March 14, 2021 - 11:02am
When the Metropolitan Police refused to allow a peaceful protest against male violence yesterday on the grounds of Covid, many of us asked why this protest was banned. After all, several Black Lives Matter protests as well as football celebrations involving huge crowds were allowed to go ahead during the pandemic.
Despite being assured by the organisers that the protest would be Covid-secure, the police chiefs refused to engage. Policing is supposedly by consent. But the scenes of women being manhandled by police at a vigil for a murdered women were appalling.
I became a feminist on account of catastrophic police misogyny and failures back in the hunt for Peter Sutcliffe in the 1970s. In 1988, the mother of Sutcliffe’s 13th and final victim, Doreen Hill, took a case against West Yorkshire Police for neglect of duty. She argued that had officers done their jobs properly, Jacqueline would have still been alive. She failed, which meant that the police could not be held responsible for failure to protect the public. It was not until two victims of serial rapist John Worboys — who committed offences against over 100 women — challenged the Metropolitan Police over their failures to investigate him. In this case, the lawyers found another route to holding the police to account under the Human Rights Act.
Today, there are several high profile investigations into police officers that shine a light on misogyny within the force. For example, a number of police officers are currently being investigated by the Independent Office for Police Conduct for photographing themselves with the bodies of two black women murdered in Wembley Park last year.
The Centre for Women’s Justice is currently taking a super-complaint against the police about the issue of domestic abuse by police officers and how it is investigated. CWJ has been contacted by 100 women who were victims of domestic abuse by serving police officers and let down the system. CWJ has also received enquiries from women who have been sexually assaulted by police officers when they have reported rape and sexual assaults.
In a statement AC Helen Ball said that police “did not want to be in a position where enforcement action was necessary. But we were placed in this position because of the overriding need to protect people’s safety.” What about safety of women from male violence? Perhaps the Met could commit to that sometime soon? I won’t be holding my breath.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI agree that the police action was disgraceful but it’s also disgraceful to describe last night’s event as a ‘protest against male violence’. It was no such thing, it was a vigil for Sarah (or was meant to be). I recommend the article on Spiked, written by one of her friends, lamenting the fact that her memory is being hijacked by people with a wider agenda. It’s shocking that Julie’s article doesn’t even mention Sarah – has she already been forgotten?
I read the same excellent article … and agree wholeheartedly.
Just read it too. I found it very moving.
And after all the vampires like Harman, Philips and Bindel have closed in and had their say, it’s just such a relief to read something from someone who simply loved her friend, and in spite of what has happened doesn’t have a heart filled with hate.
‘It’s shocking that Julie’s article doesn’t even mention Sarah – has she already been forgotten?’
Quite – for Bindel, she has become just ‘a woman’: no face, no identity, just a symbol of Bindel’s pet hobby-horse. This is harassment of Ms. Everard’s memory, I would say.
Try to be serious how can you “harass” a dead person’s memory?
To propose a ‘vigil’ may seem innocuous (even if it ignores pandemic regulations), but the trouble is that there can be no control over who attends, how many, or how people will behave. Some were clearly more interested in a protest than a vigil. My understanding is that it was the giving of speeches which triggered police action.
It is said that if the event had been permitted, there would have been stewards; who can say it would have been any different? Second, how can the police legally permit an illegal gathering in advance? I would agree that police have discretion, and it should have been exercised sooner than it was, but the mistake is understandable.
It’s always tough when the police finally crack down on a protest you actually agree with isn’t it?
What exactly do you think they have been doing to anti-lockdown protestors for the past six months?
Love your post, that because the police illegally terrorize the protestors against lockdown to make them return to unlawfully mandated self imprisomnent, it is right they attack these protestors for the same reason?
That if the police are being unjust and against every right the West grants its citizens in one case they need to do it in every case.
The police have gone rogue.
Indeed. The real disgrace was the non-action against the far more destructive BLM protesters in the summer.
