Kirsty Allsop, Did you really say this? What were you thinking.

[VitalsStable]

Saying it was because of lockdown that WC could abduct, rape and murder Sarah. He would have done it regardless of lockdown.

I wonder if those on here keen to say this was linked to lockdown - rather than an opportunity presented to a serial violent sex offender who was also a serving police officer - are saying this because the thought that random acts like this could happen to any of us at any time and can't be prevented is just too terrible to contemplate.
Only this last week a young primary teacher was killed by a random stranger in the early evening. There was no lockdown then. Everyone has already forgotten Sabina Nessa. That man would have given off loads of warning but nothing done. Or failed by health services or known by domestic abuse organisations and so on.
Violent crime is rare and stranger murder even more so. But its not zero.
I know 3 women who have been stalked or threatened by boyfriends. And that's recently and I'm middle aged professional, and so are these women. Violent men are in all walks of life.
Let's be angry that more isn't being done to profile and monitor offenders when they show the signs. Stalking and threatening dates, exposing yourself and so on.
Women need more support to spot the signs in partners and safe places to go.
Right now Sarah Everards family are in torment, and also this murderers wife and children. No one knows what their lives have been like. I expect they have to go into police protection. One thing is for sure they're definitely a lot better off now but how do you ever recover from your father doing something like this? Realising you were married to a murdering sexual predator.

I wonder if those on here keen to say this was linked to lockdown - rather than an opportunity presented to a serial violent sex offender who was also a serving police officer - are saying this because the thought that random acts like this could happen to any of us at any time and can't be prevented is just too terrible to contemplate.

That's certainly not the case for me. Of course murder can happen any time and does, but lockdown made it easier for him. It's not going to cause me to drop my guard because we're not currently in lockdown.

This bit keen to say this was linked to lockdown - rather than an opportunity presented to a serial violent sex offender who was also a serving police officer seems contradictory to me. Lockdown WAS the opportunity that presented to him.

Everyone has already forgotten Sabina Nessa. That man would have given off loads of warning but nothing done. Or failed by health services or known by domestic abuse organisations and so on. We don't yet have any evidence that he gave off warnings. I was watching the recent series about the Night Stalker and he appeared one of the least likely to commit those acts. I haven't forgotten Sabina.

The reason Sarah is bigger news than Sabina is that it was a serving policeman who killed her. And yes that does mean her story has dominated the headlines. But it doesn't mean Sabina's murder means nothing.

@ToucansToucans
"I wonder if those on here keen to say this was linked to lockdown - rather than an opportunity presented to a serial violent sex offender who was also a serving police officer - are saying this because the thought that random acts like this could happen to any of us at any time and can't be prevented is just too terrible to contemplate."

From what I've read posters aren't saying it only happened because of lockdown. They're saying he took advantage of lockdown to engineer a reason to get her into the car. If there had been no lockdown, he would have made up a different reason.

Surely it’s that lockdown gave him the opportunity, being a police officer the means and being a sociopathic, probably porn obsessed sexual predator the motive.
Opportunity, means and motive, the three factors that need to come together for all murders. Isn’t that what detectives always look for when investigating.

If there had never been a lockdown or covid he would have done something else is the point. There's no point saying lockdown facilitated it or gave the opportunity or allowed a woman to put her guard down.
He used to work as police at Dungeness power station. That's a very isolated place. He wasn't a regular police officer by the sounds of it. More of a security guard. I'm no police expert though.
Did Sarah Everard only get in the car because of lockdown? Its really hard to say but I don't think it's certain she wouldnt have anyway. Would I have? I couldn't definitely say yes or no. He could have picked up an intoxicated girl for example.

My friend and I are 95% certain we got a taxi with John Worboys. Due to me having a really sore throat and my friend not really being a huge drinker we turned down the champagne offered and we also both ended up going to mine rather than friend staying on in cab to hers... so who knows....May not have even been him (although was 2006/7ish and a taxi driver offering fizz....picked us up from King's Cross...).

Those of you so certain that a lockdown breach played a part in his 'arrest' tactics - are you aware that there isn't evidence that this was actually the case? The judge said 'I have not the slightest doubt that the defendant used his position as a police officer to coerce her on a wholly false pretext into the car he had hired for this purpose. It is most likely that he suggested to Sarah Everard that she had breached the restrictions on movement that were being enforced during that stage of the pandemic.'

It's clearly fair to discuss the institutional failings of the Met that allowed him to masquerade as being on duty in order to carry out this particular crime in this particular way. If the culture of the Met was different and warning signs were heeded, this crime would not have occured in the way it did.

Why is it therefore not fair to discuss the law that he exploited in order to select his victim? The fact that the law was temporary, criminalised normally legal, innocuous actions, often left people feeling confused about what the actual law was and had frequently been over-zealously enforced across many police forces is very relevant to the exact way that this crime occurred.

Criticising bad law does not change the fact that the culpribility falls entirely on the offender. It might mean that better legal choices are made in the future.
If this law had not existed he probably would have selected a different victim with a different ruse, but it probably would have been logistically more awkward and risky for him as the legal position would likely have been clearer and warning signs may have easier to read in a more conventional situation.

There is also an irony in the way lockdown laws were used to heavily handedly police the vigil afterwards, and the excessive policing of many of the women who came to pay their respects. Not good PR for an organisation now facing accusations of institutional misogeny.

I've never made any secret of being critical of lockdown and the range of negative consequences that it caused (and continues to do so in the aftermath of heavily restricted public services). Ultimately many examples of poor policing have undermined public confidence in the police service through the past 18m and that does merit wider discussion.

If we can't criticise bad law and its role in facilitating many tragic incidents and crimes, we are condemning ourselves to blindly repeating these errors and wasting more lives in the future.

Why? Because no-one knows that's what he actually did. And Sarah's life wasnt wasted because of bad law. That lies solely in the hands of Wayne Couzens.