Commissioner of the Met should resign?

2456

Comments

  • Merry Vole wrote: »
    picking up on something @Doc Tor said about defending ourselves from assaults by the police; it has always puzzled me why people at protests sometimes appear to resist arrest when it would seem that that increases their chances of being hurt, whether deliberately or accidentaly. And it amazes me when criminals resist arrest and then complain about their bruises or whatever. I can't see how policing can work unless it is always an offence to (physically) assault a police officer.

    So what do you do if you're engaged in lawful protest and a police officer assaults you? You're not under arrest. You're being beaten by someone who's decided they don't actually care about the limits of their authority, nor about the law, nor about whether they seriously injure or kill you.

    You're going to say "well, things like that are vanishingly rare", I'm just going to point to all the times it happens. It's pretty much an everyday occurrence. Hell, you don't have to be protesting, even.

    Do you think that officers who assault the public are held to account for their violence? Again, I'm going to point to all the times they're protected by their 'good cop' colleagues.
  • Merry VoleMerry Vole Shipmate
    I don't doubt what you say is true. It's appalling. I guess my 'white middle class privilege' means I don't come across these awful incidences. Seeing that red-haired woman photographed prone on the ground with 2 police officers pinning her down makes me so ashamed to be a UK citizen.
  • I doubt if those 2 officers will be brought to book, though I hope I'm wrong.
  • They were just following orders
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    There really is a creature who had to grow up, going through school and all that, burdened by the name Cressida Dick? No wonder she's such a one!
  • Ah, but were they? And, if they were, whose orders?

    (I realise that you're being ironic...)
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Ultimately, if a High Court judge refuses to say whether a protest can go ahead, then ISTM unreasonable to expect the Met to second-guess the law. And that situation is entirely the responsibility of the people who make the laws.

    In this case anything not explicitly forbidden is allowed, and the judge would have been fully aware of the impact of ruling in this way.
  • Merry Vole wrote: »
    I don't doubt what you say is true. It's appalling. I guess my 'white middle class privilege' means I don't come across these awful incidences. Seeing that red-haired woman photographed prone on the ground with 2 police officers pinning her down makes me so ashamed to be a UK citizen.

    One of the women arrested apparently sustained a facial injury during her arrest. When this was pointed out by a bystander, one of the arresting officers noted that it was "a shame". None of them will be held to account for that. Even if it was just one officer getting a bit fighty with a woman half their size, all the others will refuse to make any form of complaint to their seniors, nor will they ever give evidence in court against him.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Ultimately, if a High Court judge refuses to say whether a protest can go ahead, then ISTM unreasonable to expect the Met to second-guess the law. And that situation is entirely the responsibility of the people who make the laws.

    In this case anything not explicitly forbidden is allowed

    I don't think that is the case - the current lockdown rules are expressed as 'you must not leave the house except for one of the following exceptions', i.e., everything not allowed is forbidden. The problem AIUI is that this creates an unresolved tension with the Human Rights Act, but neither the judge nor our beloved Home Secretary have provided a way of resolving that tension.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    I don't doubt what you say is true. It's appalling. I guess my 'white middle class privilege' means I don't come across these awful incidences. Seeing that red-haired woman photographed prone on the ground with 2 police officers pinning her down makes me so ashamed to be a UK citizen.

    I don't feel the same as I have no idea why she was arrested. I have read that she was later de-arrested without charge without ever going to a Police Station.

    When you have an illegal gathering of hundreds , I believe that the Police shouldn't just single out a few for arrest for no good reason. However, I also believe that anyone who does become violent should be arrested.



  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    I don't doubt what you say is true. It's appalling. I guess my 'white middle class privilege' means I don't come across these awful incidences. Seeing that red-haired woman photographed prone on the ground with 2 police officers pinning her down makes me so ashamed to be a UK citizen.

    I don't feel the same as I have no idea why she was arrested. I have read that she was later de-arrested without charge without ever going to a Police Station.

    Which rather calls into question the need for the forceful arrest doesn't it?
    When you have an illegal gathering of hundreds , I believe that the Police shouldn't just single out a few for arrest for no good reason. However, I also believe that anyone who does become violent should be arrested.

    And if the ones who do become violent are the ones wearing the uniform?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    I don't doubt what you say is true. It's appalling. I guess my 'white middle class privilege' means I don't come across these awful incidences. Seeing that red-haired woman photographed prone on the ground with 2 police officers pinning her down makes me so ashamed to be a UK citizen.

    I don't feel the same as I have no idea why she was arrested. I have read that she was later de-arrested without charge without ever going to a Police Station.

