Forum Topic

Sarah Everard's vigil

The news about Sarah Everard's death devastated most of us.  A vigil in her memory in Clapham Common was cancelled and a request that we go out to our front door with candles or a light was made.We did this and were saddened at the absence of lights in our neighbourhood.  Very depressing.  But then, Sarah Everard: Confrontation with police at 'unsafe' vigilhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56389824Have we become blasé to tragedy, I wonder.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1871d70 Comments

If that's true, it is indeed disgusting.

Richard Carter ● 1868d

According to several witnesses who called LBC over the last two days some of the crowd were being very abusive to the women police officers and even shouting that they should have been killed instead of Sarah. Disgusting.

Sue Hammond ● 1868d

"I do agree that the police were heavy-handed, I do not think the people at the vigil helped matter either."I agree that it was a vigil that turned into a protest, but that, I believe, was because the police were so heavy-handed. I'm sure that people there didn't help matters, but that was no doubt because they were angry that this issue of male violence against women has been around for so long and isn't being dealt with. I'm sure very few of the people there knew Sarah Everard, but that wasn't the whole point: so many have said that they were there because of so much previous experience of male violence and abuse: see https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/about-sexual-violence/statistics-sexual-violence/ for an indication of the extent of the problem.

Richard Carter ● 1868d

Hello Richard,Apologies for the delay in replying.According to the chronology, - 5.45 pm - man speaks shouting angrily about Sarah's death and against the coronavirus restrictions. He is led away by the police- 6.00pm - a minute's silence in Sarah's memory - 6.18 pm - there is a very big crowd around the bandstand- 6.27 pm - a group of people in the bandstand who are leading the chants from the crowd are asked to leave by the police.  Their requests go unheard and some in the crowd are shouting "Shame on you" to the police- 6.33pm - Police presence grows noticeably and an officer said it was no longer a vigil but an unlawful gathering.  He calls for more police officers which are booed when going into the bandstand.  The shouting of "Shame on you" continues- 6.48 pm - police are around the bandstand and the atmosphere is more hostile.  "In utterly maddening scenes, the police are trying to disperse the crowd".  - 7.08 pm - Patty Stevenson is speaking and telling the police that they should go home.  - 7.20 pm - a woman is lifted from her knees and is seen being shoved forcefully by police- 7.21 pm - the police indicate that the gathering is unsafe and ask people to go home- 7.22 pm - Women that are in the bandstand are grabbed by the police and led away - Patty Stevenson is arrested.And the list continues, to include chants that "all coppers are b****rds".So, all in all, from a vigil it became a protest.  I always thought a vigil was a quiet affair which, in this case, was to show respect for Sarah Everard.In my view, Patty Stevenson's mistake was not emphasizing they were there to pay their respect to Sarah as opposed to telling the police to go home.What I do not know is if any men were arrested too or not as the chronology talks about persons being arrested later.All in all, a very sad state of affairs and, while I do agree that the police were heavy-handed, I do not think the people at the vigil helped matter either.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1868d

HalloIts very sad that Sara Everard was murdered.A vigil for her BUT what about children and babies killed, young men and indeed older men being murdered?  I agree that our anger should be towards the murderer and not the police.  The vigil was against regulations and broke covid restrictions.  I am with the police on this one, but maybe a slightly lighter touch would have been preferableWe do really have to take responsibility for our own safety, regardless of gender.

carole tanner ● 1869d

It was sad, but my understanding is not only that the organisers of the vigil wanted to discuss it but that the judge in the case encouraged both parties to do so, but that the Met declined. Very unfortunate.

Richard Carter ● 1869d

I am not sure what the Met had the power to offer?

David Ainsworth ● 1869d

It was bound to go wrong one way or another and it is very sad that Reclaim the Streets and the Met were not able/willing to negotiate earlier on.