Nothing to do with whether any particular person either does or doesn’t support a particular protest, or in this era of severely eroded civi rights the right to gather for any reason or no reason. As I have mockingly pointed out a number of times before, this (not so) deadly virus has repeatedly failed to produce the hoped for “spike” in “cases” despite at times huge crowds of people. The yellow vest protests in France against the right wing investment banker Macron’s policies had been going for over a year, stopped dead by draconian measures never before used to combat a viral pandemic. It’s about the right to protest, nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing.
Oh, Julie, you are right, but also wrong in as much as your lefty liberal, feminist principles, your lifetime’s work against the patriarchy are as much a cause of this misogyny as anything.
If women and men are to be regarded as equal in all things you cannot be surprised that policemen choose not to treat women with kindness and love and respect as the weaker sex. We cannot have it both ways, we are the weaker sex, we are entitled to protection and that means accepting that we are physically weak. We have to accept the patriarchy to some extent. And since women never empty dustbins, tarmac motorways or go down sewers for a living it is necessary to accept that as feminists we are often two faced.
If all men are condemned as rapists and brutal, violent animals who should be locked up, you cannot cry foul when some of them think ‘s*d it’ and decide to live down to the smear they have been repeatedly tarnished with.
This is the 21st century, I personally know a woman who is an engineer and regularly goes into the sewage system.
Biden wants women to be the front line soldiers, he appointed a couple women to the top positions, he wants the femminization of the Military. He also wants trans soldiers. (and I looked up the spelling just now and you need to see the picture wiki uses to illustrate femminization…..)
Women in maternity fatigues, no less. I guess Biden thinks pregnant women should be parachuting into combat. What a moron,
That gives ‘bouncing babies’ a whole new meaning.
Good luck with that when China goes to war .
‘Biden’ is very nearly an anagram of ‘Bindel’, I notice.
And does that seem like progress to you? Such jobs should be done by aquatic robots by now, perhaps controlled by women as often as men, from the comfort of their own homes, with their children playing happily at their feet.
This is the 21st century, I have personally known women who have killed men (not domestic violence related), Statistically she and your friend are rare – luckily the killer is much rarer than a female engineer.
You also miss Alison’s point: why should females not be arrested roughly by big male policemen. Should the police treat women differently?
Now I could agree that given the blind eyes the police have turned to lockdown breakers their reaction to peaceful not attacking others protestors was over the top, idiotic/stupid especially given that a Met officer is the prime suspect. But surely regardless of lockdown, when and where to apply the law shouldn’t fall to the police?
There were several female policemen there.
When and where to apply the law falls to the police every day. It’s their job.
Quite. In this jurisdiction police have an enduring and funded,emntal discretion. A discretion to stand by as a mob topples a statute. A discretion to listen to a reviewing HC judge who, whilst obliged to apply to the law, clearly urges the police to take into account public sentiment.
I am a woman. I worked on sewage works in the mid 1970s. I was doing that because I was told the job I really wanted – trainee reporter on my local paper – was only open to men. The patriarchy was in full swing and yet, strangely, women were afraid to walk alone at night for fear of being assaulted or murdered. Indeed, I was assaulted myself. Perhaps if we went further back, before women gained the vote, all was peace, love and respect…… That would be Jack the Ripper’s time, wouldn’t it?
Keep at it, Julie. We’re with you all the way.
That is just a ludicrous comment, you are actually blaming women for wanting protection from violent men the introduce the mist foul strawman I have ever seen. Read your last sentence, you should be ashamed but clearly not or you would not have written it.
Why a national disgrace? Surely a Clapham Common, middle class, urban professional Guardian reading disgrace? I thought it was a vigil for the woman who died rather than a protest against male violence? Sounds like toxic feminism to me.
Whether it was a vigil, a protest, or a vigil that turned into a protest, the fact remains that the police have stood idly by whilst other protests and gatherings (see Rangers last week) carried on, yet chose this one to wade in with their size 9’s. Pretty easy to see why feminists might be a tad angry about this.
Different country. And why feminists and why angry? Surely someone being murdered is a cause of sadness to her friends and family. Beyond that…
Remind us all again of the name and sex of the head of the Met.