    Which rather calls into question the need for the forceful arrest doesn't it?
    Like you, I have no idea why she was arrested but force is always used when someone resists being arrested

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 14
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    I don't doubt what you say is true. It's appalling. I guess my 'white middle class privilege' means I don't come across these awful incidences. Seeing that red-haired woman photographed prone on the ground with 2 police officers pinning her down makes me so ashamed to be a UK citizen.

    I don't feel the same as I have no idea why she was arrested. I have read that she was later de-arrested without charge without ever going to a Police Station.

    Which rather calls into question the need for the forceful arrest doesn't it?
    When you have an illegal gathering of hundreds , I believe that the Police shouldn't just single out a few for arrest for no good reason. However, I also believe that anyone who does become violent should be arrested.

    And if the ones who do become violent are the ones wearing the uniform?

    This.

    BTW, it's not quite clear that it was an *illegal gathering* - there seems to be some doubt.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    I don't doubt what you say is true. It's appalling. I guess my 'white middle class privilege' means I don't come across these awful incidences. Seeing that red-haired woman photographed prone on the ground with 2 police officers pinning her down makes me so ashamed to be a UK citizen.

    I don't feel the same as I have no idea why she was arrested. I have read that she was later de-arrested without charge without ever going to a Police Station.

    Which rather calls into question the need for the forceful arrest doesn't it?
    When you have an illegal gathering of hundreds , I believe that the Police shouldn't just single out a few for arrest for no good reason. However, I also believe that anyone who does become violent should be arrested.

    And if the ones who do become violent are the ones wearing the uniform?

    All force used by a Police Officer should be reasonable and proportionate. When it's not, the Police have a case to answer.

  • Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    I don't doubt what you say is true. It's appalling. I guess my 'white middle class privilege' means I don't come across these awful incidences. Seeing that red-haired woman photographed prone on the ground with 2 police officers pinning her down makes me so ashamed to be a UK citizen.

    I don't feel the same as I have no idea why she was arrested. I have read that she was later de-arrested without charge without ever going to a Police Station.

    Which rather calls into question the need for the forceful arrest doesn't it?
    Like you, I have no idea why she was arrested but force is always used when someone resists being arrested

    She wasn't resisting and they used force. She had, I think, six police officers holding her down. This is not an uncommon experience for those arrested at protests. They do this, deliberately, as an intimidation tactic. They attack people. They push them. They try to get people to retaliate. Then when their victims do try and defend themselves, the police get to violently assault them all over again.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    I don't doubt what you say is true. It's appalling. I guess my 'white middle class privilege' means I don't come across these awful incidences. Seeing that red-haired woman photographed prone on the ground with 2 police officers pinning her down makes me so ashamed to be a UK citizen.

    I don't feel the same as I have no idea why she was arrested. I have read that she was later de-arrested without charge without ever going to a Police Station.

    Which rather calls into question the need for the forceful arrest doesn't it?
    Like you, I have no idea why she was arrested but force is always used when someone resists being arrested

    She wasn't resisting and they used force. She had, I think, six police officers holding her down. This is not an uncommon experience for those arrested at protests. They do this, deliberately, as an intimidation tactic. They attack people. They push them. They try to get people to retaliate. Then when their victims do try and defend themselves, the police get to violently assault them all over again.

    You have no idea what she did before she was arrested. If she had not resisted she would not have been held down. Extra officers are often needed when someone violently resists arrest to prevent them from being injured.

  • You don't know if the person resisted or if the police assaulted a peaceful protester. That's why an inquiry would be useful.

    So would an assessment of police hiring practices and ongoing continuing education, personality screening for suitability. Violence is not the first intervention, de-escalation is. Even when someone else is resisting.
  • When you say - “don’t know” - this was filmed.

    Practically however, what was the purpose ? The vigil went on for a chunk of the day - I believe the Duchess of Cambridge attended, presumably with police protection who didn’t arrest her. The police moved in and started trying to break up the vigil after dark.

    If they were genuinely trying to prevent the spread of Covid (leaving aside the lack of cooperation with Reclaim the Streets to organise something properly), that was shutting the gate after the horse had bolted hours before.

    They could have filmed or photographed the women and then prosecuted them later if that was what they wanted to do. What they actually did in no way reduced the risk of the spread of Covid - if anything it slightly increased the risk by contributing to crowding.
  • Telford wrote: »
    . If she had not resisted she would not have been held down. Extra officers are often needed when someone violently resists arrest to prevent them from being injured.

    a) You are assuming what actually happened was what should have happened according to policy. You do not know this.
    b) Resisting arrest, e.g. by refusing to move, and violently resisting arrest are not the same thing. I strongly suspect she resisted arrest, but doubt she violently resisted arrest.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    . If she had not resisted she would not have been held down. Extra officers are often needed when someone violently resists arrest to prevent them from being injured.

    a) You are assuming what actually happened was what should have happened according to policy. You do not know this.
    b) Resisting arrest, e.g. by refusing to move, and violently resisting arrest are not the same thing. I strongly suspect she resisted arrest, but doubt she violently resisted arrest.

