I'm sorry but anybody who supports lockdown has to support what the Met did tonight.
The police only enforced laws that lockdown supporters have not disputed, and deem necessary for the control of covid, and they did so without fear or favour.
That is simply not correct following yesterday's court ruling.
And it is possible to take the view that the police could and should have engaged, defused, and negotiated. We have a tradition in this country of policing by consent and police discretion allowing for circumstances. We are not a fascist society in which “the law is the law”.
"Allowing for circumstance"? No, just no. The law should be applied equally without fear or favour.
It’s hasn’t been that way for at least the last two hundred years, but you’re entitled to want to introduce the idea.
But it has to be that way for policing a law that is about protecting public health.
I'm sorry but anybody who supports lockdown has to support what the Met did tonight.
The police only enforced laws that lockdown supporters have not disputed, and deem necessary for the control of covid, and they did so without fear or favour.
That is simply not correct following yesterday's court ruling.
And it is possible to take the view that the police could and should have engaged, defused, and negotiated. We have a tradition in this country of policing by consent and police discretion allowing for circumstances. We are not a fascist society in which “the law is the law”.
"Allowing for circumstance"? No, just no. The law should be applied equally without fear or favour.
That has never been the way in modern times in this country and is the refuge of dictatorship.
I'm sorry but anybody who supports lockdown has to support what the Met did tonight.
The police only enforced laws that lockdown supporters have not disputed, and deem necessary for the control of covid, and they did so without fear or favour.
That is simply not correct following yesterday's court ruling.
And it is possible to take the view that the police could and should have engaged, defused, and negotiated. We have a tradition in this country of policing by consent and police discretion allowing for circumstances. We are not a fascist society in which “the law is the law”.
"Allowing for circumstance"? No, just no. The law should be applied equally without fear or favour.
It’s hasn’t been that way for at least the last two hundred years, but you’re entitled to want to introduce the idea.
But it has to be that way for policing a law that is about protecting public health.
That’s not that case at all. It’s the very opposite of the approach we take to our police and criminal justice system.
Who says the 25% aren't in the "now or never" category?
Also
large numbers still expect Scottish Independence to happen. Some 38 per cent believe it will come in five to ten years and 17 per cent expect it within ten to 15 years and another 8 per cent consider it 20 to 30 years off. In contrast 28 per cent do not anticipate it at any point in the next few decades, while 9 per cent do not know.
This isn't the CPS deciding not to prosecute someone for helping a terminally ill loved one to die. This is about policing a draconian law brought in because there was no alternative.
I support the measures to combat COVID-19. I wish the government had been more cautious in the autumn. But we should be under no illusion that some of the measures represent a severe curtailment of civil liberties.
You cannot be fine with the consequences of that and then get upset when it conflicts with something you support. This seems such a basic point of principle that it upsets me a lot that many supposedly intelligent people on here cannot see it.
This isn't the CPS deciding not to prosecute someone for helping a terminally ill loved one to die. This is about policing a draconian law brought in because there was no alternative.
I support the measures to combat COVID-19. I wish the government had been more cautious in the autumn. But we should be under no illusion that some of the measures represent a severe curtailment of civil liberties.
You cannot be fine with the consequences of that and then get upset when it conflicts with something you support. This seems such a basic point of principle that it upsets me a lot that many supposedly intelligent people on here cannot see it.
The high court said themselves that it is up for the police to use discretion when it comes to protest. They clearly ignored that ruling in this case.
This isn't the CPS deciding not to prosecute someone for helping a terminally ill loved one to die. This is about policing a draconian law brought in because there was no alternative.
I support the measures to combat COVID-19. I wish the government had been more cautious in the autumn. But we should be under no illusion that some of the measures represent a severe curtailment of civil liberties.
You cannot be fine with the consequences of that and then get upset when it conflicts with something you support. This seems such a basic point of principle that it upsets me a lot that many supposedly intelligent people on here cannot see it.
The high court said themselves that it is up for the police to use discretion when it comes to protest. They clearly ignored that ruling in this case.
Why?
Given it had gone before the High Court. Given the accused murderer was a cop.
It makes no sense why they would get involved here.