Caroline Whitehead ● 1869d

Hello,I have to go out now but will respond in greater detail later.Yes, it is the build up to 7.08pm that must be considered. At 5.45pm this chap speaks and is led away. It is when the Councillor asks people to go home. From then on it got hairy I thought.Speak later

Ivonne Holliday ● 1869d

Ivonne, I had already seen the useful chronology that Sue helpfully posted.At 7.08pm, Patsy Stevenson, who is on the bandstand, addresses the crowd and tells the police to "go home". Using a loudspeaker, she says: "Are we going to leave and go home?" A shout of "no!" is heard from people in the crowd. "Are you sure?", Ms Stevenson adds. "Yes!" the crowd responds. Ms Stevenson then says: "Then the police should go home. I'm done with being bullied by police."Just after this, at 7.20pm, a woman is seen being shoved forcefully in the back by two officers after being lifted from her knees.  And at 7.22pm, the video shows police roughly handling women from the bandstand. Among those arrested is Patsy Stevenson whose image goes viral after being arrested. "I just stood there and a police officer was pulling my arm, trying to get my name and then I was tackled to the ground," she said. "As I was being taken away, behind me one of the officers that was holding on to me was saying 'I've got my hand on my baton, I've got my hand on my baton' to one of the other officers."The timeline continues, but despite looking carefully, I can't find the bit that shows the justification for the forcible arrest of Patsy Stevenson. Perhaps you can enlighten us,As an aside, I thought this was interesting: at 5.45pm: A man walks on to the bandstand and says he wants to make a speech in front of the quiet crowd. He begins shouting angrily about the death of Sarah and coronavirus regulations." Not surprisingly, he got a dusty reception (clearly, a Covid sceptic blundering in where it was completely inappropriate) and the police led the fool away - but not, apparently, in handcuffs having been roughly wrestled to the ground.

Richard Carter ● 1869d

Richard, have you seen the chronology in the Sky News article mentioned by Sue?Once you have, perhaps you will understand what I mean.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1869d

One the one hand we have Patsy Stevenson telling the police to go home, on the other they roughly manhandle her in making the arrest. That doesn't sound anywhere near equivalence to me.

Richard Carter ● 1869d

Thank you Sue for the link to Sky News.  I had not seen the chronology of events before, just the pictures shown on the news.Richard, this was not a protest, it was intended to be a vigil.  As far as I am concerned, two entirely different matters.From the images on the news, Patsy Stevenson was treated roughly by the police.  What I did not know until I read the chronology of events, was that Patsy Stevenson was on the bandstand, addressing the crowd, asking them if they wanted to go home.  When the response was no, she turned round and told the police to go home instead, that she was tired of being bullied by police.It seems to me that there was 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.People are cross with the police because of Sarah Everard's death?  I think they should focus their anger against Wayne Couzens and not the police in general.  We shall have to wait for the result of the investigation but the information provided by Sky News is very revealing and welcome.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1869d

One aspect of the evening that should, I think, have greater emphasis, is the report, on BBC News last night, that a group identified as covid lockdown protestors, were physically attacking police. Not surprisingly, this group seemed to consist entirely of men. Quelle surprise! It's a pity these people weren't arrested rather than the women who were, to all accounts, protesting peacefully.

Richard Carter ● 1869d

Thanks Sue i shall watch that later and apologies to Northamptonshire Martine.I did watch a interview with someone from Liberty that left after dark and before the trouble. She reported that a policeman was shouting in her face that they had to leave due to covid and gave the impression that they had been trying to relay that message for some time althoughit was the first she heard. Were the police equipped to deal with a crowd? Megahone, loud speakers etc?I understand the Police chose not to engage with the organisers, there also seems to be confusion over the judgement and the law with regard to the right to protest another case of Parliamentary sovereignty I suspect.Should they have turned people away earlier? What is the logic in allowing the crowd to grow and then try and disperse it later?"6.27pm The officers say COVID-19 regulations are being broken."No explanation in the sky report as to why they were being broken at 6.27 and not earlier. Is this not a question a journalist would ask?Seems all to come back to bad policing unfortunately

Ed Robinson ● 1869d

Thanks  Sue. I'd not see that timeline. 

