Emergency legislation - information and commentary

[Graveworm]

blueg33 said:

Only 4 on the bandstand? I don’t buy it. If they were breaking Covid regs so was everyone else. It looks like they choose who they didn’t like and booked them.

I don’t think the way the vigil was handled is defensible. It’s a fk up.

They arrested 4 who didn't leave, when it was explained it was time to leave, as it was now becoming an unlawful gathering, sill didn't leave when they tried to persuade them and then directed them to. Didn't leave when told they would get an FPN if they didn't, refused their details so they couldn't issue an FPN, still refused when they were told they would be arrested if they didn't and then they got arrested.

How many people didn't need all those stages? How many left in the considerable time whilst all that was being repeated and people being dealt with time and again?

[Greendubber]

blueg33 said:

Greendubber said:

blueg33 said:

vonhosen said:

Because they were the ones on the bandstand (where speeches were being made from) which became the focal point that the crowd clambered towards & as a result of which it was no longer a vigil but an unlawful gathering?

Only 4 on the bandstand? I don’t buy it. If they were breaking Covid regs so was everyone else. It looks like they choose who they didn’t like and booked them.

I don’t think the way the vigil was handled is defensible. It’s a fk up.

You're in the minority then.

Really? That’s why there are calls for an enquiry? Why even the Home Secretary wants a report etc

Yes, really.

http://news.sky.com/story/sarah-everard-vigil-more...

[Sebring440]

vonhosen said:

Perhaps it was by design.

vonhosen said:

Perhaps there were those that wanted to make a political statement & make headlines

vonhosen said:

Perhaps there were those that wanted publicity

vonhosen said:

Perhaps a peaceful vigil

vonhosen said:

Still we will have a more balanced/evidenced & nuanced view of it all then, rather than just conjecture.

The irony is strong here, grasshopper....

[vonhosen]

Sebring440 said:

vonhosen said:

Perhaps it was by design.

vonhosen said:

Perhaps there were those that wanted to make a political statement & make headlines

vonhosen said:

Perhaps there were those that wanted publicity

vonhosen said:

Perhaps a peaceful vigil

vonhosen said:

Still we will have a more balanced/evidenced & nuanced view of it all then, rather than just conjecture.

The irony is strong here, grasshopper....

That was point, I was offering conjecture to balance the other conjecture, hence the question marks littered throughout the posts & the 'perhaps'.
No irony at all.

That's why I said it's just conjecture until the report is published.
I'm willing to wait for the report, others less so.

[blueg33]

Greendubber said:

Yes, really.

http://news.sky.com/story/sarah-everard-vigil-more...

Sorry. Survey of 1672 people does not set out or even indicate what the majority of 40 million adults would be.

Who did they ask? What demographic? What experience do the respondents have in dealing with the police? Do the respondents understand the actual law?

This thread alone indicates that many people don’t understand the difference between the law and guidance

[Graveworm]

blueg33 said:

Greendubber said:

Yes, really.

http://news.sky.com/story/sarah-everard-vigil-more...

Sorry. Survey of 1672 people does not set out or even indicate what the majority of 40 million adults would be.

Who did they ask? What demographic? What experience do the respondents have in dealing with the police? Do the respondents understand the actual law?

This thread alone indicates that many people don’t understand the difference between the law and guidance

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/m282ns6l7h/Crest_Results_210316.pdf
https://www.crestadvisory.com/post/policing-at-cla...
https://yougov.co.uk/about/panel-methodology/

[blueg33]

Graveworm said:

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/m282ns6l7h/Crest_Resul...
https://www.crestadvisory.com/post/policing-at-cla...
https://yougov.co.uk/about/panel-methodology/

The you gov survey of just under 6000 people shows a split result. Males over50 most likely to support the police actions.

Still a tiny sample

[Graveworm]

blueg33 said:

The you gov survey of just under 6000 people shows a split result. Males over50 most likely to support the police actions.

Still a tiny sample

Representative samples of that size are pretty accurate. Not usually out by that kind of margin (21%), it's the way surveys work and it's why yougov are a billion pound PLC who get paid by governments and big companies to find out what people think. They could be wrong, But it's quite a pivot from, despite the data showing they are accurate, I think the sample size means it could be wrong so, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary 53% approve vs 32% disapprove becomes the majority disapprove.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 17th March 22:47

[Greendubber]

blueg33 said:

Graveworm said:

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/m282ns6l7h/Crest_Resul...
https://www.crestadvisory.com/post/policing-at-cla...
https://yougov.co.uk/about/panel-methodology/

The you gov survey of just under 6000 people shows a split result. Males over50 most likely to support the police actions.

Still a tiny sample

Yet its still more compelling than you just telling us your opinion on it.

[NikBartlett]

A small minority turned up to the vigil with the intent of publicly embarrassing the Met by ensuring they were arrested by male officers.

[blueg33]

Greendubber said:

blueg33 said:

Graveworm said:

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/m282ns6l7h/Crest_Resul...
https://www.crestadvisory.com/post/policing-at-cla...
https://yougov.co.uk/about/panel-methodology/

The you gov survey of just under 6000 people shows a split result. Males over50 most likely to support the police actions.

Still a tiny sample

Yet its still more compelling than you just telling us your opinion on it.

Well obviously - however, my view isnt just my view - 15 seconds with google will help you with that

[superlightr]

NikBartlett said:

A small minority turned up to the vigil with the intent of publicly embarrassing the Met by ensuring they were arrested by male officers.

and if theMet were not there? there would be no arrests, it would have petered out naturally when it got a bit dark and cold.

[unident]

superlightr said:

and if theMet were not there? there would be no arrests, it would have petered out naturally when it got a bit dark and cold.