This isn't the CPS deciding not to prosecute someone for helping a terminally ill loved one to die. This is about policing a draconian law brought in because there was no alternative.
I support the measures to combat COVID-19. I wish the government had been more cautious in the autumn. But we should be under no illusion that some of the measures represent a severe curtailment of civil liberties.
You cannot be fine with the consequences of that and then get upset when it conflicts with something you support. This seems such a basic point of principle that it upsets me a lot that many supposedly intelligent people on here cannot see it.
I think most can see that and still take issue with the particular way of the law has been enforced in this instance, even if they accept the general point about curtailment of liberty that the law does indeed represent and this the principle of some kind of action being theoretically reasonable. That is why the public interest issue is still relevant as there are ways of carrying out the law, or seeking to do so, which need not have led to such an outcome. There were still choices to be made, operationally.
So I think that it is possible for people to be ok with the necessity or appropriateness of the law and yet still take issue with events of this evening. However, I suspect the majority of public commentators will avoid that for, as you say, getting upset with the principle of the application of the law in respect of something they did not wish it applied to, instead of whether the law itself is reasonal or confining merely to how things went operationally.
This isn't the CPS deciding not to prosecute someone for helping a terminally ill loved one to die. This is about policing a draconian law brought in because there was no alternative.
I support the measures to combat COVID-19. I wish the government had been more cautious in the autumn. But we should be under no illusion that some of the measures represent a severe curtailment of civil liberties.
You cannot be fine with the consequences of that and then get upset when it conflicts with something you support. This seems such a basic point of principle that it upsets me a lot that many supposedly intelligent people on here cannot see it.
The high court said themselves that it is up for the police to use discretion when it comes to protest. They clearly ignored that ruling in this case.
Why the fuck should there be discretion? The police have been arresting protesters for months now. If the police suddenly start going soft on this sort of thing they would, quite rightly, get it in the neck for not doing their jobs.
Why are the media trying to push a dystopian view of the world at the moment?
Does feel like the media enjoy fuelling chaos. Perhaps the effects of lockdown have gone to their heads.
If anyone seriously thinks this level of policing aggressive protesters during a pandemic is heavy handed they’d probably be better off living in Portland. Probably won’t do them much good if they’re ever the victims of crime though.
This isn't the CPS deciding not to prosecute someone for helping a terminally ill loved one to die. This is about policing a draconian law brought in because there was no alternative.
I support the measures to combat COVID-19. I wish the government had been more cautious in the autumn. But we should be under no illusion that some of the measures represent a severe curtailment of civil liberties.
You cannot be fine with the consequences of that and then get upset when it conflicts with something you support. This seems such a basic point of principle that it upsets me a lot that many supposedly intelligent people on here cannot see it.
The high court said themselves that it is up for the police to use discretion when it comes to protest. They clearly ignored that ruling in this case.
Why the fuck should there be discretion? The police have been arresting protesters for months now. If the police suddenly start going soft on this sort of thing they would, quite rightly, get it in the neck for not doing their jobs.
That was the high court ruling, that protest were not automatically illegal, and that the police should have a proportionate response. That was clearly not the case this evening.
Very late to tonight's debate, but just to say that any comparison to tonight's events and the repeated arrests of Piers Corbyn is absurd. The aim of Corbyn's anti-lockdown demos was to systematically incite people to break the current lockdown laws and promote conspiracy theories about Covid. Tonight's vigil was in support of a murdered woman, and more generally to make a point about women's safety. Most of the protestors tonight, I suspect, support current Covid restrictions; the mask wearing gives a clue.
Just one other quick comment. The vast majority on here have no time for Sadiq Khan, but Londoners, who live in a very large, diverse city, don't seem to have such a negative view of him. Strange.
This isn't the CPS deciding not to prosecute someone for helping a terminally ill loved one to die. This is about policing a draconian law brought in because there was no alternative.
I support the measures to combat COVID-19. I wish the government had been more cautious in the autumn. But we should be under no illusion that some of the measures represent a severe curtailment of civil liberties.
You cannot be fine with the consequences of that and then get upset when it conflicts with something you support. This seems such a basic point of principle that it upsets me a lot that many supposedly intelligent people on here cannot see it.
The high court said themselves that it is up for the police to use discretion when it comes to protest. They clearly ignored that ruling in this case.