Michael Ixer ● 1869d

Not sure if this SKY News report has already been posted (apologies if it has) but the thread is so long it's quite difficult to read all the posts on my phone. It's worth reading because it gives a lot of info at various timelines during the vigil:Sarah Everard vigil: What sparked the ugly scenes - and were the police tactics warranted? | UK News | Sky Newshttps://news.sky.com/story/sarah-everard-vigil-what-sparked-the-ugly-scenes-and-were-the-police-tactics-warranted-12247074

Sue Hammond ● 1869d

Ed, I hope you don’t mind me pointing out, as I think you mentioned it once before, but I think you mean “kettling” not Kettering which is a town in Northamptonshire.

Martine Guy ● 1869d

Michael it is not unusual for false rumours to be put out after incidents. We can all probably remember the rumours after Jean Charles de Menezes was killed.If the action were attempt to enforce covid restrictions then the government needs to take some responsibility. 2m rules have been gold plated and not enough emphasis on ventilation. Most had masks apart from the princess of course. If kettering did take place then I do not see how that prevents covid.The Met could have prevented covid spreading far more efficiently by stopping some of the buses that have had windows closed all year and issuing the owners with fines.  But I guess that would be TFL :)

Ed Robinson ● 1869d

My understanding is that the police took the view that the vigil would break lockdown rules as the dispensation for allowing protests was removed after the XR and BLM protests last summer; also, as you say, this was likely to be a gathering of over 30 people so the organisers were threatened with potential fines of £10,000. As far as I know from news reports Kate Middleton went as a private individual but was presumably accompanied by her royal security detail, so unlikely to be arrested even if that contravened lockdown rules ...There's rumours that later in the evening the vigil was joined by lockdown protesters - but I don't know if that's true or, if it is, whether it changed the atmosphere and the police attitude. Although, seemingly the police targeted young women for arrest not seasoned protesters?

Michael Ixer ● 1869d

Well, I think the issue of whether the vigil would be a lawful gathering was not confirmed by the High Court.  According to COVID rules, organized gatherings of more than 30 people are not allowed.  Hence, Reclaim the Streets cancelled the vigil at 9.30pm on Saturday as they would have been liable to a fine.I suppose that during the day, there probably were not more than 30 people gathered around the bandstand.  There probably were more than 30 people in the area but not around the bandstand.I wonder if the police do have a video coverage of the event.  Perhaps they do but as there is an investigation being carried out at the moment, I suppose that is considered evidence.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1869d

Ivonne, the Met Commissioner said that she would have gone to the vigil too if it had been lawful.Does implies that the Duchess attended an unlawful vigil?Then she follow on to says that 6 hours the vigil didn't breach the regulations.Does this not make her first sentence nonsense? Or am I missing something?https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/14/cressida-dick-stresses-her-identity-as-a-woman-as-she-takes-on-her-armchair-critics"I suppose we will have to wait till the investigation into the Clapham Common vigil is completed"The police should release the video coverage of the event. If they do not or have no coverage then questions need to be asked.

Ed Robinson ● 1869d

Hello Barbara,I had posted this reply above but it got lost!!  In response to your comment:"Ed, the Police need not have been so heavy handed, especially it was one of their own who caused her death. Rather worrying there might even be more found of girls gone missing."I agree, Barbara, the police were heavy handed with the women.  But I cannot understand what actually happened, what was the turning point at which the vigil became a protest.  And then social distancing was not respected.According to a person on the bandstand, all was lovely and calm at 6pm but the mood changed at about 6.30pm.The police have instructions of breaking up an illegal gathering of more than 30 people. But was this an illegal gathering?  The High Court did not pronounce it illegal or otherwise and that Reclaim the Streets should negotiate with the police.  Reclaim the Streets later cancelled the vigil for 9.30pm.  Then the gathering on Saturday was no longer an organized gathering. We know that an officer of the Metropolitan Police has been arrested for the kidnap and murder of Sarah Everard and is due to appear at the Old Bailey tomorrow.  Is the sentiment that all police officers are involved with this case?  Are they all guilty too?There is not enough information at the moment to say that the police and/or the people attending the vigil were totally or partially to blame.  I suppose we will have to wait till the investigation into the Clapham Common vigil is completed.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1869d