She has a very appropriate surname but you can’t name her on here. It is automatically changed to “d**k”. Funny if not so idiotic.
Cressiad Richard is what you have to write, or your posts goes to moderation – this is true, as the poster above said.
Bullseye!
It can’t be a coincidence that this reaction by the Metropolitan Police came days after Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary had criticised them for going soft on lockdown-breaking protests.
Only one sort of ‘lockdown-breaking protest’.
The Police are NOT on your side if you are the silent majority of law abiding people. Politicos only care for votes, and as Trotsky taught, the majority are sheep and just vote aimlessly, it is the minority vote, who vote as a block, which tips the balance and gets the win. (see ‘entryism’)
Politicos only care about winning another ticket on the gravy train, so sell out the majority to court the radical minority. Politicians make the policing agenda, thus the agenda is both political, and against the decent law abiding.
Remember, in this mad era of woke, self hating days, the Politicians AND police, are against you as they are against British culture and people as your votes just do not matter – the votes which do matter are the haters, who have militant voting blocks.
Sure. Because feminists expect special treatment for women while claiming that women are exactly the same as men.
Sarah Ditum, in her article, described the police’s actions as “vicious”, when in fact they were absolutely standard procedures for breaking up unauthorised demonstrations.
It’s that same old feminist double standard: “equality of opportunity when it’s convenient, privilege when it ain’t“.
The police have not stood by against anti-lockdown protestors, including on Clapham Common. As long the restrictions on outdoor gatherings remain, events like Saturday evening are going to happen.
As for standing aside at Rangers you have to remember that this wasn’t a planned gathering and police were heavily outnumbered – and heavily criticised for not dispersing the crowds The Scottish Government is now considering whether to ban the next Rangers – Celtic match and you can be sure there will be a heavy police presence . Police get criticised for not dispersing and criticised for dispersing!
Unfortunately for professional career feminists, their sub-group had fallen down the victim hierarchy recently, so they are desperately characterising almost any action as misogynistic – in the hope of airtime.
Indeed – they’ve found their George Floyd and they are going to make the most of it.
Well, at least Ms. Everard didn’t rob anyone at gunpoint.
I have to point out that any comparison of Ms Everard with Floyd is ridiculous and horrible.
Are you serious? Please say you are not.
I’m not making the comparison.
Er, Julie. You are aware, are you, that the head of the Metropolitan Police is a woman?
Either you don’t know it was she who gave the police their orders, in which case you are foolish and ignorant; or you know perfectly well, but decided to blame men-in-general anyway, in which case you are busted as a sexist bigot, and your column is a hate crime.
So come on, which is it? Are you ignorant, or are you a bigot, or are you indeed all of the above: a thick, ignorant, sexist bigot ?
Idiotic clickbait piece that has this morning stopped me from subscribing to Unherd.
Back to the cave then …
Julie Bindel says that “football celebrations involving huge crowds were allowed to go ahead during the pandemic”. What is the word “allowed” doing in this sentence? The High Court ruled on the illegality of this event at Clapham Common, a planned event that was to involve hundreds if not thousands of people coming into a suburban residential area for the purpose solely of virtue-signalling. That is completely different from a spontaneous event not organised by any group and on which the High Court never ruled at all.
I completely agree with Julie Bindell that the police service (and the army) are rotten and a disproportionate share of offenders are coming from those services.
However, Julie Bindel wants equal rights for women. Well, one of those rights is to be policed in the same way that men are policed.
The sight of grifting journalists, woke protestors and misandrists capitalising on the death of Sarah Everard is the national disgrace. Culture wars have turned our country into a toxic mess. First wait and allow her family to grieve, then after the conviction of the murderer refer the case to forensic psychology. Comments allowed at the end of the process. That should be the order of things.
Yeah, the police only stepped in because they didn’t want it to come to people’s attention that men tend to be more violent than women.
That’s just childish.
Are you being ironic ?
I think you’ve failed to understand. The author claims that the right to protest is not upheld when women are protesting about men. That’s an illogical and stupid claim.
