poor light on our society.
I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, I'm not some woke wanker trying to point score, I want to make London safe for women. I have no idea how to do that but I think step one is listening and not arresting those who are protesting about it. Fuck lockdown rules and fuck the double standards for allowing the BLM protests to go ahead. The Met are a disgrace and need to a root and branch level of reform, @Cyclefree has a very timely thread today.
Amen. Screw the men are evil Woke stuff, but just get the streets safe for women (everywhere), reform the police and change attitudes so both men and women can both do their own thing, and have fun together too, and enjoy the world on equal terms.
You're edging close to a BLM position there. Replace men with white and women with black.
Can anyone explain to me, why the Duchess is NOT wearing a face mask in public????
No doubt she's been vaccinated (special category) BUT yours truly has also been jabbed (twice) and I wear the mask.
Because it is the RIGHT thing to do!
Outside, on her own and socially distanced.
Sure didn't look like it on this clip.
Royalty is supposed to be a model of proper, good behavior. Not the opposite.
Of course, Prince Andrew never did get THAT memo.
My guess is that Kate's visit was planned by Palace PR as part of their push-back versus Meghan. Thus important to make sure that folks could recognize her. And public health be damned.
You think she didn't wear a mask so she would be recognised? Given that the press were already there I find that incredibly hard to believe.
Recognized in the pictures. That's the key thing for the PR folks
She broke a law we all waved in for the good of us all.
Who needs to take the long look at ourselves?
I don't remember the police holding holiday makers down on the beach and handcuffing them. Or tourists going to Derbyshire. This is completely disproportionate - all the more so given they have allowed other, much larger, gatherings during the pandemic.
Rock and a hard place, I'm afraid. What needed to happen was for the Prime Minister to say "look, all protests are now fine."
Problem solved.
Except that he and Priti literally have a bill going through Parliament THIS WEEK allowing the police to effectively ban ALL protests if they are so minded.
Can anyone explain to me, why the Duchess is NOT wearing a face mask in public????
No doubt she's been vaccinated (special category) BUT yours truly has also been jabbed (twice) and I wear the mask.
Because it is the RIGHT thing to do!
Outside, on her own and socially distanced.
Sure didn't look like it on this clip.
Royalty is supposed to be a model of proper, good behavior. Not the opposite.
Of course, Prince Andrew never did get THAT memo.
My guess is that Kate's visit was planned by Palace PR as part of their push-back versus Meghan. Thus important to make sure that folks could recognize her. And public health be damned.
You think she didn't wear a mask so she would be recognised? Given that the press were already there I find that incredibly hard to believe.
Recognized in the pictures. That's the key thing for the PR folks
That would happen with or without the mask, since it would be under a headline with the words "Duchess of Cambridge".
She broke a law we all waved in for the good of us all.
Who needs to take the long look at ourselves?
What's this 'we' business? It's certainly the case that every indication is that the public supported and supports very harsh Covid-19 restrictions, up to when cases like this emerge at least, but 'we' didn't wave in anything.
Our representatives made the call for the reason you give - and this event would not, I think, change whether someone believes it to have been the correct call or not - and they will determine if they are not longer necessary or appropriate. If they did not intend for this sort of thing to be restricted they are very bad at their jobs as it has not been a secret large gatherings are not permitted, and if they did but consider there should be exceptions but didn't list these then they did a not as bad but still poor job not legislating for that.
The law that made tonight happen was put into place in November - and we* all giggled when it was Piers Corbyn.
Now its something serious but its the same fokkin law.
Can anyone explain to me, why the Duchess is NOT wearing a face mask in public????
No doubt she's been vaccinated (special category) BUT yours truly has also been jabbed (twice) and I wear the mask.
Because it is the RIGHT thing to do!
Outside, on her own and socially distanced.
Sure didn't look like it on this clip.
Royalty is supposed to be a model of proper, good behavior. Not the opposite.
Of course, Prince Andrew never did get THAT memo.