    I am not making any assumnptions but I do know that resisting arrest usually involves a degree of violence
  • According to an interview in the Guardian, Patsy Stevenson, the girl with red hair photographed on the floor does not know why she was arrested, "she was just standing there". She has been fined £200
    - link.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »

    You're going to say "well, things like that are vanishingly rare", I'm just going to point to all the times it happens. It's pretty much an everyday occurrence. Hell, you don't have to be protesting, even.

    Police do indeed assault peaceful protesters all the time. I recall sitting in the public gallery at the trial of the George Fox 6 and hearing the magistrate justify the police attacking one protester as a "home office approved leg sweep".

    I myself have technically been assaulted by police, having had a police van drive into the back of my legs during a protest, albeit at low speed.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Ultimately, if a High Court judge refuses to say whether a protest can go ahead, then ISTM unreasonable to expect the Met to second-guess the law. And that situation is entirely the responsibility of the people who make the laws.

    In this case anything not explicitly forbidden is allowed

    I don't think that is the case - the current lockdown rules are expressed as 'you must not leave the house except for one of the following exceptions', i.e., everything not allowed is forbidden. The problem AIUI is that this creates an unresolved tension with the Human Rights Act, but neither the judge nor our beloved Home Secretary have provided a way of resolving that tension.
    The rules are expressed as having a legitimate reason to leave home, with a list that's extensive but not exhaustive. It's been repeatedly made clear over the last year that participating in democracy is a legitimate reason to leave home.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    <snip>Police do indeed assault peaceful protesters all the time. I recall sitting in the public gallery at the trial of the George Fox 6 and hearing the magistrate justify the police attacking one protester as a "home office approved leg sweep".

    I myself have technically been assaulted by police, having had a police van drive into the back of my legs during a protest, albeit at low speed.
    Indeed. The question then is not whether an assault has taken place, but whether only reasonable force was used to prevent harm to self or another, or for the prevention of a greater crime or with the purpose of aiding a lawful arrest.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Ultimately, if a High Court judge refuses to say whether a protest can go ahead, then ISTM unreasonable to expect the Met to second-guess the law. And that situation is entirely the responsibility of the people who make the laws.

    In this case anything not explicitly forbidden is allowed

    I don't think that is the case - the current lockdown rules are expressed as 'you must not leave the house except for one of the following exceptions', i.e., everything not allowed is forbidden. The problem AIUI is that this creates an unresolved tension with the Human Rights Act, but neither the judge nor our beloved Home Secretary have provided a way of resolving that tension.
    The rules are expressed as having a legitimate reason to leave home, with a list that's extensive but not exhaustive.

    The guidelines for England (link) start with 'You must stay at home, leaving only where permitted by law'.
    It's been repeatedly made clear over the last year that participating in democracy is a legitimate reason to leave home.

    As per the link, the law has specific exemptions for in-person voting and for door-to-door campaigning. There's no exemption for protesting (AIUI the argument presented by Reclaim The Streets is that this conflicts with the Human Rights Act, not that the Covid laws themselves allow an exemption for protests).

    It's true that the police generally allowed the Black Lives Matter protests to go ahead, but I think that's more because even the Met are alive to the optics of cracking down on protests against police brutality.

    Having said all that: I'm not saying the Met necessarily made the right call - I'm also not suggesting that their actions would be reasonable even if the protests were indeed 100% unlawful. I'm saying that they shouldn't have been in a position where they had to make the call in the first place, and it would be a travesty if Patel forced Dick to resign for a situation that she (Patel) had helped to create.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    As per the link, the law has specific exemptions for in-person voting and for door-to-door campaigning. There's no exemption for protesting
    From the link you provided
    There are further reasonable excuses. For example, you may leave home to fulfil legal obligations, or to carry out activities related to buying, selling, letting or renting a residential property, for the purpose of picketing, or where it is reasonably necessary for voting in an election or referendum.
    As I said before, the law has exemptions given as examples (bold in above quote) so can't be exhaustive. And, even the few examples given of other reasonable purposes to leave home include protesting (also in bold - what fundamental difference is there between a picket and a vigil?).
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    I read that as saying the guidelines on gov.uk are not an exhaustive summary of the law, not that the law itself is not exhaustive.