It looks like I failed to pick up that you were being ironic …. in which case you have my full support.
It was neither a vigil nor a protest. It was an abuse of family’s grief to make a statement by a class that believes itself to be elite that the rules do not apply to us, we are the elite and we have power. The police had a choice to either allow the statement to be made and publicly accept the power of this elite or to demonstrate the police’s theoretical impartiality by cracking down on it.
Good point
And completely correct
Of course the death and the manner of death of this lady was and is awful.
But statistically a lady bering murdered by a stranger in London is very very rare- despite its rarity there is this huge – and perfectly understandable- protest.We should all be able to walk streets safely.
But the protest it stands in contrast to the complete absence of protest over the weekly murders of young men -mostly stabbings – on the same streets. And the active resistance of the left to empowering the police to deal with it.
What is a national disgrace is the promotion of the interests of one section of the population at the expense of any or all other sections of said population by parliament, the police, or any other institution or interest group that is allowed by the media to promote its divisive agenda.
Laws already exist to protect everyone, and have existed since before the introduction of the ludicrous, and unnecessary ‘hate crime’ legislations which have been allowed to creep in. To suggest that the commission of any crime against any one type of person is graver because that person comes from a certain section of the population is to belittle, and suggest less attention will be paid to, offences against people in other categories.
Most of us gave up on the police years ago as a force for good or anything useful. Every day in the Daily Mail brings a story of astonishing criminality – drunk driving, financial fraud, sexual harassment etc – by a member of the police force, often a senior member. As I explained to my mother almost 16 years ago following the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes: ‘Mum, it’s not the 1950s any more. The last people you should believe in modern Britain are the police”.
The FCA likewise. An organisation for idlers too lazy and cowardly even for the police.
Yes indeed what happy days, with Sgt Dixon of Dock Green and a Pierrepoint Hanging once a month.
I do not see the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes anything but a bad situation caused by searching for deadly terrorists, and a chain of events brought to a head by his running, and was real policing which ended up – AFTER the facts, to have been wrong. Orwell said it right: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
That IS policing, to do hard things when crime may cause huge damage, to accept that risk as a necessity.
The problem is that is not modern policing. 95% of every breath a modern police takes has to be screened through a political correctness mask, and then 90% of the time inaction is the result, and only 10% is pure policing un-weighed by PC. That the public took your attitude has made the police self question and self doubt and has harmed policing terribly. If you want action in a split second there will be wrong calls – so now there can be only inaction, less a wrong call is made.
Ms Babbitt was shot by a panicky policeman who should not have been allowed near a firearm.
Unfortunately today it seems impossible to recruit people of the “right stuff”, either here in the UK or the US
Incidentally will the relatives of the late Ms Babbitt qualify for a $20 million plus payout?
They’re more likely to be charged for the cost of the bullet.
No payouts for whitey.
I am sure Mr de Menezes said to himself “Such is life, my death is the price we pay for a safe society. and teaches me right for looking a little bit Middle Eastern.” Who was in charge of that operation, and what job does she do now, I wonder?
JCdeM did not run, just like he didn’t jump over ticket barriers.
One question that hasn’t been raised; how does piling dozens of police officers into a crowd (either this or an improptu rave) help reduce the spread of Covid19?
Exactly. Argue all you want about whether the initial gathering was adequately distanced – but this police action only served to reduce their distancing. A loudhailer requesting everyone to space out would probably have had a much more positive effect.
you were there?
Virtually NONE of 2020 was about covid, it was USING covid to push for the great reset! That is why a few cops charging in, breaking a couple heads and zip-tieing a few middle class people is done, to keep the artificial fear running hot. Check out the Daily Mail comments on this story- 90% Cheering on the police for protecting us all from certain death by these protests.
