Met Police threaten to prosecute organisers of 'Reclaim These Streets' womens' gathering

[TheRabbitOfCaerbannog]

The organisers of a socially distanced #ReclaimTheseStreets event planned for Saturday 13th March at 6 pm on Clapham Common say the Met Police are trying to pull it. They say they're threatening to prosecute the organisers. The intention is for a short vigil to remember Sarah Everard and all women lost to violence. They're looking to crowdfund to cover potential legal costs. Harriet Harman has written to the met in support of the organisers...

twitter.com/reclaimts/status/1370123638406545408?s=21

www.crowdjustice.com/case/reclaimthesestreets/

I’ve already arranged to go for a walk with a female friend to a local park where coincidentally protests tend to gather in our city at around sunset. I may be carrying a small torch as I am not sure of the lighting in said area around dusk

I’m going with friends and I hope many other women will be going.

I see there are now over 60 planned vigils around the country and from comments some other police forces are saying small vigils are acceptable. So bit of a mixed picture.

Any one thinking of attending an event should keep checking the event page (if there is one) www.womensgrid.org.uk/?p=14705

And quite a few suggestions for Doorstep Vigils, ie simply lighting a candle and leaving it on your doorstep on in a window.

My guess is that they want to stop Clapham Common being the focus for the whole of London.

Stay local and you may well be OK

Ex Met officer on Channel 4 news just said indecent exposure isnt serious in the grand scheme of things what with the other things they have to deal with and the public just dont understand.

@MercyBooth

Ex Met officer on Channel 4 news just said indecent exposure isnt serious in the grand scheme of things what with the other things they have to deal with and the public just dont understand.

Did you catch the name? There's one who gets wheeled out a lot who is a misogynistic prick at the best of times.

That kind of attitude is pretty consistent with policing though.

I didnt catch his name unfortunately

Oh its still on you tube.

Just went to the link for my local vigil and it states 'the word woman refers to anyone who identifies as such'. I was going to go but I guess they don't care about my safety as I don't 'identify as such'. Probably a post for the cognitive dissonance thread.

Cwenthryth

I don't understand. You said that loads of people were dying from Corona at the moment and this was one awful as it was.

I think maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. Apologies if I did.

I don't think there's a lot of anti police feeling at the moment though? I'm on a few threads about this case and I've not seen that at all.

Personally I do feel that the government removing the right to peaceful protest is a pretty worrying thing.

I also feel that this murder has really spurred a lot of people into action.

I think given the circumstances the met saying they will come down hard on women having vigils etc strikes a pretty sour note.

Re the C4 met man saying that.

Why do the media wheel out these sort of people?

Seemingly to remind women that no the police don't give a shit no don't report you're wasting our time. And while it's still documented that men like this escalate and so if we did take the lower level stuff seriously we could stop some of them going onto the more serious stuff... It's just not something we're interested in.

Why do the media do this? What's the purpose?

From @legalfeminist

"It is being widely reported that the organisers of tomorrow’s vigil for Sarah Everard, Reclaim These Streets, have lost their legal challenge to a ‘police ban’ on the event, but this is not an accurate legal reflection of what happened at the hearing. The Met had told the organisers that their “hands were tied” and that Covid regulations prohibit all protest. During the course of the hearing, the Met’s representative clarified that in fact, there is no blanket ban on protest, The Court agreed that the Covid regs do not amount to a ban on protest, because the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly under the ECHR must also be taken into account. The police failed to take those rights into account when they told the organisers that holding the vigil would breach Covid regs. The police will now have to consider whether the vigil tomorrow can go ahead, taking into account right to freedom of expression / assembly, as well as the specific circumstances, eg. numbers expected, current R rate, social distancing and wearing of masks. The organisers only ‘lost’ in the sense that the Court did not make the declaration they asked for. The hearing has clarified that Covid regulations must be read with the Human Rights Act, but the Court made no ruling on whether the vigil itself would or would not be lawful."

Oh! Feel that my quick summary earlier on the thread based on an interview with one of the organisers reflects legalfeminist. [smug]

Ex Met officer on Channel 4 news just said indecent exposure isnt serious in the grand scheme of things what with the other things they have to deal with and the public just dont understand. hmm

FFS. Such ‘non serious crimes’ as indecent exposure are not only highly distressing and a violation of women and girls, they are a known precursor to more serious sexual crimes - again, mainly against women and girls. The police know this. There is always a history that is either not reported because there is no point, or because the police have dismissed it - just like this officer. If they weren’t so busy focusing being partisan with non-hate crime or by endorsing such behaviour by actively helping to erode the rights and boundaries of women and girls, perhaps they would have sufficient resource to pay more attention to it.

I don't think there's a lot of anti police feeling at the moment though? I'm on a few threads about this case and I've not seen that at all.

As someone who researches cults and conspiracy theories (the latter from a rationalist / skeptical perspective) it is highly evident that conspiracy driven cults are putting immense efforts into undermining public confidence in the police, the health service, school teachers, GPs, the family courts, social services and many other statutory organisations. The royal family has taken quite a bashing recently also (and I say this as someone who is far from a royalist).