    Re picketing: AIUI the situations in which you can picket are extremely narrowly defined by anti-union legislation. So there is no real need for Covid legislation to specify further what constitutes picketing.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    I read that as saying the guidelines on gov.uk are not an exhaustive summary of the law, not that the law itself is not exhaustive.
    Whereas the High Court ruling appears to reflect ambiguity about what the law permits - ie: that the law is itself not exhaustive in that regard. ie: the court ruling was that the Met did not need to rule a vigil automatically illegal and there was room for discretion to permit such an event if the relevant groups (the vigil organisers, local authority and police) could agree on a format that would respect social distancing - limits on numbers, insistence on masks, stewarding to support these measures etc. Instead, the Met simply said "it's illegal", didn't negotiate with anyone and then went in heavy handed to violently disperse a peaceful event.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    I read that as saying the guidelines on gov.uk are not an exhaustive summary of the law, not that the law itself is not exhaustive.
    Whereas the High Court ruling appears to reflect ambiguity about what the law permits - ie: that the law is itself not exhaustive in that regard. ie: the court ruling was that the Met did not need to rule a vigil automatically illegal and there was room for discretion to permit such an event if the relevant groups (the vigil organisers, local authority and police) could agree on a format that would respect social distancing - limits on numbers, insistence on masks, stewarding to support these measures etc. Instead, the Met simply said "it's illegal", didn't negotiate with anyone and then went in heavy handed to violently disperse a peaceful event.

    As far as I understand it, the local community police were supportive, but they were over-ruled from above. How many of the police officers who were there were SPG/TSG/whatever they're calling themselves these days is unknown, and probably never will be.

    This was not policing by consent. And to everyone who says, you can't expect the police to run their plans past some democratically accountable committee, I'm going to say, well, why not? We're done with them marking their own homework.

    Honestly, my faith in the police force ended the night I witnessed a handcuffed and restrained burglary suspect being head-butted by the arresting officer, in full view of a small group of people (including two defence solicitors) who had just helped the officer arrest the man and sit on him until back up arrived. Complaints were made, and no action was taken.

    My nice middle class children know better than to say anything to the police.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    The rules are expressed as having a legitimate reason to leave home, with a list that's extensive but not exhaustive. It's been repeatedly made clear over the last year that participating in democracy is a legitimate reason to leave home.

    If you can put your hand on your heart and say that you'd agree with the same justification being used to allow a BNP rally to go ahead, then fine.
  • Sure, why not? As long as we're allowed our very much larger counter-demonstration.

    Otherwise, it's just situation normal - the police protecting the fascists' rights while opposing the lefts'.
  • The rules are expressed as having a legitimate reason to leave home, with a list that's extensive but not exhaustive. It's been repeatedly made clear over the last year that participating in democracy is a legitimate reason to leave home.

    If you can put your hand on your heart and say that you'd agree with the same justification being used to allow a BNP rally to go ahead, then fine.
    If the organisers, local authorities and police can arrange a way to hold a BNP rally maintaining reasonable physical distancing (eg: wearing of masks, limiting numbers in a given area to allow 2m spacing between individuals/households, stewarding in place to manage this, no shouting or singing, the whole event in a large enough out door venue with no indoor component) and, in the case of a BNP rally similar considerations for counter demonstrations as well. Then, yes, if a BNP rally can be held without excess risk of transmission then it should be permitted. Though, one suspects that organisers and attendees of a BNP rally are less likely to agree to and adhere to reasonable physical distancing restrictions (except possibly the mask requirement, as that hides their faces from being plastered all over the media) than a group of women attending a vigil.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Cool, just making sure this isn't another case of saying the rules should apply differently to different people/events based on how much you happen to like or support those people/events.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    "another" seems to be working very hard in that post.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    "another" seems to be working very hard in that post.

    Hyperbole is an irregular verb.
  • The rules are expressed as having a legitimate reason to leave home, with a list that's extensive but not exhaustive. It's been repeatedly made clear over the last year that participating in democracy is a legitimate reason to leave home.

    If you can put your hand on your heart and say that you'd agree with the same justification being used to allow a BNP rally to go ahead, then fine.
    If the organisers, local authorities and police can arrange a way to hold a BNP rally maintaining reasonable physical distancing (eg: wearing of masks, limiting numbers in a given area to allow 2m spacing between individuals/households, stewarding in place to manage this, no shouting or singing, the whole event in a large enough out door venue with no indoor component) and, in the case of a BNP rally similar considerations for counter demonstrations as well. Then, yes, if a BNP rally can be held without excess risk of transmission then it should be permitted. Though, one suspects that organisers and attendees of a BNP rally are less likely to agree to and adhere to reasonable physical distancing restrictions (except possibly the mask requirement, as that hides their faces from being plastered all over the media) than a group of women attending a vigil.