‘You Will Own Nothing And Be Happy’ for some excellent, very funny, commentary on Charles Schwab’s statement of the above at the world economic forum. (The Great Reset). Love Gates, Zuck, Bezos, Dorsey and Schwab? Then do watch the below link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4h4TUidlQI
‘You will own nothing and be happy’, ‘sounds like a win-win’
The organisers were told by the police that such a gathering would not be given permission. It broke the Covid laws. They appealed to the courts and Courts agreed with the police. But they went ahead anyway . If the police had not tried to disperse the crowd- tomorrow there would be BLM or Extinction rebellion march similarly with another crowd spreading infection. If politicians dont want police to break up gatherings dont pass laws making gatherings illegal.
That is not what the judge said, read the judgement. He invited the police to discuss proportionate policing of the vigil, as permitted by the intersection of the Coronavirus Regulations and the Human Rights Act. The vigil could have gone ahead and the organisers were in discussion with the police when the police suddenly issued a statement saying the vigil was illegal. This instance of bad faith, and ignoring a judge’s direction, needs to be explained.
Thank you for that clarification. However my understanding was that the police had refused permission. The organisers went to court to get the refusal overturned and the court refused to overturn it. There was no legal “direction”
The scenes of the crowds close together clearly breached the covid regulations. I’m not supporting either side but if we dont want the police to enforce laws -dont pass the laws. Protecting the capital from Covid matters.
When a government rescinds fundamental rights of movement, expression, gathering, protest in the name of puclic health and when that same government empowers the police to enforce these restrictions fully up to and inside peoples’ homes and without any effective scrutiny but rather with encouragement as ‘we are protecting lives’, then why are we appalled when all of a sudden only two days ago we ‘discovered’ such despicable behavior?
Three weeks ago the BBC were cheering the police on when they embedded their crew with police entering homes and fining people because they were gathering in violation of regulations, now we wonder (and so do the BBC and other UK media)?
The police have been despicable but consistent in their despicability as their political masters have asked them to. It is only hypocritical for them to order inquests when all they should do is put the constitutional leash back on by rescinding the current state of non-constitutional affairs
“Despite being assured by the organisers that the protest would be Covid-secure, the police chiefs refused to engage.”
> Wasn’t it the case that they DID engage… but disagreed? ‘Listening’ has a diferent meaning to ‘agreeing’.
And there were female police officers in situ as well – why isn’t this mentioned? And the Head of the Met is a woman. And women who are deemed to be breaking the law are man-handled – or woman-handled – like any man deemed to be breaking the law. Should female transgressors be treated differently to male transgressors – by either male or female police officers?
And yes, there is Police inconsistancy in allowing mass BLM protesting and disallowing this vigil. Perhaps the number of people could have been controlled via an on-line ticketing system regulating the time of appearance?
the gift that keeps on giving every protest group – the televison crew in attaendence.
And the instant videos on national news from one side.
When it’s BLM or ANTIFA they kneel.
When it’s grooming gangs from a Muslim background they give way.
When it’s black inner city gangs they’re nowhere to be seen.
When it’s old ladies having a picnic during lockdown they’re out in force.
When it’s a mother with a child taking a visit to the beach during lockdown they’re there to intimidate and fine her.
When it’s women protesting agains’t a policeman who has raped and murdered an innocent women, they are out to to bully the protesters.
Our police are the scum of the earth, and I hope we get full retribution.
The Rule of Law is foundational to Democracy and Freedom.
This unlawful superspreader event was condemned in the same way the BLM superspreader event was.
If you want Inequality before the Law, then you need to earn that right through Democratic Consent.
The three Cs, crowded places, close contact and confined spaces means your premise is spurious.
As is your gender stereotyping and gender profiling.
Or do you condone profiling Blacks because of violent black drug dealers.
Do you condone profiling Pakistanis because of violent Pakistani grooming gangs.
The target is sexual harassers, sexual intimidators, sexual abusers and sexual predators.
Not ‘men’!
In the way of identity politics, as a white, older, middle class male, I find it frightening that I feel that I can no longer trust the police to act equitably and honestly. I recall the words of, I think, James Baldwin who said (I might well not be quoting entirely accurately, but the sense is correct) that if some of the people can’t trust the police, none of the people can trust the police.
