• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Sick sick world what is wrong with people

Glenda's Legs said:
No, that shouldn't be their role. Unfortunately though the courts batted it back to the police, judging that the vigil wouldn't necessarily be illegal and leaving it up to the group to work with the police as to how it could safely take place. Clearly they couldn't come to any mutually agreeable way forward and it sounds as though there were threats of £10k fines for the organisers if it went ahead as an organised event.
I do appreciate the police were in a difficult position, but either agreeing to a socially distanced event with the marshalls being provided by the organisers (which the court ruling would have allowed them to do), or, when the non-official gathering happened anyway, taking a softer approach and not barging in and trying to drag away the speakers, would both have been better solutions. I don't think hindsight is needed to see that and whoever was in charge on the ground last night and thought taking that action would be a good thing needs to be hauled over the coals.

I do believe the term 'vigil' was a bit of a misnomer, as an element of protest was always part of the plan. Imo there were a lot of people there last night more interested in the protest than the vigil but that was always going to be the case from the moment the official event had to be called off. The police have to make judgement calls every day, I don't understand how they got this one so wrong.
Click to expand...
Do you think the police didn't tell them to disperse before charging in? I find that a little far-fetched.
 
Loving how only now, all these renowned know-it-alls are claiming that infection in large groups isnt a thing...Its just all so coincidental.
 
3DSpur said:
Loving how only now, all these renowned know-it-alls are claiming that infection in large groups isnt a thing...Its just all so coincidental.
Click to expand...

Hypercritical behaviour at its finest.

I bet the same people have been tutting at people at beaches, parks calling them idiots.

Same people crying for harsher punishments for lockdown breakers and protests that don’t match their own views.

The law doesn’t work that way and nor should it.
 
Robspur12 said:
My opinion? It is to uphold the law and protect people mate.
Click to expand...
It's public protection.
But it's not to uphold the law - that is the job of the court system.
Instead it's to make risk assessments for public protection; the law is one of (and not the only) the tools the police have for public protection.

We police by consent in the UK, and a large part of that is public trust in the police.
The met made the right call in not sanctioning the vigil due to COVID rules - that reduces the numbers. But they are intelligent enough to know this won't result in zero attendees; at which point crowd control and cooperative social policing would be a proptionate response.
Instead they took a situation where a MET police officer has abducted and murdered a civilian, opened a huge reaction of concern about female public safety and responded by having male MET police officers acting in a way that is going to negatively affect trust and look like male MET police officers having disregard for female concerns.
That's the point at which the risk assessment of containment and control should allow the vigil to continue, despite it contravening the law, because trust in the Police is essential for seeing through criminal prosecutions.

Laws are only as good as the balance between public compliance and police application. The police work for and I'm conjunction with the public, despite what Patel may think.
 
scaramanga said:
How do the police make them disperse without physical intervention? That's the entire point of the police.

If it could have been done by asking them nicely we could just have social workers instead of police.
Click to expand...

For a minimum wage no doubt, better still, zero contract minimum wage no benefits because well hey, they're too thick to be afforded the privilege of a chance at better, right?...

Keep on coming out mate. Just know that we see you.
 
thfcsteff said:
For a minimum wage no doubt, better still, zero contract minimum wage no benefits because well hey, they're too thick to be afforded the privilege of a chance at better, right?...

Keep on coming out mate. Just know that we see you.
Click to expand...
Whatever the market rate for their wage is. It might be the "minimum wage" it might be less. Depends on supply and demand.
 
monkeybarry said:
It's public protection.
But it's not to uphold the law - that is the job of the court system.
Instead it's to make risk assessments for public protection; the law is one of (and not the only) the tools the police have for public protection.

We police by consent in the UK, and a large part of that is public trust in the police.
The met made the right call in not sanctioning the vigil due to COVID rules - that reduces the numbers. But they are intelligent enough to know this won't result in zero attendees; at which point crowd control and cooperative social policing would be a proptionate response.
Instead they took a situation where a MET police officer has abducted and murdered a civilian, opened a huge reaction of concern about female public safety and responded by having male MET police officers acting in a way that is going to negatively affect trust and look like male MET police officers having disregard for female concerns.
That's the point at which the risk assessment of containment and control should allow the vigil to continue, despite it contravening the law, because trust in the Police is essential for seeing through criminal prosecutions.

Laws are only as good as the balance between public compliance and police application. The police work for and I'm conjunction with the public, despite what Patel may think.
Click to expand...
Driving at or near the speed limit makes me really sad, so the police should use common sense and let me drive however I like.
 
markysimmo said:
So no vigil allowed for that Sarah girl but BLM's protests for somebody who died in America were allowed to go ahead in their hundreds, standard
Click to expand...

1) this is a really silly comment first of all

2) see point 1)

3) Wtf does BLM have to do with this? Nothing.

4) interesting your ire is with BLM but not the Conservative party for passing laws which are effectively banning protests... maybe check where you should put that anger and write to your local MP.
 
Diamond Lights said:
1) this is a really silly comment first of all

2) see point 1)

3) Wtf does BLM have to do with this? Nothing.

4) interesting your ire is with BLM but not the Conservative party for passing laws which are effectively banning protests... maybe check where you should put that anger and write to your local MP.
Click to expand...

