"Hundreds defy ban to attend Clapham vigil"

I was really disappointed to hear some of the police calling in, not willing to listen or engage, it was all about them and their defensive feelings

This idea that the police will suddenly kick off and incense a gathering out of their own volition is ridiculous. The police are bound to act (and rightly so) if they perceive there is a risk of a situation getting out of hand. They can sustain injuries as well, and they know it.

I watched what should have been a reflective vigil on live stream. It was after midnight when the police took the arrested individuals back to the vans. All normal people had gone home and there was just a number of people with an agenda (possibly makes and females from political groups?) who moved with the police and hounded them through name calling. This was when the smashed wing mirror happened. It seemed like a reaction to police disproportionate strategies earlier in the evening. I can see it would have been scary for officers but what did they expect? They were clearly badly managed and inappropriately directed by superiors who should have worked with the vigil organisers.

Circling the wagons.

Daily Mail readers will lap it up though.

Well don’t leave us hanging...

Although having seen all your other posts on the topic, my spidey senses are saying there is going to be some confirmation bias at play here...

I saw a very interesting post on Facebook earlier from One Police UK. The page is mainly serving or retired Police (I'm neither)

It's a bit of an eye opener

A police van did have the wing mirror smashed but not at the vigil. It was quite a distance away, by a bloke.

It doesn’t seem to have any obvious connection with the vigil other than the van was parked there to arrest women at the vigil.

Look at the windmill pub and the bandstand on Google maps

If someone was arrested at the windmill pub for criminal damage in any other situation, it wouldn’t be connected with people drinking at the bandstand

Except here, the police have no genuine reason for their violence so are stringing together anything with a tenuous link to try and justify their behaviour

The fact is they could have worked with Reclaim These Streets to facilitate an organised vigil, as other forces did, for whatever reason they chose not to.

So you don’t even know the person who posted it? Just there friend?

Do you even know the name of the person who posted this, or is this an unsourced tale that you’ve fallen for even though it directly contradicts the actual film evidence?

Its actually not a pack of lies and I know the person very well whose friend this actually was, but as it doesn’t fit with your agenda you carry on

@Scottsy100

Well I can tell from the first few lines that it’s a pack of lies

I’ve got photos from 5pm which shows around 50% of the police attending are male
They are hanging back on the paths but they are men

And the time line is all wrong.

The wing mirror was smashed at the end of the evening in a separate location (The Windmill, not the bandstand) long after the arrests and the insults.

Frankly if a police officer is going to claim to be traumatised by a bit of name calling by women that they have provoked, they aren’t fit to serve.

How are they going to cope with a football riot or any of the actual violent situations police face daily in London?

It’s nonsense.

This is the account of a female police officer who was on the scene

Of course it was a pr stunt. Kate usually wears a mask to events so why not this one? She couldn't 'gladhand' as that would not be social distancing. She had a camera crew with her and security in the crowd.

If it was Meghan she would have been slated for doing exactly that.

@keffie12 @Smamfy

As another poster has just said in another thread in the same subject, you clearly don’t know Clapham Common

It was far busier a couple of weekends ago during the nice weather than it was last night. There was no covid spike after the common was packed out during the sunshine drinking and hugging, there isn’t going to be a spike after a less busy event of fully masked people last night

Fair points @keffie12

Meghan has no connection to Clapham Common

there is no evidence of ANY outdoor event spreading COVID
anywhere
for a year

Kate was obviously using that poor woman's murder as a PR stunt. Disgraceful. That's why she didn't wear a mask.
Masks are not compulsory outdoors
she did not gladhand anybody
she was filmed by a sky reporter who was already there
she used to walk on Clapham common at night

take the chips off your shoulders

She was sending a message of solidarity by attending

Kate was obviously using that poor woman's murder as a PR stunt. Disgraceful. That's why she didn't wear a mask. 🙄

Sisters uncut supporters are on twitter criticising the peaceful vigil (and its organisers) and are demanding some of the money that was raised is sent to them.

This may be smoke and mirrors - just a thought

Insufficient data to know where the money has gone and who is involved

smamfy, you need to edit that post, and put allegedly, when speculating about who killed her, or it could jeopardize the case..

@2bazookas

Nice attempt at selective editing.

Here is the full quote

Sir Patrick Vallance: Outdoors is absolutely lower risk than indoors, but it is not zero risk, as Chris said. It depends on what you do outdoors. Clearly, people in very close physical contact outdoors, people passing things around, where you can transmit from hand to implement to hand to face is not zero risk. It is not zero risk, but it is definitely lower risk than indoors. That has been something that we have been concerned about right from the very beginning.

Right at the beginning, our concern was indoors spread. Particularly in closed environments with lots of people and poor ventilation, the ability to spread easily in pubs and other things was a concern right at the beginning, much more so than outdoor gatherings. It remains the case that outdoor looks like lower risk. That is why opening up outdoors is coming before opening up indoors and is the order we would agree with. When levels are very high, clearly you have a risk of transmission, and as levels come down the risk of transmission outdoors goes down even further. That is where we are. I agree that it is much lower. I do not think it is zero, but it is a lower risk.

Q2240 Graham Stringer: Saying it is not zero is something we can all agree on. There is nothing in life that is zero risk. The empirical evidence when there have been crowded beaches is that there is no spike; there is no evidence that it has led in those areas to increased infection. Yet there are consequences to people’s civil liberties and to their health of not allowing them to go into parks and on to beaches. If I can repeat the second part of the question, what is the scientific basis of the rule of six?

Sir Patrick Vallance: We have said previously that the rule of six does not have some scientific absolutism to it. It is a policy decision based on minimising the number of people interacting. That is the case. The more people you have interacting, the higher the chance of there being some spread.

I reiterate that our view has always been—it is clear in the SAGE papers—that outdoors is much lower risk than indoors, but it is not completely risk free. It is the case that it is difficult to see how things like large beach gatherings and so on can cause a spike. The same was the case in a protest march in New York; they did not really see any spikes after that. It is lower risk, but the other thing that can happen with outdoor events, and so on, is that, when indoor things are also open, you start to get people congregating indoors around that. That can increase risk, but outdoors itself is lower risk. Chris, do you want to add to that?

Professor Whitty: No, I completely agree.

Sisters uncut supporters are on twitter criticising the peaceful vigil (and its organisers) and are demanding some of the money that was raised is sent to them.

Surely this isn't legal. That money was raised for women, and even that wasn't transparent about where the money was really going. That money needs to be returned. And who are 'reclaim these streets', they were only set up a week ago, they're not the same as 'reclaim the streets'. Is this deliberate? Have people been deceived into donating to them? It needs a police investigation.

One of the bizarre things about SistersUncut's position is that if a man is convicted of murdering Sarah Everard, goes to prison, announces a transition to female and then commits suicide, by their logic they would be out protesting on behalf of that individual.