My guess is that Kate's visit was planned by Palace PR as part of their push-back versus Meghan. Thus important to make sure that folks could recognize her. And public health be damned.
Except if a mask was not required by law in public outdoors then inference of a motivation which disregards public health would be a paranoid invention on your part. That it was planned is obvious as all royal trips are.
It also makes little sense as she has been seen wearing a mask before and, do you know, she is still recognisable, and would be especially if an editor were to write 'Duchess of Cambridge visits X' underneath it.
Tim Shipman: "I've lived in London for 24 years. The Met veers between apologetic wokery and moronic brutality. I don't know a single Londoner who thinks they are on their side"
So the lockdown enthusiasts position now, confronted by tonight's horrendous scenes, is what...??
Well done the Met police for supporting the rules we have cheered to the rafters?
Exceptions should be made for demonstrations that are the 'of the correct kind....?'
Breaking lockdown rules is cool?
Or what?
We are at the beginning. The terrible effects of this awful, awful policy are only beginning to be seen. There is much, much more to come.
Sorry, who exactly has cheered the rules to the rafters? I suspect most on here view them as a necessary measure to mitigate the pandemic, rather than gleefully welcoming their introduction.
The big problem is the government and the police have been rather selective on what protests have been allowed over the past 12 months. BLM fine, Piers Corbyn nutters not ok. Eco nutters fine, women wanting to remember a murder victim, not ok.
Yes, it is odd. Removes all credibility really. BLM they appeared to be taking beatings on the chin, much less shutting down the protest on public health grounds. I suspect in that instance they were told not to intervene, though I don't think that order came via the Home Secretary, as she was furious.
BLM were actively trying to beat individual white people to death. The police stood off. I was there. I saw it
I have enormous sympathy for the average UK copper. If they do *anything* which can be construed as racist, their career is OVER. Yet if they hang back and don't arrest curfew/lockdown breakers, we all hate them
It's a terrible job and they get zero praise when they get it, amazingly, right.
Pity the police. They aren't even armed, so they can't even whip out a firearm and shoot the odd obvious miscreant, for a bit of satisfaction, like foreign coppers.
We are (seriously) lucky to have the police we have. They are superior to any police force I have encountered abroad.
Rock and a hard place, I'm afraid. What needed to happen was for the Prime Minister to say "look, all protests are now fine."
Problem solved.
Except that he and Priti literally have a bill going through Parliament THIS WEEK allowing the police to effectively ban ALL protests if they are so minded.
And boy, are they minded.
Well, perhaps SKS and the rest of the pro-lockdown/anti-Met people should highlight this instead of trying to have their cake and eat it.
Can anyone explain to me, why the Duchess is NOT wearing a face mask in public????
No doubt she's been vaccinated (special category) BUT yours truly has also been jabbed (twice) and I wear the mask.
Because it is the RIGHT thing to do!
Face masks are not compulsory outdoors in the UK.
Compulsion is NOT the point. Moral suasion and good example in a public health crisis IS.
Noone wears a mask outside here ! The US seems to be a split between Democrats who wear them alone in their cars and the GOP that don't wear them anywhere. It's all mask indoors, no mask outdoors here.
Don't know how most PBers think about it, but personally am far more focused on / concerned about MASK wearing and NOT about social distancing.
The latter is good, but the former is better.
Personally am reasonably comfortable in somewhat close quarters on a sidewalk or grocery store aisle, though I do try to maintain as much space as possible.
BUT I got BONKERS when I have to share public space - indoors OR outdoors - in any proximity with an un-masked a-hole.
The essential problem that @Cyclefree highlights is that the police are simply not accountable for the power that they wield in our society. And she's right, they are not.
The problem in Scotland just now is that the independence of both the police and the prosecution service seems to have been deeply compromised by being just a bit too accountable to those in power.
The problem is as old as time: quis custiodet ipsos custodes? If there is a good answer we have yet to find it.
