Forum Topic

Will Coco the Khan apologise to the Police

Following publication of the report by the Police Standards group on the Sarah Everard vigil. That Police acted appropriately under severe pressure / abuse when breaking up the vigil. Will Mayor Khan apologise for his condemnation of the Police ?

Andy Pike ● 1855d22 Comments

It's worth reading the report Thomas in the link below.Some of my points are discussed which differ from your answers concerning 2-4.https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/publication-html/inspection-metropolitan-police-services-policing-of-vigil-commemorating-sarah-everard-clapham-common/#chronology-of-events

Ed Robinson ● 1849d

RE 1: Unlawful Gatherings are illegal gatherings, let's not mince the words. The organisers are probably the same people that demand others wear masks when walking in the great out doors. RE 2: Escort a Princess, to all knowledge it was just herself that showed up and no advance was given to anyone. The Police present wouldn't have been told, the protection detail would have staying in the vehicle and a lone female putting flowers down wasn't unusual with a crowd already present. Additionally, Protection officers are present because of her status as wife to future heir to the throne. RE 3: They were telling all to disperse this is an illegal gathering before they used appropriate measures.RE 4:That's why the measures used were stepped up as to attempt to discourage others from showing up and dispersing those already present.

Thomas Jones ● 1849d

It is worth reading the full report below.Lots of mention about the "All Tiers Regulations" - perhaps that something you expect the opposition to have picked up on? (If we had one!)IMO the media definitely over egged the judge's comments on the ruling, although I could be kind and say it may be because it wasn't published until after the event.It doesn't answer all my questions - although the Sky news comment is interesting - it seems the Fire Brigade aren't the only emergency service to rely on the!https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/publication-html/inspection-metropolitan-police-services-policing-of-vigil-commemorating-sarah-everard-clapham-common/#chronology-of-events

Ed Robinson ● 1852d

Looking at the demographics of London today, any left-wing politician such as Khan that plays to the crowd over many fashionable and populist issues will doubtless feel no pressure to apologise.He jumped on the bandwagon over the policing of the Clapham Common women's protest.“One of the things that I have done as a consequence of my unhappiness with the way the vigil was policed... was to ask two independent watchdogs, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Independent Office for Police Conduct, to look into the issues arising from both the days leading up to the vigil and the policing of the vigil.”Unfortunately for him the Inspectorate found 'the Metropolitan Police “did not act inappropriately or in a heavy-handed manner” at the vigil and that the force was “justified” in its approach.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sarah-everard-vigil-police-sexism-report-b1824453.htmlBut he will balance up the votes to be won by supporting the protesters against those to be won supporting the police.In today's climate the first is the best electoral position for him to take.

John Hawkes ● 1852d

It does all have the feeling of a "Dominic Cummings": trying to fit a story around the know, public facts to justify some dubious actions ... I'd note the  HMFCFRS did criticise communications between police commanders about the changing position on the ground ...

Michael Ixer ● 1853d

"It all started well.."Jonathan I take the opposite view - that it all started badly.The organisers cancelled due to the court ruling. They received letters warning that they would be prosecuted with heavy fines - so they didn't go.I will have to listen to the R4 show  - I hope it explains the decisions following the court case.

Ed Robinson ● 1853d

My take is that Cressida Dick, in her R4 interview this morning, was desperate to avoid suggesting that the Duchess had broken the law by visiting the vigil, even though Cressida Dick had said she would have gone to it herself if it had been legal to do so. As a result she tied herself in knots and to my mind ended up compounding the PR disaster of the police handling of the incident.To be fair one has to have some sympathy with the police when faced with a vigil for a woman abducted and murdered allegedly by a serving police officer.  It all started well with the police standing well back and the crowd behaving sensibly. The problem was that the event, as so many that start off with good intentions, was seemingly infiltrated by more confrontational (and mainly male) elements.  If the Sky News timeline is accurate it turned from a vigil into a packed protest fairly quickly and the police were then left with little option but to intervene.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1853d

Andy I'm not sure where 'ALL day' came from - not my words (that I can see).It's not the words I'm interested in it is the deeds.The ruling reaffirmed that gathering were unlawful - yet the Commissioner may have just as well sold tickets!