    In fairness the 3 (balding, pink-faced) men and a dog likely to attend a BNP rally these days are unlikely to present much of a transmission risk.
  • They were just following orders

    Aha I wondered when we'd see the Nuremburg defence
  • They were just following orders

    Aha I wondered when we'd see the Nuremburg defence

    Yes, but I thought @Alan Cresswell was, in fact, being ironic...
  • So did I.

    I have a question. It seems that, at first, the Police didn't do anything. Then, together, they started to move in to disperse the crowd. What triggered this? Or had they decided in advance to do this at a certain time? And how far up did the chain of decision-making go? (I'm thinking a bit of the disastrous decision made at Hillsborough and how that was made).

    Well, it's all one question really.
  • They were just following orders

    Aha I wondered when we'd see the Nuremburg defence

    Yes, but I thought @Alan Cresswell was, in fact, being ironic...
    Yes, I was.


  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 15
    So did I.

    I have a question. It seems that, at first, the Police didn't do anything. Then, together, they started to move in to disperse the crowd. What triggered this? Or had they decided in advance to do this at a certain time? And how far up did the chain of decision-making go? (I'm thinking a bit of the disastrous decision made at Hillsborough and how that was made).

    Well, it's all one question really.

    AIUI, there have been some suggestions that orders did indeed come from further up the line, and that the local police were taking a much more peaceful *hands off* approach before that happened.

    No doubt the full truth will speedily be revealed, as the Commissioner, and the Home Secretary, obviously have nothing to hide, or to be ashamed of...
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    Some of the early police were helping to place flowers with the other tributes.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    I read that as saying the guidelines on gov.uk are not an exhaustive summary of the law, not that the law itself is not exhaustive.
    Whereas the High Court ruling appears to reflect ambiguity about what the law permits - ie: that the law is itself not exhaustive in that regard.

    I'm just going off newspaper reports, but I read it that the ambiguity isn't in the Covid law itself but in whether the law can or should supercede the Human Rights Act.

    Either way, the fact that we are having this argument is a bit of an indictment of the people who drew up the regulations, i.e. our elected representatives. If they wanted protest to be legal then they should have explicitly said so, and if they didn't, then it's a bit cheeky for MPs from the PM downwards now to be 'having concerns' that the Met did what they wanted them to do.
  • I think it's always inevitable that any significant piece of legislation will at some point contradict another piece of legislation, especially when things are rushed by circumstances. Obviously legislators will want to avoid that and spot any such conflicts early in the process of drafting legislation, and either make the new law compatible with what existed before or pass the necessary legislation to negate the earlier law in favour of the new. But, that's never going to be perfect, and one of the roles of the higher courts is to rule when this happens and work out what takes precedence ... though in this case the High Court sat on the fence.
  • The problem is that Article of the 1998 Human Rights Act states that a public authority can restrict our rights to freedom of assembly and association. However the authority must show that its action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to (among other things) protect public safety, disorder or health. Action is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the issue concerned.

    Therefore the judge had to make a judgement between the right to freely assemble and the need to control Coronavirus - which was clearly impossible (I think the case for indoor gatherings is more clear cut). Equally any police action had to be measured, both before and during the event - which, ISTM, it clearly was not.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    26 Metropolitan Police officers were assaulted – punched, kicked, spat at – on Saturday in Clapham policing Covid-19 lockdown laws that a democratically elected Government have imposed… laws that the Mayor of London has called on them to enforce to keep Londoners safe.
  • Telford wrote: »
    26 Metropolitan Police officers were assaulted

    Aye, so they say. The police have a long history of people assaulting them by running into their batons and the like.
  • Well said, @Telford! Time for the forces of law and order to get their own back! There's too much of this namby-pamby dissatisfaction with what our wonderful Government is doing, and achieving!

    Up the Government! Hail Boris! Keep Londoners safe! Bring back hanging!
    :grimace:
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    According to an interview in the Guardian, Patsy Stevenson, the girl with red hair photographed on the floor does not know why she was arrested, "she was just standing there". She has been fined £200
    - link.

    The pigs in the UK are learning bad lessons from the pigs in the US.
  • Telford wrote: »
    26 Metropolitan Police officers were assaulted – punched, kicked, spat at
    Do you have a source for that? And, if you do were those assaults before or after police stormed the bandstand trampling the flowers and candles left there?
Sign In or Register to comment.