Why the fuck should there be discretion? The police have been arresting protesters for months now. If the police suddenly start going soft on this sort of thing they would, quite rightly, get it in the neck for not doing their jobs.
That was the high court ruling, that protest were not automatically illegal, and that the police should have a proportionate response. That was clearly not the case this evening.
I'm sorry, the politicians should have stepped in. They should have had all convictions for protesting quashed and all fines reimbursed.
We're in the middle of a global pandemic, don't ya know. That's been the mantra for the last year. You can't start changing what is and what isn't allowed because, reasons.
This isn't the CPS deciding not to prosecute someone for helping a terminally ill loved one to die. This is about policing a draconian law brought in because there was no alternative.
I support the measures to combat COVID-19. I wish the government had been more cautious in the autumn. But we should be under no illusion that some of the measures represent a severe curtailment of civil liberties.
You cannot be fine with the consequences of that and then get upset when it conflicts with something you support. This seems such a basic point of principle that it upsets me a lot that many supposedly intelligent people on here cannot see it.
The high court said themselves that it is up for the police to use discretion when it comes to protest. They clearly ignored that ruling in this case.
Why the fuck should there be discretion? The police have been arresting protesters for months now. If the police suddenly start going soft on this sort of thing they would, quite rightly, get it in the neck for not doing their jobs.
That was the high court ruling, that protest were not automatically illegal, and that the police should have a proportionate response. That was clearly not the case this evening.
I'm sorry, the politicians should have stepped in. They should have had all convictions for protesting quashed and all fines reimbursed.
We're in the middle of a global pandemic, don't ya know. That's been the mantra for the last year. You can't start changing what is and what isn't allowed because, reasons.
The politicians made a law, and the courts interpreted it. Isn't that how things normally work?
Very late to tonight's debate, but just to say that any comparison to tonight's events and the repeated arrests of Piers Corbyn is absurd. The aim of Corbyn's anti-lockdown demos was to systematically incite people to break the current lockdown laws and promote conspiracy theories about Covid. Tonight's vigil was in support of a murdered woman, and more generally to make a point about women's safety. Most of the protestors tonight, I suspect, support current Covid restrictions; the mask wearing gives a clue.
Just one other quick comment. The vast majority on here have no time for Sadiq Khan, but Londoners, who live in a very large, diverse city, don't seem to have such a negative view of him. Strange.
It's not just Piers Corbyn who the police have gone after:
I think I'm going to watch the 1983 movie Flashdance. The total opposite of the sort of "end of the world is nigh" atmosphere that seems to be everywhere at the moment.
This isn't the CPS deciding not to prosecute someone for helping a terminally ill loved one to die. This is about policing a draconian law brought in because there was no alternative.
I support the measures to combat COVID-19. I wish the government had been more cautious in the autumn. But we should be under no illusion that some of the measures represent a severe curtailment of civil liberties.
You cannot be fine with the consequences of that and then get upset when it conflicts with something you support. This seems such a basic point of principle that it upsets me a lot that many supposedly intelligent people on here cannot see it.
The high court said themselves that it is up for the police to use discretion when it comes to protest. They clearly ignored that ruling in this case.
Why the fuck should there be discretion? The police have been arresting protesters for months now. If the police suddenly start going soft on this sort of thing they would, quite rightly, get it in the neck for not doing their jobs.
That was the high court ruling, that protest were not automatically illegal, and that the police should have a proportionate response. That was clearly not the case this evening.
I'm sorry, the politicians should have stepped in. They should have had all convictions for protesting quashed and all fines reimbursed.
We're in the middle of a global pandemic, don't ya know. That's been the mantra for the last year. You can't start changing what is and what isn't allowed because, reasons.
The politicians made a law, and the courts interpreted it. Isn't that how things normally work?
And the police enforce it. I don't see how discretion can come into something designed to stop the spread of A FUCKING KILLER VIRUS.
Sorry, but you can't spend a whole year wetting yourselves over a virus and wanting everything done to stop it and then say "oh, but not that, we like those people who aren't socially distanced."
This isn't the CPS deciding not to prosecute someone for helping a terminally ill loved one to die. This is about policing a draconian law brought in because there was no alternative.