I agree, Barbara, the police were heavy handed with the women.  But I cannot understand what actually happened, what was the turning point at which the vigil became a protest.  And then social distancing was not respected.According to a person on the bandstand, all was lovely and calm at 6pm but the mood changed at about 6.30pm. The police have instructions of breaking up an illegal gathering of more than 30 people. But was this an illegal gathering?  The High Court did not pronounce it illegal or otherwise and that Reclaim the Streets should negotiate with the police.  Reclaim the Streets later cancelled the vigil for 9.30pm.  Then the gathering on Saturday was no longer an organized gathering.  We know that an officer of the Metropolitan Police has been arrested for the kidnap and murder of Sarah Everard.  Is the sentiment that all police officers are involved with this case?  Are they all guilty too?There is not enough information at the moment to say that the police and/or the people attending the vigil were totally or partially to blame.  I suppose we will have to wait till the investigation into the Clapham Common vigil is completed.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1870d

I was trying to suggest that any of the posters who want to discuss the right to protest/the bill going through parliament should start another thread.

Jane Carter ● 1870d

Scotland Yard and Parliament, Sue said there the mob moved from one to the other.  Not Clapham Common.

Barbara Stevens ● 1870d

@AMOh ffs the protesters at police hq and Parliament Sq were anti-police agitators, not peaceful protestors from the vigil. You are so hell bent on having a dig at me you refuse to understand the difference.  This is the last time I will respond to your agitating and hopefully this thread will get back on topic.

Sue Hammond ● 1870d

SH: Par for the course, yet again. The women weren't a mob in the sense you suggested. They were concerned women staging a legal demonstration in a peaceful way. This contributor resorts far too readily to personal insults. Such posts debase this Forum.

Alexander MacLeod ● 1870d

"I'd be happy to but don't know which appropriate thread Jane is referring to, Matt!"I don't see one, either. I'd say that this thread has remained at least as on topic as many threads on the Forum. Well, at least any of those which I have "hijacked". Perhaps we need some guidance?

David Ainsworth ● 1870d

I'd be happy to but don't know which appropriate thread Jane is referring to, Matt!

Lucille Grant ● 1870d

Agree with Jane, lets keep this tread on topic

Matt Palmer ● 1870d

Jane you are right, this thread has veered off the point alarmingly but I had to address the erroneous posts made against me.

Sue Hammond ● 1870d

Oh god don't you start too Lucille. Read my post again!

Sue Hammond ● 1870d

@AMThe mob I referred to were the protesters at New Scotland Yard and Parliament Square.  I called them a 'mob' because they were shouting f the police and other obscenities. I do wish you could learn to engage your brain before opening your trap.

Sue Hammond ● 1870d

To be fair to Sue, I think her use of the word 'mob' was in connection with the protests in Parliament Square, not the Clapham Common vigil.

Caroline Whitehead ● 1870d

I certainly don't see a 'mob' when I see  a vigil for Sarah Everard nor a protest against being able to demonstrate in future. Are we turning into a police state?  Many of us on this forum are ld enough to remember when we protested against the Vietnam War - are you seriously agreeing to stopping our children and grandchildren from doing the same? Shame on the lot of you.Sorry Jane - this may be the wrong thread but it has to be addressed.

Lucille Grant ● 1870d

As far as I can see, the only person who has described the women who demonstrated peacefully at the weekend as "the mob" is SH. Clear sign of where she is coming from, most of the time.