Ed Robinson ● 1853d

Michael, the ruling seems clear to me (see below). It wasn't published at the time some papers were commenting on it.The police were obviously woking as were press and photographers. "In a statement, Kensington Palace said that Kate’s visit was a personal decision "At the time it was being sold as an unofficial visit. Official or not it doesn't make sense to ban something only for you to escort royalty to the unlawful event.The mask is relevant because most people are masked and if she had one would anyone had known?https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9421773/Cressida-Dick-insists-Kate-Middleton-did-not-break-law-going-Sarah-Everard-vigil.htmlhttps://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/leigh-and-others-v-commissioner-of-the-met-police/

Ed Robinson ● 1853d

But Ed you know all the answers you just like picking people up on words. You dont want to hear anyones views unless it agrees with yours exactly.The commissioner did NOT say she would havd attended ALL day.

Andy Pike ● 1853d

"I think the Commissioner would have attended for the whole of the vigil whilst the Princess paid a fleeting visit mid afternoon to lay some flowers."No Andy that is not what the commissioner said at the press conference.“If it had been lawful, I would have been there,” were her words.I note my points have not been answered.

Ed Robinson ● 1853d

Ed. I got the impression the commissioner was struggling a bit on the R4 Today interview to reconcile various actions. It wax suggested the Royal visit might be "work" if I remember correctly? So presumably the commissioner could have visited in an official capacity as well? I would think the police were advised by their lawyers but perhaps they were unclear, particularly after the court's rather inconcluesive ruling? My guess would be their was some indecision or even differences of opinion over the legal position but I'm sure we don't have all the facts so it's all speculation. Seems like a mess created by poor and/or contradictory law that led to dubious decisions?

Michael Ixer ● 1854d

If a person died down a side road they would have had the yellow tape out in no time. Why didn't they cordon off the area with tape or some sort of barrier, so the people going to the vigil for Sarah Everard could have walked in one way and left their flowers an walked out the otherway. Was it really necessary to stay there so long, why were they not moved on so more could attend.

Barbara Stevens ● 1854d

I think the Commissioner would have attended for the whole of the vigil whilst the Princess paid a fleeting visit mid afternoon to lay some flowers.The Princesses walk on the common, without a mask ( not required outside when on ones own) with her plain clothes security detail observing social distancing did not , in my understanding of the regs, break any rules.But Ed I am sure you will see it different .

Andy Pike ● 1854d

Michael,"but would allow individuals and households to pay respect - including the Duchess of Cambridge? "The commissioner said herself that she would had attended if it wasn't unlawful. The commissioners words put her in conflict with the Duchess of Cambridge actions - who would have been escorted by the commissioner's own police.In sort she is criticizing herself!Back to the legislation. Why ban the organisers and not the event? It makes a nonsense out of the spirit of the law to do one but not the other!

Ed Robinson ● 1854d

Ed. Yes the police actions do seem a little inconsistent. Is that because they had to work within bad law: that is lockdown regulations which were thought to be banned protests - and hence their ability to liaise with the organisers - but would allow individuals and households to pay respect - including the Duchess of Cambridge? (Masks aren't required on the Commons, are they?)The report does indicate police communications wasn't ideal and it appears some protests are allowed: although that seemed to confuse both the police and the court Reclaim the Streets appealed to. It perhaps comes down to poor legislation and the politicians?It's difficult to comment further as we don't know what evidence we haven't seen. But it's certainly not good PR for the police or home office and one wonders how many women were involved in reviewing the episode and contributing to the report?

Michael Ixer ● 1854d

I think that they are just trying to keep too many plates spinning at the same time.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_wqjY_okek

David Ainsworth ● 1854d

The logic of the whole episode completely escapes me.They ban the organisers because it is unlawful - that I get.But then:1) Let the event happen without organisers.2) Escort a princess to the unlawful event (without a mask)3) Allow even more people to join the event4) Become surprised when an event without organisers becomes disorganised.Now if someone can explain the logic of the above I will be happy to listen, but nothing I have read so far answer any of the above!

Ed Robinson ● 1854d

If you've read anything I've written, you'll know that I support the right to peaceful protest but condemn violence. Given that, your post is simply trollery.

Richard Carter ● 1855d

Richard is very selective when he talks about 'covidiots' After criticising previous groups protesting during lockdown, he has gone rather quiet as his friends in Bristol fight the police under the banner 'kill the bill'Would you like to condemn this group too Richard?

Colin Redmond ● 1855d

Lets hope so

Andy Pike ● 1855d

And will Priti Vacant also apologise for her criticism of the police response to the vigil?

Richard Carter ● 1855d