I support the measures to combat COVID-19. I wish the government had been more cautious in the autumn. But we should be under no illusion that some of the measures represent a severe curtailment of civil liberties.
You cannot be fine with the consequences of that and then get upset when it conflicts with something you support. This seems such a basic point of principle that it upsets me a lot that many supposedly intelligent people on here cannot see it.
This isn't the CPS deciding not to prosecute someone for helping a terminally ill loved one to die. This is about policing a draconian law brought in because there was no alternative.
I support the measures to combat COVID-19. I wish the government had been more cautious in the autumn. But we should be under no illusion that some of the measures represent a severe curtailment of civil liberties.
You cannot be fine with the consequences of that and then get upset when it conflicts with something you support. This seems such a basic point of principle that it upsets me a lot that many supposedly intelligent people on here cannot see it.
The high court said themselves that it is up for the police to use discretion when it comes to protest. They clearly ignored that ruling in this case.
Why the fuck should there be discretion? The police have been arresting protesters for months now. If the police suddenly start going soft on this sort of thing they would, quite rightly, get it in the neck for not doing their jobs.
That was the high court ruling, that protest were not automatically illegal, and that the police should have a proportionate response. That was clearly not the case this evening.
I'm sorry, the politicians should have stepped in. They should have had all convictions for protesting quashed and all fines reimbursed.
We're in the middle of a global pandemic, don't ya know. That's been the mantra for the last year. You can't start changing what is and what isn't allowed because, reasons.
The politicians don't have to step in. As I just posted the law is doing that itself.
Is it too late for me to move to London and register to vote in the Mayoral election and spoil my ballot with 'Shaun Bailey is so dense light refracts around him'
This is what happens when you have a lack of emotional intelligence at the top of an organisation. Anyone with an ounce of common sense or empathy would have realised that there needed to be some judgment used about the vigil.
But no .... even I with my repeated critiques of the police am surprised by how boneheaded and utterly stupid they are being.
This isn't the CPS deciding not to prosecute someone for helping a terminally ill loved one to die. This is about policing a draconian law brought in because there was no alternative.
I support the measures to combat COVID-19. I wish the government had been more cautious in the autumn. But we should be under no illusion that some of the measures represent a severe curtailment of civil liberties.
You cannot be fine with the consequences of that and then get upset when it conflicts with something you support. This seems such a basic point of principle that it upsets me a lot that many supposedly intelligent people on here cannot see it.
This isn't the CPS deciding not to prosecute someone for helping a terminally ill loved one to die. This is about policing a draconian law brought in because there was no alternative.
I support the measures to combat COVID-19. I wish the government had been more cautious in the autumn. But we should be under no illusion that some of the measures represent a severe curtailment of civil liberties.
You cannot be fine with the consequences of that and then get upset when it conflicts with something you support. This seems such a basic point of principle that it upsets me a lot that many supposedly intelligent people on here cannot see it.
The high court said themselves that it is up for the police to use discretion when it comes to protest. They clearly ignored that ruling in this case.
Why the fuck should there be discretion? The police have been arresting protesters for months now. If the police suddenly start going soft on this sort of thing they would, quite rightly, get it in the neck for not doing their jobs.
That was the high court ruling, that protest were not automatically illegal, and that the police should have a proportionate response. That was clearly not the case this evening.
I'm sorry, the politicians should have stepped in. They should have had all convictions for protesting quashed and all fines reimbursed.
We're in the middle of a global pandemic, don't ya know. That's been the mantra for the last year. You can't start changing what is and what isn't allowed because, reasons.
The politicians made a law, and the courts interpreted it. Isn't that how things normally work?
And the police enforce it. I don't see how discretion can come into something designed to stop the spread of A FUCKING KILLER VIRUS.
Sorry, but you can't spend a whole year wetting yourselves over a virus and wanting everything done to stop it and then say "oh, but not that, we like those people who aren't socially distanced."
Except there's been many legal protests over the past 12 months and the courts confirmed that again yesterday.
The court made a ruling yesterday, which matched how things operated last summer during protests, why should it have not been honoured?
OMG the Twitter bubble. Don’t tell me she’s probably a Guardian journalist and she demands answers!