The big problem is the government and the police have been rather selective on what protests have been allowed over the past 12 months. BLM fine, Piers Corbyn nutters not ok. Eco nutters fine, women wanting to remember a murder victim, not ok.
Yes, it is odd. Removes all credibility really. BLM they appeared to be taking beatings on the chin, much less shutting down the protest on public health grounds. I suspect in that instance they were told not to intervene, though I don't think that order came via the Home Secretary, as she was furious.
BLM were actively trying to beat individual white people to death. The police stood off. I was there. I saw it
I have enormous sympathy for the average UK copper. If they do *anything* which can be construed as racist, their career is OVER. Yet if they hang back and don't arrest curfew/lockdown breakers, we all hate them
It's a terrible job and they get zero praise when they get it, amazingly, right.
Pity the police. They aren't even armed, so they can't even whip out a firearm and shoot the odd obvious miscreant, for a bit of satisfaction, like foreign coppers.
We are (seriously) lucky to have the police we have. They are superior to any police force I have encountered abroad.
She broke a law we all waved in for the good of us all.
Who needs to take the long look at ourselves?
What's this 'we' business? It's certainly the case that every indication is that the public supported and supports very harsh Covid-19 restrictions, up to when cases like this emerge at least, but 'we' didn't wave in anything.
Our representatives made the call for the reason you give - and this event would not, I think, change whether someone believes it to have been the correct call or not - and they will determine if they are not longer necessary or appropriate. If they did not intend for this sort of thing to be restricted they are very bad at their jobs as it has not been a secret large gatherings are not permitted, and if they did but consider there should be exceptions but didn't list these then they did a not as bad but still poor job not legislating for that.
The law that made tonight happen was put into place in November - and we* all giggled when it was Piers Corbyn.
Now its something serious but its the same fokkin law.
First they came for Piers Corbyn. But because I was not an anti-vaxxer, climate change denialist, I said nothing...
Tim Shipman: "I've lived in London for 24 years. The Met veers between apologetic wokery and moronic brutality. I don't know a single Londoner who thinks they are on their side"
Total. Fucking. Bullshit.
Let him do a shift in a UK cupper's shoes. Especially in London. He wouldn't last half an hour without either doing something *OMFG racist* or getting so angry at obvious crime going non-arrested he would lose his rag
Can anyone explain to me, why the Duchess is NOT wearing a face mask in public????
No doubt she's been vaccinated (special category) BUT yours truly has also been jabbed (twice) and I wear the mask.
Because it is the RIGHT thing to do!
Face masks are not compulsory outdoors in the UK.
Compulsion is NOT the point. Moral suasion and good example in a public health crisis IS.
It absolutely is the point. You suggested that they thought 'public health be damned', but if the law does not say the public health requires a mask, then there's no indication they thought such a thing even if many might consider it a good idea to wear one. Is following the law, if she was, not setting a good example?
Furthermore, when condemning someone's actions, whether they have breached an actual rule or merely the subjective moral standards of individuals is pretty relevant. 'How dare X do Y?' is an argument which falls down somewhat if they are allowed to do Y.
Can anyone explain to me, why the Duchess is NOT wearing a face mask in public????
No doubt she's been vaccinated (special category) BUT yours truly has also been jabbed (twice) and I wear the mask.
Because it is the RIGHT thing to do!
Face masks are not compulsory outdoors in the UK.
Compulsion is NOT the point. Moral suasion and good example in a public health crisis IS.
Noone wears a mask outside here ! The US seems to be a split between Democrats who wear them alone in their cars and the GOP that don't wear them anywhere. It's all mask indoors, no mask outdoors here.
Strange if "no one wears a mask outside here" that most of the people in the clip appear to be doing just that?
Tim Shipman: "I've lived in London for 24 years. The Met veers between apologetic wokery and moronic brutality. I don't know a single Londoner who thinks they are on their side"
Plus (at the risk of sounding VERY old fogey), with their high-viz vests they don’t even look like police any more.