As much as I sympathise with anybody who feels, or is threatened or intimidated when going about their daily lives, our right to protest has been taken away from us.
Very few of the UK population have questioned this disregard of our human rights. Rather foolishly in my opinion.
As johnlewis quite rightly points out, the anti-lockdown ( anti-human rights abuse ) protests, and how the police deal with them, hardly get a mention in the mainstream media who seem to report events to reflect public sentiment. The reaction of the public to these reports tends to be supportive of the police. I’m sorry, but you can’t have your cake and eat it.
The man who has been charged with this murder is, thank goodness, presumably still innocent until proven guilty. At this point in time we do not know that he is guilty as charged.
Is there a constitutional right to protest in the UK?
No, when “push comes to shove” we are a Police state, like any other.
In that case, it cannot be said that the public has lost the right to protest as Pete Kirby claims above. I wonder how many in the public know that there is no such right? And could such a right be established today in the U.K.?
I ask because it often occurs to me that we probably could not establish the rights that we have today in the US were they not already guaranteed by the bill of rights. The right to assembly or free speech or even to freedom of religion would undoubtedly be fought by elements within the US political landscape. It’s tough keeping such rights active even though we already have them. It takes constant vigilance to ensure that we do not lose them.
We don’t have a Constitution as such.
We gave you Thomas Paine to give you one.
We do have a constitution, even if it is not contained in a single document as in the case of the USA.
We do not have a written Constitution, ask Lord Sumption.
Yes, I’m aware that you don’t have a written constitution, does that preclude the establishment of constitutional rights as in the US bill of rights?
Why are you always here with the same dull, relentless questions about the UK constitution?
Seriously, what is it to you? What makes you think, as an American citizen, that it’s any of your business or that we care what you say?
Paine is a favorite but for the right to assembly, we must thank William Penn founder of Pennsylvania. Quite a fascinating story too.
I agree Penn should be better known for his seminal role, but you will be glad to hear some still remember him here.
Over here off course Tom Paine is almost forgotten, along other ‘free spirit’ such as Wilkes.
I have yet to visit the small Museum at New Rochelle, as on the last occasion I tried the caretaker had flu!
I went to high school in New Rochelle and spent many days at that museum. I would also highly recommend the Old Quaker meeting house off Northern Blvd in Flushing, Queens. I spent many days there in elementary school.
We do have the right to protest. The police are likely to be involved only where the number of people is so large that there are issues of crowd safety or hindrance to people using the streets (and of course if there is criminal conduct).
No we don’t , if the Home Secretary or the Police think there is likely to Public ‘disorder’ they can prohibit an otherwise legitimate protest.
Presumably you were too young to remember Civil Rights in Northern Ireland for example?
Thank you. I was looking for an affirmative right.
What establishes the right to protest in the UK? Can you provide the source?
As
What is not specifically forbidden is allowed, that is the core of our legal system. And protest is not forbidden, unless, as above, it is thought to represent a significant risk to public safety, in which case it may be banned, or, in practice, the organisers may agree with the authorities other arrangements
At last you’ve stated the principle; it’s not that one has the right to protest, but that no one has the right to stop you, UNLESS statute says otherwise (or you obstruct the Queen’s highway), and the danger of modern thinking is that all too easily, everyone’s immediate reaction is to add to statute.
So protest is not forbidden unless it is?
Okay unless forbidden is not really a right, though, is it? After all, the Chinese have a right to protest unless forbidden, don’t they?
Yes.
What specifically establishes the right? In the US it’s the bill of rights. What is the source of the right in the UK?
Interesting question. Professor Google tells me the right to protest is protected in the UK by the Human Rights Act of 1998, by the European Convention on Human Rights, and by judge-made common law. So the source of this right does not appear to be constitutional, rather it is by act of parliament or through common law principles.
The right is not absolute and can be restricted in certain circumstances, such as when protesting is violent or gives rise to a threat to human health (e.g., spread of covid). I’m not sure if all the foregoing legal protections apply to Scotland since that country has a separate legal system from England and Wales, although I guess the ECHR applies.