It is evident to me that sinister forces are trying to create havoc and division in our society by "empowering" minority groups, often on opposing sides, and cultivating grievances.

It is past of divide and conquer and the extremes of the TRA movement are central to this.

If any kind of march or protest did go ahead, and personally I think it is not the right time to have any kind of protest given the delicate stage of the pandemic in the UK, any protest would inevitably become a skirmish between women and the extreme end of the TRA activist movement.

The other inevitable thing that would happen is that the vast numbers of people that make up the various grievance driven protests on a variety of issues, (some with legitimate grievances, some less so IMO) would also start demanding the right to protest.

For the women paying attention to our current dire situation regarding instiutional capture by cults and criminal networks, I would suggest that police resources need to be directed towards dealing with serious crimes, including sexual crimes, and that anything that diverts the police from doing their job when they risk their lives every day, with low morale and desperately low resources, is a step in the wrong direction.

It seems to me that the pandemic has resulted in many people and organisations making use of virtual campaigns and projects and I believe that this would be a much more rational and reasonable way to proceed at this dangerous time.

I will be pleased to join any kind of march or vigil when it is safe to do so. Now is not the time.

By all means go out and spread disease in the middle of a severe pandemic. I don't understand what part of "stay at home" isn't clear.

It's been cancelled.

Sarah Everard vigil in south London cancelled www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56384758

Those who suggest any protest or vigil should be delayed, did you also say the same about BLM protests last year?

Indecent exposure in a police officer is surely worth pursuing though in the same way a doctor accused of indecent exposure would expect to be pursued.

Those who suggest any protest or vigil should be delayed, did you also say the same about BLM protests last year?

Yes.

@2Rebecca

Indecent exposure in a police officer is surely worth pursuing though in the same way a doctor accused of indecent exposure would expect to be pursued.

Indecent exposure should be prosecuted in every case. It is a stepping stone. And the victims should have justice.

@2Rebecca

Indecent exposure in a police officer is surely worth pursuing though in the same way a doctor accused of indecent exposure would expect to be pursued.

No, because "blue family". They protect their own, not women.

Those who suggest any protest or vigil should be delayed, did you also say the same about BLM protests last year?

Thanks for your post

It illustrates exactly why this prostest should have been postponed

If one group protests every other group with a grievance will demand the right to protest also.

To answer your question I had conflicting feelings about the BLM protests. There were so many issues to consider.

1. the legitimate wish to protest about racism and deaths in police custody
2. the need for frustrated, angry people to let off steam, which might, if repressed, errupt into something worse
3. the socio-political and PR consequences of either allowing or banning the protests
4. the risks to the protesters re covid give that some ethnic minorities are more vulnerable to severe covid disease than other ethnic groups
5. the risks of coronavirus spread to the wider public
6. the opportunities for epidemiological research when comparing spread at the BLM protests to other large, crowded events (e.g Cheltenham races) - given the early stage of the pandemic any crowded event provides risks to public health and opportunities for epidemiological research
7. the risks to the emergency services both of violent assault and of disease
8. the risk to the NHS being overwhelmed
9. the inevitability of astroturfing with associated risk of escalation of public disorder and opportunities for research

10. the risks of violence and injuries to protesters and any opposing groups

There are many more issues and variables

So even though I support BLM (astroturfing aside) I was dismayed to see the BLM protests, largely out of concern for the welfare of the protesters and the emergency services

I could also understand why people protested and I think that the police faced a difficult call, but responded as well as they could and did the right thing in permitting the protests, although the risks of either permitting or banning the protests were considerable.

The BLM protests turned out not to cause the spread of coronavirus as much as some large sporting events, which was a huge relief and interesting and valuable to know.

The protests took place outside in good weather which was probably a significant causal factor, however we are still learning about this novel virus and its many variants.

Re the now cancelled women's protest

We are in a different stage of the pandemic.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel due to the incredible vaccines, however we are in a finaically precarious situation and, due to novel variants, if we are very unlucky all the good work and achievements could be undone if people do not continue to follow safety guidelines.

I like the analogy of the football game where we are winning 3 nil with 30 minutes left to play. We should not stop playing just because we are 3 nil up. We could still lose.

Astroturfing is rampant and has increased during the pandemic.

The risk of us losing the football game in the final 30 minutes is significant if any group is permitted to protest at this delicate stage of the game.

Re astroturfing and how protests can escalate I recommend this excellent video

No, because "blue family". They protect their own, not women.

The police do sometimes protect their own. There is no shortage of former cops in jail and the alleged murderer is in custody facing charges of murder and kidnap, which suggests that your claim is not true, at least not all of the time.

Surely vaccines make protests safer this year than last? Otherwise I don't see how the pandemic situation is really different - just that it has been going on longer and we know that the BLM protests did not cause an uptick in cases. The points about legitimate wish to protest deaths and the need for frustrated angry people to say so hold true here too.