Rock and a hard place, I'm afraid. What needed to happen was for the Prime Minister to say "look, all protests are now fine."
Problem solved.
Except that he and Priti literally have a bill going through Parliament THIS WEEK allowing the police to effectively ban ALL protests if they are so minded.
And boy, are they minded.
Good luck with that one Patel. The Lords will strike it out and some kind of compromise will be found. Probably after Patel has been rotated out and Liz has been given the poisoned chalice as a favour to Rishi.
Can anyone explain to me, why the Duchess is NOT wearing a face mask in public????
No doubt she's been vaccinated (special category) BUT yours truly has also been jabbed (twice) and I wear the mask.
Because it is the RIGHT thing to do!
Face masks are not compulsory outdoors in the UK.
Compulsion is NOT the point. Moral suasion and good example in a public health crisis IS.
Noone wears a mask outside here ! The US seems to be a split between Democrats who wear them alone in their cars and the GOP that don't wear them anywhere. It's all mask indoors, no mask outdoors here.
Strange if "no one wears a mask outside here" that most of the people in the clip appear to be doing just that?
The only time I see people wearing masks outside here is between shops, i.e. because it would be more of a faff to take it off than leave it on.
Mask virtue signalling hasn't taken off here, thank god.
Can anyone explain to me, why the Duchess is NOT wearing a face mask in public????
No doubt she's been vaccinated (special category) BUT yours truly has also been jabbed (twice) and I wear the mask.
Because it is the RIGHT thing to do!
Face masks are not compulsory outdoors in the UK.
Compulsion is NOT the point. Moral suasion and good example in a public health crisis IS.
Noone wears a mask outside here ! The US seems to be a split between Democrats who wear them alone in their cars and the GOP that don't wear them anywhere. It's all mask indoors, no mask outdoors here.
Where is "here"? Though you meant UK, but seems you are talking about some part of the US?
One of your "Republicans" came into the local drug store, in my Seattle neighborhood, without a mask earlier this morning. I got him thrown out on his fucking ear.
How many of murders 1-22 were gang members killing each other? There's your answer. A lot of Londoners either directly identify with the girl who was murdered or, like me, recognise the situation facing my wife on a daily basis in this city.
Sarah Everard was a taxpayer - this is a taxpayer murder, that's why it offends us all so much. Gang members deep in the game stabbing each other over territory doesn't.
That's what I was saying earlier, we as a society do not give a fuck about most violent crime. How you expect the streets to be made safer when we tolerate a lot of violence is beyond me.
The problem is that however bonkers Piers Corbyn and his mates are, they didn't deserve what happened to them any more that what's been done to the women tonight.
Can anyone explain to me, why the Duchess is NOT wearing a face mask in public????
No doubt she's been vaccinated (special category) BUT yours truly has also been jabbed (twice) and I wear the mask.
Because it is the RIGHT thing to do!
Face masks are not compulsory outdoors in the UK.
Compulsion is NOT the point. Moral suasion and good example in a public health crisis IS.
Noone wears a mask outside here ! The US seems to be a split between Democrats who wear them alone in their cars and the GOP that don't wear them anywhere. It's all mask indoors, no mask outdoors here.
Lots of people wear them outside. I walked through Grantham today and probably 30% of the people there were wearing masks outside (including me) . It may not be the majority but it is certainly not 'no one'.
Tim Shipman: "I've lived in London for 24 years. The Met veers between apologetic wokery and moronic brutality. I don't know a single Londoner who thinks they are on their side"
Total. Fucking. Bullshit.
Let him do a shift in a UK cupper's shoes. Especially in London. He wouldn't last half an hour without either doing something *OMFG racist* or getting so angry at obvious crime going non-arrested he would lose his rag
He's definitely bang on. On one side they're all about thought policing and chasing nonsense "crimes" on twitter or kneeling for BLM protests. On the other they don't give a shit about the city becoming more violent and will use base thuggery to shut down protests they don't approve of.