At which point there would have been outrage that the police simply let an illegal large gathering happen without any attempt to break it up potentially causing another Covid surge, or showing that they’re institutionally racist as they police BLM protests but not single white female ones.

Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

[NikBartlett]

superlightr said:

and if theMet were not there? there would be no arrests, it would have petered out naturally when it got a bit dark and cold.

Then the Met would have been equally embarrassed by allowing an event to take place that they had publicly stated must not go ahead. They were ( and still are ) in a no win situation and this was exploited by Reclaim the Streets for their own ends.

[vonhosen]

blueg33 said:

Greendubber said:

blueg33 said:

Graveworm said:

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/m282ns6l7h/Crest_Resul...
https://www.crestadvisory.com/post/policing-at-cla...
https://yougov.co.uk/about/panel-methodology/

The you gov survey of just under 6000 people shows a split result. Males over50 most likely to support the police actions.

Still a tiny sample

Yet its still more compelling than you just telling us your opinion on it.

Well obviously - however, my view isnt just my view - 15 seconds with google will help you with that

But it's still not as convincing as a properly conducted survey in establishing what the national population view is likely to be.

[Greendubber]

vonhosen said:

blueg33 said:

Greendubber said:

blueg33 said:

Graveworm said:

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/m282ns6l7h/Crest_Resul...
https://www.crestadvisory.com/post/policing-at-cla...
https://yougov.co.uk/about/panel-methodology/

The you gov survey of just under 6000 people shows a split result. Males over50 most likely to support the police actions.

Still a tiny sample

Yet its still more compelling than you just telling us your opinion on it.

Well obviously - however, my view isnt just my view - 15 seconds with google will help you with that

But it's still not as convincing as a properly conducted survey in establishing what the national population view is likely to be.

Yep.

[unident]

blueg33 said:

Well obviously - however, my view isnt just my view - 15 seconds with google will help you with that

Confirmation bias in action.

[blueg33]

unident said:

blueg33 said:

Well obviously - however, my view isnt just my view - 15 seconds with google will help you with that

Confirmation bias in action.

You can't make that statement if you don't know my search term. I kept it very simple - Opinions on Sarah Everard vigil.

Plus - did you not listen to the news the day after? Read the PM's and Homes Secretaries comments etc. Those were public long before I did a search

BBC said:

Mr Johnson said he was "deeply concerned" by the scenes on Clapham Common on Saturday night and that Dame Cressida had "committed to reviewing how this was handled".

BBC said:

London Mayor Sadiq Khan described the police's actions as "unacceptable", adding he was "not satisfied" with the explanation provided by Dame Cressida and the deputy commissioner when he spoke to them.

Edited by blueg33 on Thursday 18th March 14:37

[unident]

blueg33 said:

unident said:

blueg33 said:

Well obviously - however, my view isnt just my view - 15 seconds with google will help you with that

Confirmation bias in action.

You can't make that statement if you don't know my search term. I kept it very simple - Opinions on Sarah Everard vigil.

Plus - did you not listen to the news the day after? Read the PM's and Homes Secretaries comments etc. Those were public long before I did a search

BBC said:

Mr Johnson said he was "deeply concerned" by the scenes on Clapham Common on Saturday night and that Dame Cressida had "committed to reviewing how this was handled".

BBC said:

London Mayor Sadiq Khan described the police's actions as "unacceptable", adding he was "not satisfied" with the explanation provided by Dame Cressida and the deputy commissioner when he spoke to them.

Edited by blueg33 on Thursday 18th March 14:37

The first statement from the PM is deliberately vague and non-committal. He could be “deeply concerned” that so few were arrested, or that this happened at all, or that it was allowed to last for longer than a few minutes before action was taken and so on.

Dame Cressida’s comments are the same she “has committed to reviewing how this was handled”. There is no statement that she thinks they were wrong or right, no opinion given either way.

You have chosen to read it in a way that suits you.

Sadiq Khan will take any opportunity to dish out a soundbite that attacks the police, as there are far more votes likely to come his way than if he defends them (other than when there’s a terrorist attack)

Like I said, confirmation bias.

[blueg33]

unident said:

blueg33 said:

unident said:

blueg33 said:

Well obviously - however, my view isnt just my view - 15 seconds with google will help you with that

Confirmation bias in action.

You can't make that statement if you don't know my search term. I kept it very simple - Opinions on Sarah Everard vigil.

Plus - did you not listen to the news the day after? Read the PM's and Homes Secretaries comments etc. Those were public long before I did a search

BBC said:

Mr Johnson said he was "deeply concerned" by the scenes on Clapham Common on Saturday night and that Dame Cressida had "committed to reviewing how this was handled".

BBC said:

London Mayor Sadiq Khan described the police's actions as "unacceptable", adding he was "not satisfied" with the explanation provided by Dame Cressida and the deputy commissioner when he spoke to them.

Edited by blueg33 on Thursday 18th March 14:37

The first statement from the PM is deliberately vague and non-committal. He could be “deeply concerned” that so few were arrested, or that this happened at all, or that it was allowed to last for longer than a few minutes before action was taken and so on.

Dame Cressida’s comments are the same she “has committed to reviewing how this was handled”. There is no statement that she thinks they were wrong or right, no opinion given either way.

You have chosen to read it in a way that suits you.

Sadiq Khan will take any opportunity to dish out a soundbite that attacks the police, as there are far more votes likely to come his way than if he defends them (other than when there’s a terrorist attack)

Like I said, confirmation bias.

Do you not see the irony in your statements?

Edited by blueg33 on Thursday 18th March 14:51