Sunday Times, actually, a well-known right-wing rag. Sorry to shatter your stereotype.
Also writes for daily mirror and buzzfeed. No wonder. Admit that the journalists are out of step with the public. If the far left want to cause trouble then they can expect the police to act.
This isn't the CPS deciding not to prosecute someone for helping a terminally ill loved one to die. This is about policing a draconian law brought in because there was no alternative.
I support the measures to combat COVID-19. I wish the government had been more cautious in the autumn. But we should be under no illusion that some of the measures represent a severe curtailment of civil liberties.
You cannot be fine with the consequences of that and then get upset when it conflicts with something you support. This seems such a basic point of principle that it upsets me a lot that many supposedly intelligent people on here cannot see it.
The high court said themselves that it is up for the police to use discretion when it comes to protest. They clearly ignored that ruling in this case.
Why the fuck should there be discretion? The police have been arresting protesters for months now. If the police suddenly start going soft on this sort of thing they would, quite rightly, get it in the neck for not doing their jobs.
That was the high court ruling, that protest were not automatically illegal, and that the police should have a proportionate response. That was clearly not the case this evening.
I'm sorry, the politicians should have stepped in. They should have had all convictions for protesting quashed and all fines reimbursed.
We're in the middle of a global pandemic, don't ya know. That's been the mantra for the last year. You can't start changing what is and what isn't allowed because, reasons.
The politicians made a law, and the courts interpreted it. Isn't that how things normally work?
And the police enforce it. I don't see how discretion can come into something designed to stop the spread of A FUCKING KILLER VIRUS.
Sorry, but you can't spend a whole year wetting yourselves over a virus and wanting everything done to stop it and then say "oh, but not that, we like those people who aren't socially distanced."
Except there's been many legal protests over the past 12 months and the courts confirmed that again yesterday.
The court made a ruling yesterday, which matched how things operated last summer during protests, why should it have not been honoured?
And do you think this evening's protest was legal? Didn't look like much social distancing going on.
From someone who purports to have watched the entire event unfold and is seemingly a huge Kamala Harris fan. Not the classic dixon of dock green or sweeney copper some on here thing all cops are these days.
Of course it’s much easier to trust a few journalists on Twitter who have only seen a 20 second clip and want to play to the crowd.
I'm sorry but anybody who supports lockdown has to support what the Met did tonight.
The police only enforced laws that lockdown supporters have not disputed, and deem necessary for the control of covid, and they did so without fear or favour.
That is simply not correct following yesterday's court ruling.
And it is possible to take the view that the police could and should have engaged, defused, and negotiated. We have a tradition in this country of policing by consent and police discretion allowing for circumstances. We are not a fascist society in which “the law is the law”.
"Allowing for circumstance"? No, just no. The law should be applied equally without fear or favour.
If that was the case there would be no consideration of public interest for prosecutions.
Or, indeed, juries.
You know, who can decide that someone is Not Guilty for whatever reason they choose.
This is what happens when you have a lack of emotional intelligence at the top of an organisation. Anyone with an ounce of common sense or empathy would have realised that there needed to be some judgment used about the vigil.
But no .... even I with my repeated critiques of the police am surprised by how boneheaded and utterly stupid they are being.
It wasn’t a vigil. The vigil was cancelled. Interesting that it didn’t kick off in the other London locations where everyone adhered to the rules. It’s as if the troublemakers all aimed for the same location..
OMG the Twitter bubble. Don’t tell me she’s probably a Guardian journalist and she demands answers!
Sunday Times, actually, a well-known right-wing rag. Sorry to shatter your stereotype.
Also writes for daily mirror and buzzfeed. No wonder. Admit that the journalists are out of step with the public. If the far left want to cause trouble then they can expect the police to act.
You're paranoid. What's it got to do with the far left causing trouble?
From someone who purports to have watched the entire event unfold and is seemingly a huge Kamala Harris fan. Not the classic dixon of dock green or sweeney copper some on here thing all cops are these days.
Of course it’s much easier to trust a few journalists on Twitter who have only seen a 20 second clip and want to play to the crowd.
Read the thread. PC Milk was not at the event; she followed it at a distance, just as everybody else did.