Alexander MacLeod ● 1870d

That’s a good question, Matt but I think it should be on another thread about the right to protest. Yvonne ‘s original post was about the vigil for Sarah Everard expressing her sorrow about what had happened to Sarah. I realise the right to protest is a related matter but this thread has rather been hijacked by posters intent on discussing their party political views. As it happens I agree with much of what they have said but it would be more respectful of Sarah Everard and the intention of the original post if the focus had remained on her and the vigil.

Jane Carter ● 1870d

"Whatever way you look at this it was badly handled by the Met"Whatever way you look at this, the expectations which we have of the Met are near impossible, especially in our current emergency. Criticised as too hard at Clapham Common. Criticised as too soft last summer with BLM.

David Ainsworth ● 1870d

"David that does not explain their previous position.Why have they change it?"I'd guess that Starmer was faced with strong feeling from many in the party resulting from the Clapham Common vigil news and was forced into a change, against his natural inclinations.

David Ainsworth ● 1870d

"Actions have consequences."Sometimes. These "consequences" do not necessarily follow from these actions. They are this government's choice.

David Ainsworth ● 1870d

See my later post Andy, It won't have a massive effect on people that were already breaking the law but it will have a huge effect on people that want to protest within the law.

Matt Palmer ● 1870d

morning Sue, I'm not particularly writing against the bill from an XR point of view, it doesn't really make a massive difference to us as our actions were generally already illegal anyway. I believe the last time we 'closed down' central London was October 2019 incidentally.The thing that should concern everyone is that it will take away pretty much everyones right to protest unless the government says it's happy for you to do so. You might not care now because you think it's only targeting XR and BLM but one day a government might do something you don't agree with...then what?

Matt Palmer ● 1870d

So we have established that XR are an organisation that work outside the law and that to deal with them  for the benefit of those that obey the law, the law needs tightening.

Andy Pike ● 1870d

Matt, you have to accept that the past behaviour of XR activists and the massive disruptions to London that the organisation caused is one of the main drivers to the introduction of this Bill.  Actions have consequences.

Sue Hammond ● 1870d

absolutely!

Matt Palmer ● 1870d

And blocking roads? Glueing oneself to train roofs? Illegal too?

Andy Pike ● 1870d

That was already illegal Andy :)

Matt Palmer ● 1870d

Does the new law stop people sailing pink boats up Oxford street ? If yes, I'm all for it.

Andy Pike ● 1870d

Just watching the Police really pushing an older lady. I don't think the Police needed to be so aggressive.

Barbara Stevens ● 1870d

It was covered by LBC Matt as soon as they were aware that protesters were gathering. LBC reporters were at both Scotland Yard and Parliament Square because the mob moved from one location to the other.

Sue Hammond ● 1870d

Ed, the Police need not have been so heavy handed, especially it was one of their own who caused her death. Rather worrying there might even be more found of girls gone missing.

Barbara Stevens ● 1870d

Barbara the organisers cancelled apparently because the police would not support it.In fact just to add that Princess Kate's appearance was said to be a private one - yet strangely she appeared to be the only person in the video without a mask. If she wore a mask would anyone have known it was her???Several scientist also tweeted that risk of covid spreading outdoors where people are silent and wearing masks was almost non-existent.Whatever way you look at this it was badly handled by the Met - especially considering the circumstances of the murder investigation.

Ed Robinson ● 1870d

Ed, I think originally it was cancelled, so perhaps everybody was at fault. Perhaps they shouldn't have stayed so long then there might not have been so much trouble. Perhaps anything could have happened even stabbings.

Barbara Stevens ● 1870d

Barbara, The Met statement said it was illegal - so I assume they will be arresting Princess Kate for attending?The Met violence was apparently to protect women and the kettering was to reduce the risk of covi spread.I think that sums up the Met's position as I understand it.

