Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

How much more of this rubbish will women accept? Sarah Everard prosecutions

72 replies

newnamethanks · 02/06/2022 22:04

I can't see a thread on this. Happy to delete this if there is one as the accumulated fury should set MN aflame. The prosecution of the 6 women arrested at Sarah's vigil will go ahead. This decision was made by the Met, not the CPS. 4 of the cases will be heard with the public excluded. They are accused of failing to pay the FPNs issued for breaking Covid regulations by assembling at a gathering of more than 2 people. They weren't playing ABBA songs, they weren't drinking champagne or beer, they were outside and they weren't having a party and they are not members of the government. They, together with many others, were attending a vigil for Sarah who was raped and murdered by a serving Met officer. AIBU to ask how the hell any woman can be expected to put trust in a Met officer?

OP posts:
RedWingBoots · 03/06/2022 06:33

Northernsoullover · 02/06/2022 22:55

Its not up to just the met though is it? (Genuine question because my legal knowledge is so basic) don't the CPS have to assess if it passes the public interest test? How could this possibly be in the public interest?

It's a Met direct prosecution nothing to do with the CPS. (The post office scandal was done under similar laws e.g. the post office prosecuted not the CPS.)

I was looking to see if there was a crowdfunder to contribute to their legal fees as I'm absolutely fucking fed up of the Mets abuse of power.

No other police force is in the news for causing problems when demonstrators in their areas had vigils against a serving male Met police officer using the same Covid laws to abduct, rape, torture and kill a woman.

Having a demonstration during Covid restrictions was actually legal. The judges have made that clear by refusing the Met's second attempt to appeal against the vigil.

RedWingBoots · 03/06/2022 06:39

araiwa · 03/06/2022 04:54

Am I misunderstanding?

They're going to court for not paying their fines. So they were charged with same crime as Boris but he presumably paid his fine which is why he's not being prosecuted further

Each of the people being prosecuted - and one is currently out of the country - had loads of people offering to pay their fines if they couldn't afford to pay it themselves.

The reason they have not paid is because the vigil wasn't illegal. The Met police are determined to show that the vigil was illegal even though they lost their appeal against the initial organisers and have been refused a second appeal. So they are basically using these 6 people to make a nasty political point.

However this case will come back and bite them on the behind. It may take years, like with the post office scandal but I believe it will happen.

Roussette · 03/06/2022 06:40

milveycrohn · 02/06/2022 22:53

I understand the Duchess of Cambridge went early, so was socially distanced. I do not know all the details, so feel free to correct me if wrong, but it seems that the peaceful (and socially distanced vigil) was highjacked by other ajitators. I do not think the police are fining/charging everyone who was there, so why have they picked these women?

The footage doesn't show that. She was inches from others. She was not 3foot plus from everyone.

Basically if you're in government or royalty you can bypass laws. If you're general public, you can't.

Given one of their own in the Met murdered a woman in the most horrific way and manner imaginable, I would've thought fining people for attending a vigil for the victim was not the way to go.

MintJulia · 03/06/2022 06:59

The Met needs another humiliation in court over this. I hope that's what they get.

They have already been told they breached the rights of Reclaim These Streets. They appealed and lost. Tried to appeal again and were told no.

It's like they are so misogynistic, so bigoted, so arrogant that they just can't get it into their heads that they were, and are IN THE WRONG.

Every time they go back to court, they show themselves to be more arrogant, more bigoted. They further damage their own reputation. Which is already in shreds.

At some point, they need to stop, accept what the courts are telling them and say sorry.

MissChanandlerBong80 · 03/06/2022 07:08

RedWingBoots · 03/06/2022 06:39

Each of the people being prosecuted - and one is currently out of the country - had loads of people offering to pay their fines if they couldn't afford to pay it themselves.

The reason they have not paid is because the vigil wasn't illegal. The Met police are determined to show that the vigil was illegal even though they lost their appeal against the initial organisers and have been refused a second appeal. So they are basically using these 6 people to make a nasty political point.

However this case will come back and bite them on the behind. It may take years, like with the post office scandal but I believe it will happen.

Show quote history

This is what I don’t understand. The High Court determined that the vigil wasn’t illegal didn’t they - or at least that the Met breached the initial organisers’ rights? So how can the fines be upheld?