OMG the Twitter bubble. Don’t tell me she’s probably a Guardian journalist and she demands answers!
Sunday Times, actually, a well-known right-wing rag. Sorry to shatter your stereotype.
Also writes for daily mirror and buzzfeed. No wonder. Admit that the journalists are out of step with the public. If the far left want to cause trouble then they can expect the police to act.
You're paranoid. What's it got to do with the far left causing trouble?
Because that’s what happened. Perhaps you need to look up Sisters Uncut.
This is what happens when you have a lack of emotional intelligence at the top of an organisation. Anyone with an ounce of common sense or empathy would have realised that there needed to be some judgment used about the vigil.
But no .... even I with my repeated critiques of the police am surprised by how boneheaded and utterly stupid they are being.
It wasn’t a vigil. The vigil was cancelled. Interesting that it didn’t kick off in the other London locations where everyone adhered to the rules. It’s as if the troublemakers all aimed for the same location..
By troublemakers you mean Met. police. Sorry but these young people being dragged away were not the problem here.
From someone who purports to have watched the entire event unfold and is seemingly a huge Kamala Harris fan. Not the classic dixon of dock green or sweeney copper some on here thing all cops are these days.
Of course it’s much easier to trust a few journalists on Twitter who have only seen a 20 second clip and want to play to the crowd.
Read the thread. PC Milk was not at the event; she followed it at a distance, just as everybody else did.
If you read my post you’d see I mentioned it. She watched the event on a video stream. Perhaps you can tell me if the journalist you’re defending has watched the full event too?
This isn't the CPS deciding not to prosecute someone for helping a terminally ill loved one to die. This is about policing a draconian law brought in because there was no alternative.
I support the measures to combat COVID-19. I wish the government had been more cautious in the autumn. But we should be under no illusion that some of the measures represent a severe curtailment of civil liberties.
You cannot be fine with the consequences of that and then get upset when it conflicts with something you support. This seems such a basic point of principle that it upsets me a lot that many supposedly intelligent people on here cannot see it.
The high court said themselves that it is up for the police to use discretion when it comes to protest. They clearly ignored that ruling in this case.
Why the fuck should there be discretion? The police have been arresting protesters for months now. If the police suddenly start going soft on this sort of thing they would, quite rightly, get it in the neck for not doing their jobs.
That was the high court ruling, that protest were not automatically illegal, and that the police should have a proportionate response. That was clearly not the case this evening.
I'm sorry, the politicians should have stepped in. They should have had all convictions for protesting quashed and all fines reimbursed.
We're in the middle of a global pandemic, don't ya know. That's been the mantra for the last year. You can't start changing what is and what isn't allowed because, reasons.
The politicians made a law, and the courts interpreted it. Isn't that how things normally work?
And the police enforce it. I don't see how discretion can come into something designed to stop the spread of A FUCKING KILLER VIRUS.
Sorry, but you can't spend a whole year wetting yourselves over a virus and wanting everything done to stop it and then say "oh, but not that, we like those people who aren't socially distanced."
Except there's been many legal protests over the past 12 months and the courts confirmed that again yesterday.
The court made a ruling yesterday, which matched how things operated last summer during protests, why should it have not been honoured?
This is what happens when you have a lack of emotional intelligence at the top of an organisation. Anyone with an ounce of common sense or empathy would have realised that there needed to be some judgment used about the vigil.
But no .... even I with my repeated critiques of the police am surprised by how boneheaded and utterly stupid they are being.
It wasn’t a vigil. The vigil was cancelled. Interesting that it didn’t kick off in the other London locations where everyone adhered to the rules. It’s as if the troublemakers all aimed for the same location..
By troublemakers you mean Met. police. Sorry but these young people being dragged away were not the problem here.
Fair enough Piers Corbyn. We’ll agree to disagree. If you want to ignore the law and abuse the police in a pandemic I guess we should just let that happen. After all it’s not like covid is an issue is it.
OMG the Twitter bubble. Don’t tell me she’s probably a Guardian journalist and she demands answers!
Sunday Times, actually, a well-known right-wing rag. Sorry to shatter your stereotype.
Also writes for daily mirror and buzzfeed. No wonder. Admit that the journalists are out of step with the public. If the far left want to cause trouble then they can expect the police to act.