Ed Robinson ● 1870d

Totally agree Barbara, yesterdays vigil was 100% about Sarah.Tomorrows protest is totally unrelated to that, it's against the 'anti protest' bill progressing through parliament.

Matt Palmer ● 1870d

David that does not explain their previous position.Why have they change it? Do they believe in liberty, democracy and openness? It also doesn't explain why they (and our MP) abstained on the so called spy cops bill.Then there are other issues about freedom of speech, liberty and openess that remain - these are quite numerous now.

Ed Robinson ● 1870d

This should be a protest about Sarah Everard, not every other protest on the plant to get involved, just causing more trouble. Then you wonder why the Police act as they do.

Barbara Stevens ● 1870d

I think that Labour have changed their mind and will oppose the bill.

David Ainsworth ● 1870d

Yes David that is the case.Matt I will not be protesting. I will however not vote for any candidate or party that does not protect our civil liberties - or does not vote against such bills that restrict our civil liberties.

Ed Robinson ● 1870d

Crikey, it may be an offence soon to cause "serious annoyance"!

David Ainsworth ● 1870d

If you both feel that strongly about it please join the protest outside parliament at 5pm tomorrow. Masks and social distancing a must.📣 RESIST THE POLICE POWERS BILL 📣Monday 15th, Parliament Square, 5PM.Tomorrow parliament will hold the 2nd reading of the draconian police powers bill. On Tuesday, they cast their votes. Together with other activist groups we will make our presence known to those who seek to oppress us. We will stand together in solidarity, in rage & in hope.See you on the streets.

Matt Palmer ● 1870d

Michael there is a pattern of behaviour here - this is not the first bill that has reduced liberty and the freedom of expression that the opposition has abstained on.The fact we are even discussing the opposition party is not not going to oppose a bill that gives the state more power is itself extraordinary!I have my own political views but liberty, democracy and transparency come above them, because without those political views are irrelevant.

Ed Robinson ● 1870d

Ed. I don't like the bill. There are seem to be some odious measures in it, and I think Labour et al ought to oppose it. It was just noting a factual reality: the government's majority is such that if all iuts MPs follow their whip it will get through the Commons. It's a different point that the opposition appears to be toothless at the moment, but perhaps the country got what it voted for?

Michael Ixer ● 1870d

"Given the government's majority does it really matter"Actually Michael the opposite is true.Apparently you are right Sue they were going to be whipped into abstaining. Starmer is the best Labour leader the Conservatives have ever had.I'm sorry to say that any leader that would even consider not oppose such a bill is not worth having. I want the opposition to do their job not the Government's job!As much as I may find some protesters annoying and a nuisance I respect their right to do so!

Ed Robinson ● 1870d

There were large protests outside scotland yard and parliament this evening about the new law, not that i particularly saw it covered anywhere obv.Good summary of it at the link belowhttps://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/03/11/silencing-black-lives-matter-priti-patels-anti-protest-law/

Matt Palmer ● 1870d

Probably won't make any difference at all Michael.  However Smarmer will milk the credit for opposing it anyway.

Sue Hammond ● 1871d

Given the government's majority does it really matter. Perhaps the only realistic opposition to it is likely to be in the House of Lords? 

Michael Ixer ● 1871d

Apparently Labour are now going to oppose the Bill. But who knows?  That could change again tomorrow ...

Sue Hammond ● 1871d

From The DM: "Kensington Palace said Kate (pictured) 'wanted to pay her respects to the family and to Sarah', reported Sky. 'She remembers what is was like to walk around London at night before she was married,' the palace added""The unexpected visit came after a planned vigil was cancelled, with organisers citing the Met Police's 'lack of constructive engagement' to help make it Covid secure"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9358701/Sarah-Everard-Duchess-Cambridge-arrives-Clapham-Common-join-mourners.htmlMany question but there will be very little answers I suspect.Apparently there is a bill going through Parliament next week that will put an end to almost all protest. Labour were planning to abstain I believe.

Ed Robinson ● 1871d