Labour have been out and about today complaining about this, they have allowed this to happen (along with the other parties and Tory Mps)

If they really wanted this to stop they would vote against extending the Covid Bill again, with the Tory rebels it wouldn’t pass.

who knew giving mentalists a free hand would end badly.

Our MPs of all parties need to get back to do what they have been elected for, not sitting around getting paid for nothing.
 
Legohamster said:
Labour have been out and about today complaining about this, they have allowed this to happen (along with the other parties and Tory Mps)

If they really wanted this to stop they would vote against extending the Covid Bill again, with the Tory rebels it wouldn’t pass.

who knew giving mentalists a free hand would end badly.

Our MPs of all parties need to get back to do what they have been elected for, not sitting around getting paid for nothing.
Click to expand...


Don't disagree, Labour not impressed me at all under Starmer and i wanted him in over Corbyn so pretty frustrated.

My point is, it has the square root of fudge all to do with BLM, people just want to show their frustration against ethnic minorities as usual. Absolutely no need to even bring BLM in, but of course, heaven forbid we look at racial justice for minorities.

Where was this outrage last week when Rangers were celebrating? Seen more complaints about BLM a year ago than Rangers fans and the subsequent policing.

End of the day, the Police massively fudged this up, but somehow people saying it's because she was white they wouldn't allow the protest? Idiocy.
 
Diamond Lights said:
Don't disagree, Labour not impressed me at all under Starmer and i wanted him in over Corbyn so pretty frustrated.

My point is, it has the square root of fudge all to do with BLM, people just want to show their frustration against ethnic minorities as usual. Absolutely no need to even bring BLM in, but of course, heaven forbid we look at racial justice for minorities.

Where was this outrage last week when Rangers were celebrating? Seen more complaints about BLM a year ago than Rangers fans and the subsequent policing.

End of the day, the Police massively fudged this up, but somehow people saying it's because she was white they wouldn't allow the protest? Idiocy.
Click to expand...
The comparison to any other protest is just another deflection tool from some people.
The death of Sarah Everard has crossed over and become a big thing here because she was a normal person doing a normal thing. The smoke and fire to the issue is the fact the accused is a copper... but there are killers and raps it’s why have worked in many environments including drs, firemen, and other public services. We don’t boycott them or target them.
The guy who did this is clearly a person with many issues and the fact t they caught him very quickly and his details are in the public domain means their evidence is vast and they have so far done their job
 
Diamond Lights said:
Don't disagree, Labour not impressed me at all under Starmer and i wanted him in over Corbyn so pretty frustrated.

My point is, it has the square root of fudge all to do with BLM, people just want to show their frustration against ethnic minorities as usual. Absolutely no need to even bring BLM in, but of course, heaven forbid we look at racial justice for minorities.

Where was this outrage last week when Rangers were celebrating? Seen more complaints about BLM a year ago than Rangers fans and the subsequent policing.

End of the day, the Police massively fudged this up, but somehow people saying it's because she was white they wouldn't allow the protest? Idiocy.
Click to expand...

I agree with all your points. I do think that what Marky was saying was that he did not thought the police would let it go ahead because of the BLM ones went ahead in the summer. I do think how the police behave at times is because of how they think they will be perceived. They got it massively wrong with the vigil up in clapham.

I do not mind either protests as long as they are wearing masks because of covid they need to wear masks. But generally as I agree with the spirit of what both movements are about I do not mind. My own political views are that we are all equal and should all have our freedom. That includes the freedom to protest.

Think that when people bring up race when race is not even an issue, in this case it is about women being attacked. Think that people bring race into it because they say how racial issues are handled and sometimes they is a perception that the police or politicians treat those protesting on racial equality with kid gloves.

Being free is at the corner stone of all my views and having the freedom to protest if done in a safe way should always be allowed. Think the police massively over stepped their mark here. But then my dealings with the police in my life have been less then satisfactory. I was a foreman on a building site in Redhill Surrey back in the mid 90s and we had a break in and they were awful, I was mugged in Wood Green in the 90s, I have been burgled twice, first in Brighton then in Chi and every time i found the police disinterested and condescending.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
I agree with all your points. I do think that what Marky was saying was that he did not thought the police would let it go ahead because of the BLM ones went ahead in the summer. I do think how the police behave at times is because of how they think they will be perceived. They got it massively wrong with the vigil up in clapham.

I do not mind either protests as long as they are wearing masks because of covid they need to wear masks. But generally as I agree with the spirit of what both movements are about I do not mind. My own political views are that we are all equal and should all have our freedom. That includes the freedom to protest.

Think that when people bring up race when race is not even an issue, in this case it is about women being attacked. Think that people bring race into it because they say how racial issues are handled and sometimes they is a perception that the police or politicians treat those protesting on racial equality with kid gloves.

Being free is at the corner stone of all my views and having the freedom to protest if done in a safe way should always be allowed. Think the police massively over stepped their mark here. But then my dealings with the police in my life have been less then satisfactory. I was a foreman on a building site in Redhill Surrey back in the mid 90s and we had a break in and they were awful, I was mugged in Wood Green in the 90s, I have been burgled twice, first in Brighton then in Chi and every time i found the police disinterested and condescending.
Click to expand...
With the police like every organisation you can get a real mix of the spectrum (literally)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back