You're paranoid. What's it got to do with the far left causing trouble?
Brom’s going to lose hit shit when he finds out Boris Johnson hired an ex Buzzfeed employee.
OMG the Twitter bubble. Don’t tell me she’s probably a Guardian journalist and she demands answers!
Sunday Times, actually, a well-known right-wing rag. Sorry to shatter your stereotype.
Also writes for daily mirror and buzzfeed. No wonder. Admit that the journalists are out of step with the public. If the far left want to cause trouble then they can expect the police to act.
You're paranoid. What's it got to do with the far left causing trouble?
Brom’s going to lose hit shit when he finds out Boris Johnson hired an ex Buzzfeed employee.
Some PBers appear to think, that social distancing is more important than wearing masks, in stopping the spread of COVID and (presumably) other respiratory ailments.
Is this true? Can some of our actual PB experts (medico-scientific) weight in, please?
It's beyond doubt that social distancing is more important than wearing masks. Most masks don't prevent 100% of potential viruses from being transmitted from person to person, whereas social distancing does.
A huge crowd of people standing next to each other, all wearing masks, is idiocy on stilts.
Some PBers appear to think, that social distancing is more important than wearing masks, in stopping the spread of COVID and (presumably) other respiratory ailments.
Is this true? Can some of our actual PB experts (medico-scientific) weight in, please?
It's beyond doubt that social distancing is more important than wearing masks. Most masks don't prevent 100% of potential viruses from being transmitted from person to person, whereas social distancing does.
A huge crowd of people standing next to each other, all wearing masks, is idiocy on stilts.
Although it's also true masks reduce the viral load you are likely to receive if you are next to someone with Covid.
This isn't the CPS deciding not to prosecute someone for helping a terminally ill loved one to die. This is about policing a draconian law brought in because there was no alternative.
I support the measures to combat COVID-19. I wish the government had been more cautious in the autumn. But we should be under no illusion that some of the measures represent a severe curtailment of civil liberties.
You cannot be fine with the consequences of that and then get upset when it conflicts with something you support. This seems such a basic point of principle that it upsets me a lot that many supposedly intelligent people on here cannot see it.
The high court said themselves that it is up for the police to use discretion when it comes to protest. They clearly ignored that ruling in this case.
Why the fuck should there be discretion? The police have been arresting protesters for months now. If the police suddenly start going soft on this sort of thing they would, quite rightly, get it in the neck for not doing their jobs.
They do use discretion, which is why you get different practice in different places. The other events today went off calmly without police intervention. It'd be difficult to have absolutely identical practice for 1000 people in London or four people in St Ives - there is no area of policing where discretion is not needed. It's not easy to get it right but in this case they do seem to have created a problem instead of solving one.
London is probably the second safest mega-city in the world after Tokyo as far as serious crime is concerned. Each year there are usually around 120 homicides for a population of about 9 million.
"Maskless Kate Middleton lays daffodils from Kensington Palace as she pays emotional visit to Sarah Everard memorial 'because she remembers what it felt like to walk around London at night'"
Nope. I don't support the political objectives of BLM. Nor do I believe in concepts like Defund the Police, submission gestures like taking the knee, separate white and black histories, tearing down statues or everyone White being guilty of Supremacy and Privilege.
I do agree that black people face disadvantages that are unfair and I want them removed. I want skin colour to be as utterly irrelevant as hair colour and for them to be full participants in society, and proudly British too.
So my position on this is entirely consistent with that.
The fact that you have two white hands on your avatar representing the UK and EU tells us all we need to know.
In all of this the one thing missing by the MET was plain common sense
The leadership are going to have to resign over this and I have no idea how Khan avoids the same fate
Why Khan? If him why not Patel? Only one of them introduced the law.
I understood the London Mayor was responsible for policing in London
Were you calling for the resignation of Boris Johnson following the death of say Ian Tomlinson?
I was not on PB then but Khan has questions to answer
Simple question then, do you think Boris Johnson should have resigned after the death of Ian Tomlinson?
Not simple as I do not know of the case
And I am saying Khan has questions to answer
You said
'The leadership are going to have to resign over this and I have no idea how Khan avoids the same fate'
So if you don't know about the Ian Tomlinson episode then I suggest you stop commentating on Met Police Affairs until you have.