Here’s the link.
https://www.daslaw.co.uk/blog/right-to-peaceful-protest
Until 1998, there was no right to protest in the UK?
As always the UK Government gives with one hand and takes with the other!
Under the Human Rights Act of 1998 and section 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, you are allowed to protest.
However, (as always) the ‘organiser’ of such a protest must apply to the Police in writing for permission, 6 days before the intended protest, and if they don’t like it, they will declare it illegal. QED?
Frankly you were well rid of us in 1783!
Whereas in England that noble spirit of independence had been extinguished by the Restoration and the subsequent execution of the Regicides, it lived on fortunately in the American Colonies with explosive results in 1775-6 , as you obviously well know.
Yes, allowed to protest unless not allowed. Is this concerning to people in the UK or is it simply accepted that protest won’t be forbidden for nefarious reasons (which of course it is prohibited right now to some agreement but some disagreement).
I do appreciate that much of the US constitution was written in direct response to a lack of guaranteed fundamental rights in England.
I don’t believe that any of the other protests that you mention were authorised by the police. The fact they went ahead was more likely that the police did not have the ability or manpower to stop them, regardless of the law. Why they chose to intervene yesterday is probably due to this protest being seen as a softer target. I can’t support the police action or the protest.
Do protests have to be authorized by the police in the U.K.?
They do in the middle of a pandemic, like it or not.
The open Beaches and Bars of Florida seem to not require Police Bqatton Charges to keep covid at bay.
Interesting. In the US you cannot lose your civil rights even during a pandemic. Or so says SCOTUS.
Depends on scale and only for public order/safety.
Interesting, in the US civil rights are not a matter of scale. They are individual rights.
The ‘scale’ point relates not to the right to protest in itself, but to public safety and order. If a very large protest is taking place, there is the question of crowd safety, and the ability of the public to walk on the streets and drive on the roads, and so on. The police can impose conditions on large protests for such reasons, but in general have a duty to facilitate lawful protests.
So protests do not have to be authorized by the police then? It’s a yes or no question.
If there is a right to protest in the UK as we have in the US through the bill of rights, what establishes that right in law in the UK?
You also have the right to have millions and millions of guns.
Note that, in general, even our police aren’t armed, and I still haven’t become used to seeing them carried by police in Whitehall, although they’ve done so since Irish terrorist attacks began in the 1970s.
(I remember walking past 10 Downing Street, with a single unarmed policeman outside. A long time ago.)
I doubt many people in the US have millions of guns (that would be expensive) but yes, the right to bear arms is a 2nd amendment right.
Your criminal element must be far more compliant than ours. Who would agree to be an unarmed cop in Chicago?
I think we have the right to be disagreeable.
As does everyone. But a right to assembly seems like it might be just a bit more important.
It was a disgusting and disgraceful display by the police. Scary, actually, and not only for the women at the vigil but for all the British people. It’s daily becoming more and more like living in North Korea. The police officers involved should all be prosecuted and fired, Cressida d**k included.
oh come on!
The last year has taught us that those governing the EU, the UK and the US are, essentially, no different to those governing Russia and China, the only difference being that the Russian and Chinese leaders are possessed of some competence.
To compare then UK to North Korea might be pushing it a bit too far, but such are the authoritarian pathologies that now characterise the minds of those who seek and wield power across the West, you never know.
Jaysus. Ludicrous hyperbole doesn’t really help the debate.
Just the way the police are now after a year of throwing their weight around. It was simply that. Nothing personal just the police being the police and this last night was probably the result of a change in policy at the top .. Just take a look at them in their semi military get up and you can see what they have become . I stay out of their way but then I always did.
The source of the problem is that the Police no longer have any Officers in the true sense of the word.
They are now dominated by the “canteen culture “, and the ethos of “Jacks as good as his Master”.
They need to recruit an Officer Corps, along the lines of that already provided by Sandhurst, Dartmouth and Cranwell, for the Army, Navy and Air Force, respectively.
Policing has become far too serious to be left to the Corporal’s Mess.