She broke a law we all waved in for the good of us all.
Who needs to take the long look at ourselves?
What's this 'we' business? It's certainly the case that every indication is that the public supported and supports very harsh Covid-19 restrictions, up to when cases like this emerge at least, but 'we' didn't wave in anything.
Our representatives made the call for the reason you give - and this event would not, I think, change whether someone believes it to have been the correct call or not - and they will determine if they are not longer necessary or appropriate. If they did not intend for this sort of thing to be restricted they are very bad at their jobs as it has not been a secret large gatherings are not permitted, and if they did but consider there should be exceptions but didn't list these then they did a not as bad but still poor job not legislating for that.
The law that made tonight happen was put into place in November - and we* all giggled when it was Piers Corbyn.
Now its something serious but its the same fokkin law.
I recall several people raising concerns with the treatment of Piers Corbyn, as well as with both the existence of the law in the first place or merely how it was being applied inconsistently. I certainly leaned more on the harsher side of that argument, given the egregiousness of his breaches, but right back to the BLM protests people were pointing out the law was either not a good thing for restricting protests, or being selectively applied.
I don't disagree with the point that the bigger issue may be the law itself, indeed, that was my point about how this event is not actually that relevant to the arguments for or against the law - if it was a necessary measure to protect public health that applies regardless of motivation of protest (though that doesn't mean how it is enforced is irrelevant). If it was not necessary the same applies.
But equally, deciding the law should not be continued, does not speak as to whether in the circumstances which we have lived though in the past year it was a reasonable measure.
Comments
I said to the wife "I bet that wasn't a terrorist." The whole reporting of it didn't pass the smell test.
Maybe, just maybe, the laws should not have been waved through.
I didn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Walsh
One of the cases was in the middle of a major London train station
All he's done is shit himself publicly.
As the public health situation improved the necessity, or rather proportional justification for such restriction of liberty was always going to reduce severely. An incident like this, though very emotive, doesn't really add much that was not always there in terms of either the arguments for such legislation, and the inevitable pressure to repeal (or not extend) such lesiglation, which is why Baker's linking of the two was unnecessary.
However, in terms of crystallising some of the arguments against that not many will have cared about with crazy Piers Corbyn, those seeking an earlier end to the legislative restrictions have a powerful example to utilise.
No doubt she's been vaccinated (special category) BUT yours truly has also been jabbed (twice) and I wear the mask.
Because it is the RIGHT thing to do!
Seems that recent developments are confirming my thesis.
You misunderstand (and I was not clear enough).
The *new* power is to restrict to demos if they are deemed to be too noisy to neighbouring businesses or passers by.
So that’s pretty much any demo ever.
I'm not against ending harrassment, and making the world safer for women. I just find it perplexing that so many of the great and the good, and the wider public, are outraged by murder 23 (I think that's correct) in London in 2021, and yet utterly silent about the other 22.
Give your collective heads a wobble.
I railed against the police earlier, and I won't defend mishandling a protest either, but I don't blame them for what the law currently permits or does not permit, unless through their own guidance or interpretation they enforce it incorrectly, or operationally mishandle things (which I am sure is what will be decided is the case here).
There is a real issue of male violence in the world. It is not women that I am watching out for when walking home late at night.
Who needs to take the long look at ourselves?
Charles is right, defund the Met.
It is unreformable.
Royalty is supposed to be a model of proper, good behavior. Not the opposite.
Of course, Prince Andrew never did get THAT memo.
My guess is that Kate's visit was planned by Palace PR as part of their push-back versus Meghan. Thus important to make sure that folks could recognize her. And public health be damned.
A serving officer who was armed and notwithstanding "erratic" behaviour was allowed to keep on carrying that gun?
And with the added murky waters of the incident he was involved in a few days earlier
The kind of serious messes it becomes embroiled in are rarely heard of in smaller county constabularies. I wonder if there's any case to be made for splitting London up into several force areas? More manageable organisations, shorter chains of command?