FindingMeno · 03/06/2022 07:08

I am glad they are not paying up.
I hope they have some seriously shit hot pro bone legal representation dealing with this.
I want to see the Met absolutely taken apart by this. I want everything microanalysed. I want every individual officer questioned. I want a big fuss.
Paying up quietly is the option the Met wanted.
They now can't be seen to leave it, but are backed into a corner by the principled individuals who refused to cough up.

SquirmOfEels · 03/06/2022 07:09

I was there (local)

Yes, people were drinking, and after the half hour or so of actual vigil (where there was no police action whatsoever - just like there was none at the other vigil at the site close to where she was taken) there was music and singing.

I really think it's a Big Lie that this was a peaceful vigil.

Especially as over half the crowd arrive after the vigil had concluded, and were still arriving when the police began to ask people to disperse (which they did for at least 40 mins before taking any further action at all.

BluOcty · 03/06/2022 07:14

If I hand totally lost trust in the met before, it's completely gone now after this whole FPN saga.

Dinotour · 03/06/2022 07:17

The Met’s decision to prosecute comes just one day after it was refused permission to appeal for a second time against a high court ruling which concluded that the force had breached the rights of the organisers of the vigil.

Funny that isn't it, obviously just a coincidence though eh.

LemonDrizzles · 03/06/2022 07:19

I wonder if outsiders would view them as political prisoners...

Sharrowgirl · 03/06/2022 07:21

SquirmOfEels · 03/06/2022 07:09

I was there (local)

Yes, people were drinking, and after the half hour or so of actual vigil (where there was no police action whatsoever - just like there was none at the other vigil at the site close to where she was taken) there was music and singing.

I really think it's a Big Lie that this was a peaceful vigil.

Especially as over half the crowd arrive after the vigil had concluded, and were still arriving when the police began to ask people to disperse (which they did for at least 40 mins before taking any further action at all.

You’ll never get anywhere telling the truth like that. It’s been decided the police hate women and so the narrative has to match.

Although I am surprised the Met are pursuing this, it’s just adding fuel to the fire.

110APiccadilly · 03/06/2022 07:21

If you were pro lockdown, then you can't complain that lockdown rules were enforced. If, like me, you weren't, then yes, the laws should be retrospectively repealed, and those prosecuted - all of them - should be compensated and/ or apologised to.

But I've got no sympathy with people who wanted lockdowns - except when there was something they thought it was worth breaking them for.

StageRage · 03/06/2022 07:38

SquirmOfEels · 03/06/2022 07:09

I was there (local)

Yes, people were drinking, and after the half hour or so of actual vigil (where there was no police action whatsoever - just like there was none at the other vigil at the site close to where she was taken) there was music and singing.

I really think it's a Big Lie that this was a peaceful vigil.

Especially as over half the crowd arrive after the vigil had concluded, and were still arriving when the police began to ask people to disperse (which they did for at least 40 mins before taking any further action at all.

I was also there.

I would absolutely dispute that ‘half the crowd’ arrived after the vigil.

The majority of the crowd were melting away straight after the silence, numbers having built from afternoon onwards.

There was a very small group who started some chanting as the main crowd was leaving… and the police were already being very heavy handed. The police stomped across the flowers to address the crowd and ask them to leave.

Agreed there was a group who were there to protest rather than be silent, but all they did was chant / sing , but I saw no groups arriving as everyone else was leaving, and there was peace and silence until the chanting. By a small group.

RedWingBoots · 03/06/2022 07:53

SquirmOfEels · 03/06/2022 07:09

I was there (local)

Yes, people were drinking, and after the half hour or so of actual vigil (where there was no police action whatsoever - just like there was none at the other vigil at the site close to where she was taken) there was music and singing.

I really think it's a Big Lie that this was a peaceful vigil.

Especially as over half the crowd arrive after the vigil had concluded, and were still arriving when the police began to ask people to disperse (which they did for at least 40 mins before taking any further action at all.

Sometimes the most politically sensible thing when you have lost a high profile case, an appeal and refused a second appeal is to leave things well alone regardless of what happened.

RedWingBoots · 03/06/2022 07:57

The High Court determined that the vigil wasn’t illegal didn’t they - or at least that the Met breached the initial organisers’ rights? So how can the fines be upheld?

It is a police prosecution not a CPS one.

The Met are being politically obtuse amongst lots of other things.

The new commissioner has a hell of a job made worse by stunts like this and the Court case that will arise from it.

RedWingBoots · 03/06/2022 07:58

Dinotour · 03/06/2022 07:17

The Met’s decision to prosecute comes just one day after it was refused permission to appeal for a second time against a high court ruling which concluded that the force had breached the rights of the organisers of the vigil.