There is Chinese martial arts saying ” Putting on a chicken does not make a warrior “. Historically The City of London Police and other recruited ex Guards and RM sergeants. The reality is that we are all fearful of death, unless one is Gurkha ( comment Manekshaw ) . Consequently, when faced by death we need people who through selection, training and experience can control their fear without which they cannot make the correct decision. In a fight: size counts which is why there are weight categories for boxing/martial arts.
A newly appointed Inspector sorted out a towns violent criminals by challenging them in the various pubs in which they drunk. He was an ex Guards sergeant, boxed heavy weight, fought in N Africa and had the medals to prove it. Men of this calibre know when to diffuse a situation with a joke or knockout blow.
In most violent situations one needs quality, not quantity of Police Officers.
A street fight will be over in 5 seconds. Facing someone who is a knife fighter, the Police officer may not have time to draw equipment.
We are all animals. A Lap Shaman said to me ” Those who have conquered fear can walk with the wild animals “. No equipment can hide fear in the eyes and voice and the Police officer walking up to a violent criminal. A Police of proven ability can look the criminal in the eyes and say ” You know and I know that I will win the fight, so I suggest for your health, you come quietly “. Criminal are very good risk managers and do not start fights they will lose.
Men like this do not need vast amounts of equipment.
After service in WW2 quite a few Commandos/SF became police officers such as Assistant Commissioner Bond.
How much of the criticism of the Police is because at critical moments, those in command and at the sharp end either panic or become petrified ?
While I disagree with your comment, I also believe that in the clothing and equipment of a modern policeman, Peels’ original concept has been forgotten, and they have come to resemble the paramilitary forces common elsewhere. Years ago, they carried but a whistle, and a truncheon in a hidden pocket. Then they added a wireless, then cuffs, then all sorts of clutter, stab-vest, hi-vis. From what I see on television, they often don’t even wear a hat. Finally, one seldom sees a solitary policeman walking slowly on the beat, observant of everything around, ready to talk to anyone. Maybe this is why the streets seem less safe to some than in my youth.
it was a vigil in memory of someone – and like funerals that many people have not been allowed to properly have it was not allowed. The fact that the BLM protests were allowed is something many people have criticized. But it got classed as a political cause. This wasn’t – it seems it was just turned into one by people perfectly willing to use a dead person as ammunition for their political cause? People seem to be obsessed with doing this these days – as if everyone is their own personal mythology maker and spin doctor. Everything is going ‘mean something’ and be symbolic of something rather than a tragic and unfair happening.
The police always have to stick their noses into our business in the name of safety, but it’s really about Big Brother having to stand in the way of freedom, and let us know who’s in charge. They only made matters worse, as usual, and overstepped their bounds, as usual… and as usual will never admit any wrongdoing, but insist they had to step in to stop some danger. What a blind bunch of fools. Give us a chance to grieve for crying out loud!
We’ve spent a year watching the British police devolve into a pure Nazi jackboot agency. All bets are off as to how they can be stopped. My money has been on the only option being a military coup.
One does wonder how much of this was revenge of ordinary policeman for the fate of one of their colleagues.
It seems no matter how long and how in depth ( so called) male behaviour is tested, it remains an inescapable fact that patriarchal control, wins out countless times. This throughout history, or, ‘his story’.
If this tragic happening of yet another woman; her life obliterated by male violence, is not talked out without the detail and example of womens reality, another brick wall of tight lipped silence on womens lived reality will recede back into a vacuum.
The first step into opening the door must be now, has to be now.
Men who use this scale of violence are not normal – they are on the psychopathic scale which means they have no conscience and no empathy. At least 1% of the population, according to Hare, are on the psychopathic scale and no amount of protesting against male violence or talking about ‘women’s reality’ will stop them from doing exactly what they please.
Wake up Joana. No matter how hard you try to twist what happened to fit your sick feminist agenda, the event in question only happened because the protesters chose to challenge police’s duty to enforce the law against an indisputably illegal gathering during a pandemic.
There is no grounds for you to peddle your victim narrative here.