I will comment as I wish and surprised that you are willing to give the London mayor a free pass on this
Khan is utterly utterly useless. But to call him out for this almighty balls-up is Shaun Bailey level crap.
Actually the buck stops at Dame Cressida.
She will have to go.
Not only Dick, but senior officers involved in the decision making and how much Khan was consulted must come into it
Have you not been reading the responses to your earlier tacit assertion that Khan should go? If Khan is in the line of fire, why not Patel, why not Johnson? Sack each one of them for all I care, but at least be even handed.
Khan is responsible for policing in London and this was an operational MET matter and it is legitimate to ask was he informed and did he know the action to be taken
If Khan wants to do something positive he must request Dicks resignation
If there is a vote in it for him, I daresay he will.
He needs to get his focus group done first:
Criticising the police vs tacitly supporting young women being manhandled
Comments
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1370889662076686337
large numbers still expect Scottish Independence to happen. Some 38 per cent believe it will come in five to ten years and 17 per cent expect it within ten to 15 years and another 8 per cent consider it 20 to 30 years off. In contrast 28 per cent do not anticipate it at any point in the next few decades, while 9 per cent do not know.
I support the measures to combat COVID-19. I wish the government had been more cautious in the autumn. But we should be under no illusion that some of the measures represent a severe curtailment of civil liberties.
You cannot be fine with the consequences of that and then get upset when it conflicts with something you support. This seems such a basic point of principle that it upsets me a lot that many supposedly intelligent people on here cannot see it.
Given it had gone before the High Court.
Given the accused murderer was a cop.
It makes no sense why they would get involved here.
So I think that it is possible for people to be ok with the necessity or appropriateness of the law and yet still take issue with events of this evening. However, I suspect the majority of public commentators will avoid that for, as you say, getting upset with the principle of the application of the law in respect of something they did not wish it applied to, instead of whether the law itself is reasonal or confining merely to how things went operationally.
If anyone seriously thinks this level of policing aggressive protesters during a pandemic is heavy handed they’d probably be better off living in Portland. Probably won’t do them much good if they’re ever the victims of crime though.
https://twitter.com/pritipatel/status/1370856092062912512
Possibly a good idea for Ministers to get the facts and deal with this properly as the Home Secretary has said rather than to Ed Balls it up.
Just one other quick comment. The vast majority on here have no time for Sadiq Khan, but Londoners, who live in a very large, diverse city, don't seem to have such a negative view of him. Strange.
We're in the middle of a global pandemic, don't ya know. That's been the mantra for the last year. You can't start changing what is and what isn't allowed because, reasons.
https://twitter.com/PC_Milk/status/1370849167992619009
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/13/police-in-england-using-covid-lockdown-rules-to-halt-any-protests
Seriously, the politicians don't like it, they should change the law.
Suspect we will learn pretty soon via polling, whether your theory that the public supports the cops on this holds water.
Sorry, but you can't spend a whole year wetting yourselves over a virus and wanting everything done to stop it and then say "oh, but not that, we like those people who aren't socially distanced."
https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/25/every-single-prosecution-under-the-coronavirus-act-has-been-unlawful-14143868/
But no .... even I with my repeated critiques of the police am surprised by how boneheaded and utterly stupid they are being.
The court made a ruling yesterday, which matched how things operated last summer during protests, why should it have not been honoured?
Of course it’s much easier to trust a few journalists on Twitter who have only seen a 20 second clip and want to play to the crowd.
#DickOut trending on Twitter
You know, who can decide that someone is Not Guilty for whatever reason they choose.
https://www.prweek.com/article/1595763/downing-street-hires-ex-ladbible-buzzfeed-pr-chief-head-digital-comms
Also I’ve forgotten the name of the journo but the PM also hired a Buzzfeed journalist as well.
Given how Liverpool and David Cameron are getting on I can excuse you getting things wrong again.
A huge crowd of people standing next to each other, all wearing masks, is idiocy on stilts.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9359087/Maskless-Kate-Middleton-pays-emotional-visit-Sarah-Everard-memorial.html
This thread has gone
Criticising the police vs tacitly supporting young women being manhandled