Funny that isn't it, obviously just a coincidence though eh.

Pure nastiness.

Ferngreen · 03/06/2022 08:02

All the people the met fined would , had they gone to court, have found them guilty so then ?prison, but they all paid their fines.
The ones that 'got off' were the ones without evidence that would take them to court to be prosecuted.
These lot have evidence against them so need to cough up.

Is it wilful ignorance that people pretend that the police pick and choose randomly who they prosecute.

Isaidnoalready · 03/06/2022 08:04

titchy · 02/06/2022 22:17

Hang on didnt the Duchess of Cambridge go as well? How come she isn't being fined Angry

The vigil was set for a specific time at night she came earlier in the day walking past left flowers like hundreds of others I think the only ones who they are going after were at the official vigil later that night

NippyWoowoo · 03/06/2022 08:05

It's disgusting. F the Met.

NippyWoowoo · 03/06/2022 08:08

Woman is raped and murdered by a met policeman using the guise of covid lockdown rules to kidnap her. Met police prosecute women at vigil for this murdered and raped woman ... for breaching covid lockdown rules.

This in a nutshell

AppleandRhubarbTart · 03/06/2022 08:09

TibetanTerrah · 03/06/2022 06:22

I have to say, if I had gone to the vigil, I would have just paid the fine and been done with it.

I live streamed it and found the heavy handed police really upsetting. Everyone knew it was a peaceful vigil, and the police escalated it like it was a riot.

Sensible PR would be to let this go though, as it was one of their own that meant their was a vigil in the first place. I also am surprised that they can circumvent the CPS like this.

It's just the way the covid regulations work. The police were able to circumvent the CPS. Feature not a bug. And it's still happening every day.

AmaryIlis · 03/06/2022 08:10

It does seem extraordinary that someone in the Met couldn't see the sense in quietly dropping this one. The timing could hardly be worse.

The only consolation may be that it simply heightens anger against Johnson and his cronies.

Soontobe60 · 03/06/2022 08:11

StageRage · 03/06/2022 07:38

I was also there.

I would absolutely dispute that ‘half the crowd’ arrived after the vigil.

The majority of the crowd were melting away straight after the silence, numbers having built from afternoon onwards.

There was a very small group who started some chanting as the main crowd was leaving… and the police were already being very heavy handed. The police stomped across the flowers to address the crowd and ask them to leave.

Agreed there was a group who were there to protest rather than be silent, but all they did was chant / sing , but I saw no groups arriving as everyone else was leaving, and there was peace and silence until the chanting. By a small group.

Show quote history

Extensive video of the events at the bandstand show a different story. There was clear evidence of a planned set up by a certain group, they were the ones trampling on flowers, which the police responded to. I’ll have a look for the video.

AppleandRhubarbTart · 03/06/2022 08:16

AmaryIlis · 03/06/2022 08:10

It does seem extraordinary that someone in the Met couldn't see the sense in quietly dropping this one. The timing could hardly be worse.

The only consolation may be that it simply heightens anger against Johnson and his cronies.

Yes, you'd think the Met wouldn't want to further highlight their non compliance with the law at a vigil for a woman one of them murdered. Maybe whoever was supposed to be in charge of strategic thinking on this one was off raping someone, or strip searching a menstruating child.

orwellwasright · 03/06/2022 08:19

jcyclops · 03/06/2022 00:31

"The prosecution of the 6 women arrested at Sarah's vigil will go ahead."
"They are women and they defied men's orders"

Of the 4 in the magistrates court today, 2 were men. Don't let facts get in the way of your favoured narrative.

Restrictions at the time limited close contact outdoors to a maximum of two people. Film of the Duchess on the date clearly showed she was in close contact with only 1 person. The Met issued 9 FPNs for breaching this rule. 7 did not pay and did not appeal by requesting a court hearing. After review, 1 of these 7 cases was dropped and the other 6 were summoned to the magistrates court.

The CPS does not get involved with every type of court case, and this is one of those types of case. They were also not involved in the prosecution of Kurt Zouma.

Why should they pay a fine if the vigil was legal?

The Met is pursuing this because the Met was defied. I couldn't care less what gender the magistrates were. I'm referring to the police force which is predominantly male. If you don't see that (some) police forces have a problem with institutionalised sexism then it's pretty clear you have internalised misogyny yourself.