This is such a massive abuse of trust - particularly if it turns out he was using his status to achieve his aims - that it shakes everyone's foundational beliefs. I mean I already have a pretty low opinion of the police as an institution but even I am shocked by the idea of one of them using his position of power to lift a woman off the streets and murder her.
Sarah Everard was a taxpayer - this is a taxpayer murder, that's why it offends us all so much. Gang members deep in the game stabbing each other over territory doesn't.
Problem solved.
I've never seen a single issue unite all my friendship groups and family AGAINST the police.
This is an absolute travesty. Senior resignations are required over this.
Our representatives made the call for the reason you give - and this event would not, I think, change whether someone believes it to have been the correct call or not - and they will determine if they are not longer necessary or appropriate. If they did not intend for this sort of thing to be restricted they are very bad at their jobs as it has not been a secret large gatherings are not permitted, and if they did but consider there should be exceptions but didn't list these then they did a not as bad but still poor job not legislating for that.
And boy, are they minded.
Well done the Met police for supporting the rules we have cheered to the rafters?
Exceptions should be made for demonstrations that are the 'of the correct kind....?'
Breaking lockdown rules is cool?
Or what?
We are at the beginning. The terrible effects of this awful, awful policy are only beginning to be seen. There is much, much more to come.
Now its something serious but its the same fokkin law.
It also makes little sense as she has been seen wearing a mask before and, do you know, she is still recognisable, and would be especially if an editor were to write 'Duchess of Cambridge visits X' underneath it.
I have enormous sympathy for the average UK copper. If they do *anything* which can be construed as racist, their career is OVER. Yet if they hang back and don't arrest curfew/lockdown breakers, we all hate them
It's a terrible job and they get zero praise when they get it, amazingly, right.
Pity the police. They aren't even armed, so they can't even whip out a firearm and shoot the odd obvious miscreant, for a bit of satisfaction, like foreign coppers.
We are (seriously) lucky to have the police we have. They are superior to any police force I have encountered abroad.
The US seems to be a split between Democrats who wear them alone in their cars and the GOP that don't wear them anywhere. It's all mask indoors, no mask outdoors here.
The latter is good, but the former is better.
Personally am reasonably comfortable in somewhat close quarters on a sidewalk or grocery store aisle, though I do try to maintain as much space as possible.
BUT I got BONKERS when I have to share public space - indoors OR outdoors - in any proximity with an un-masked a-hole.
The problem in Scotland just now is that the independence of both the police and the prosecution service seems to have been deeply compromised by being just a bit too accountable to those in power.
The problem is as old as time: quis custiodet ipsos custodes? If there is a good answer we have yet to find it.
But because I was not an anti-vaxxer, climate change denialist, I said nothing...
https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1370825603952304132?s=20
Let him do a shift in a UK cupper's shoes. Especially in London. He wouldn't last half an hour without either doing something *OMFG racist* or getting so angry at obvious crime going non-arrested he would lose his rag
Furthermore, when condemning someone's actions, whether they have breached an actual rule or merely the subjective moral standards of individuals is pretty relevant. 'How dare X do Y?' is an argument which falls down somewhat if they are allowed to do Y.
More like traffic wardens on a power trip.
https://twitter.com/adamwagner1/status/1370450075449708544?s=21
Mask virtue signalling hasn't taken off here, thank god.
One of your "Republicans" came into the local drug store, in my Seattle neighborhood, without a mask earlier this morning. I got him thrown out on his fucking ear.
I don't disagree with the point that the bigger issue may be the law itself, indeed, that was my point about how this event is not actually that relevant to the arguments for or against the law - if it was a necessary measure to protect public health that applies regardless of motivation of protest (though that doesn't mean how it is enforced is irrelevant). If it was not necessary the same applies.
But equally, deciding the law should not be continued, does not speak as to whether in the circumstances which we have lived though in the past year it was a reasonable measure.