High Court rules against the Met - fantastic!
Discussion
Regarding the planned Sarah Everard vigil, the Met was only concerned about the risk to their reputation as a result of letting the vigil go ahead, rather than any risk to the public, so they threatened the organisers with a fine of £10,000 each.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/11/met-po...
Clearly the met is populated from the top down with people who hate women.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/11/met-po...
Clearly the met is populated from the top down with people who hate women.
Mod note: offensive word removed on Saturday 12th March 08:42
Trying to prevent reputational damage! Ha! Well that backfired badly on them didn't it...
A zealous application of covid rules, to prevent a (reasonably) peaceful, outdoor vigil - threatening (mostly) women with massive fines.
Then when it happens anyway, rather publicly using force against, mainly, women, for an "illegal gathering".
The "Illegal Gathering" was of course in remembrance of a woman whose attacker used those very same regulations as a reason to get her into his car...
Well done...
A zealous application of covid rules, to prevent a (reasonably) peaceful, outdoor vigil - threatening (mostly) women with massive fines.
Then when it happens anyway, rather publicly using force against, mainly, women, for an "illegal gathering".
The "Illegal Gathering" was of course in remembrance of a woman whose attacker used those very same regulations as a reason to get her into his car...
Well done...
So it turned out (some) women were right after all...who knew?
Of course, this just means some other women (Cresida) was wrong, so perhaps a draw.
What people might be forgetting, is that the met police was also charged with enforcing fairly straight covid rules at the time.
Letting a protest go ahead would have driven a coach and horses through their attempts.
Yes, in hindsight we can see it was unlawful (not read the judgement yet) but it wasn't an easy call at the time, and the met did get legal advice.
Note - to suggest this judgement proves the met "hates" women is ridiculous in the extreme...I wasn't sure of the author of that comment was actually serious, or making a bad attempt at sarcasm.
To me, it proves the met hate unplanned protests whilst there are strict laws about leaving your home.
We'll see what impact the forthcoming bill has on this...it might be a high point.
Of course, this just means some other women (Cresida) was wrong, so perhaps a draw.
What people might be forgetting, is that the met police was also charged with enforcing fairly straight covid rules at the time.
Letting a protest go ahead would have driven a coach and horses through their attempts.
Yes, in hindsight we can see it was unlawful (not read the judgement yet) but it wasn't an easy call at the time, and the met did get legal advice.
Note - to suggest this judgement proves the met "hates" women is ridiculous in the extreme...I wasn't sure of the author of that comment was actually serious, or making a bad attempt at sarcasm.
To me, it proves the met hate unplanned protests whilst there are strict laws about leaving your home.
We'll see what impact the forthcoming bill has on this...it might be a high point.
Plymo said:
Trying to prevent reputational damage! Ha! Well that backfired badly on them didn't it...
A zealous application of covid rules, to prevent a (reasonably) peaceful, outdoor vigil - threatening (mostly) women with massive fines.
Then when it happens anyway, rather publicly using force against, mainly, women, for an "illegal gathering".
The "Illegal Gathering" was of course in remembrance of a woman whose attacker used those very same regulations as a reason to get her into his car...
Well done...
And why was she being arrested?A zealous application of covid rules, to prevent a (reasonably) peaceful, outdoor vigil - threatening (mostly) women with massive fines.
Then when it happens anyway, rather publicly using force against, mainly, women, for an "illegal gathering".
The "Illegal Gathering" was of course in remembrance of a woman whose attacker used those very same regulations as a reason to get her into his car...
Well done...
People are conflating two issues here:
1) the attempts by the Met to stop a protest because of covid. Something that they were wrong to do.
2) people being arrested because of disorder in the evening. Something where people seem very quick to assume right and wrong based on gender.
Electro1980 said:
Plymo said:
Trying to prevent reputational damage! Ha! Well that backfired badly on them didn't it...
A zealous application of covid rules, to prevent a (reasonably) peaceful, outdoor vigil - threatening (mostly) women with massive fines.
Then when it happens anyway, rather publicly using force against, mainly, women, for an "illegal gathering".
The "Illegal Gathering" was of course in remembrance of a woman whose attacker used those very same regulations as a reason to get her into his car...
Well done...
And why was she being arrested?A zealous application of covid rules, to prevent a (reasonably) peaceful, outdoor vigil - threatening (mostly) women with massive fines.
Then when it happens anyway, rather publicly using force against, mainly, women, for an "illegal gathering".
The "Illegal Gathering" was of course in remembrance of a woman whose attacker used those very same regulations as a reason to get her into his car...
Well done...
People are conflating two issues here:
1) the attempts by the Met to stop a protest because of covid. Something that they were wrong to do.
2) people being arrested because of disorder in the evening. Something where people seem very quick to assume right and wrong based on gender.
I didn't make it particularly clear in my above post but it was more about the irony of their attempts to "be seen to be doing the right thing" ending up looking like the complete opposite - regardless of the rights and wrongs of any particular arrests/use of force.
carinaman said:
I assume Wayne Couzens driving through a McDonalds naked from the waist down wasn't around the same time Cressida Dick and other officers were stood around on a bridge clapping the NHS?
Has it ever been proved that it was him? Or that he was a named suspect prior to him being named as Sarah's murderer??
ReverendCounter said:
Regarding the planned Sarah Everard vigil, the Met was only concerned about the risk to their reputation as a result of letting the vigil go ahead, rather than any risk to the public, so they threatened the organisers with a fine of £10,000 each.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/11/met-po...
Clearly the met is populated from the top down with people who hate women.
On your last sentence that’s just pure rubbish https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/11/met-po...
Clearly the met is populated from the top down with people who hate women.
As to the rest … from the bbc
In a summary of the ruling, Lord Justice Warby said the Met had "failed to perform its legal duty to consider whether the claimants might have a reasonable excuse for holding the gathering".,
He added: "The relevant decisions of the (Met) were to make statements at meetings, in letters, and in a press statement, to the effect that the Covid-19 regulations in force at the time meant that holding the vigil would be unlawful.
in Essence criminal legislation and Covid regulations clash with Human rights legislation and if some people are upset and the subject matter is emotive the Law doesn’t matter ?
Question therefore were the laws passed by Parliament and the covid regulations unlawful as they breached peoples perceived human rights ?
Does that mean Boris and his chums are off the hook, clearly they thought they had a reasonable excuse to party in downing st ?
Do people have an inviolate right to freedom of assembly and free association because if that’s so then it renders any potential control of free association unlawful, and in the face of a global highly contagious pandemic is that the correct course ?
I would expect an appeal based on the brief bit I’ve read in the press but I haven’t read the full transcript or judgement
Earthdweller said:
Question therefore were the laws passed by Parliament and the covid regulations unlawful as they breached peoples perceived human rights ?
No.Earthdweller said:
Does that mean Boris and his chums are off the hook, clearly they thought they had a reasonable excuse to party in downing st ?
No. A party is not protected as a human right.Earthdweller said:
Do people have an inviolate right to freedom of assembly and free association because if that’s so then it renders any potential control of free association unlawful, and in the face of a global highly contagious pandemic is that the correct course ?
Yes. That’s the point in human rights. They are fundamental rights.Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff