Sarah Everard Murder - Serving Met Officer Arrested *Mod Note in OP*

BorneTobyWilde

JJayoo wrote: »

Are you allowed on the internet without supervision?

If I said that it would be reported. Me I post and let post, I love different views and the right of someone to express them. I never report a post, never will.

wicklowstevo

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

If I said that it would be reported. Me I post and let post, I love different views and the right of someone to express them. I never report a post, never will.

not really

you've posted a load of unfounded bitter hateful allegations that you've made up I imagen because you just don't like the police


your hijacking a horrible incident for your own ends and its sad and sick

you have been and deserve to be reported

BorneTobyWilde

wicklowstevo wrote: »

not really

you've posted a load of unfounded bitter hateful allegations that you've made up I imagen because you just don't like the police


your hijacking a horrible incident for your own ends and its sad and sick

you have been and deserve to be reported

Are you not keeping up with news.


Mayor of London just now said he was given assurances this vigil would be policed sensitively, and has called police out for their excuses as to why they attacked those at the Vigil, and said he doesn't buy their explanations, and has called in The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner into his office immediately to get answers. And looking for an independent investigation into those police caught on tape dragging and pulling women to the ground and kneeing them in the back and arresting them.


I'm only repeating facts.

Spanish Eyes

Cressida Dick should resign, or she will be thrown to the kerb, I hope.

Then I suppose it will be a male Commissioner who replaces her more than likely. You can't win, but the Met should have used common sense on this one, given that the majority of those policing the vigil were males I'd imagine.

wicklowstevo

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Are you not keeping up with news.


Mayor of London just now said he was given assurances this vigil would be policed sensitively, and has called police out for their excuses as to why they attacked those at the Vigil, and said he doesn't buy their explanations, and has called in The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner into his office immediately to get answers. And looking for an independent investigation into those police caught on tape dragging and pulling women to the ground and kneeing them in the back and arresting them.


I'm only repeating facts.

the mayor of londons opinion are not facts , every met officer or police officer in the world is not responsible for what one monster did

you are exploiting a some ones murder to further your own agenda

that is disgusting nasty and frankly even a little creepy

please stop

Ted_YNWA

BorneTobyWilde - please add links to back up your points.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/13/world/sarah-everard-vigil/index.html

Mr.burgess

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

The Police Watchdog are investigating it, as are The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) . Too much of his behavior was let slide by police

He had to go to hospital with a head injury he suffered in the police station by cops so no they didnt look after him they beat him up

kippy

Mr.burgess wrote: »

He had to go to hospital with a head injury he suffered in the police station by cops so no they didnt look after him they beat him up

Theres no evidence in the public domain to back up that assertion, or indeed of the assertion that there was an attempted cover up by the cops in the first place.


Some absolute nonsense posts on here backed up by nothing, all just trying to paint the police as the bad guys in all of this from multiple angles.

Max H

All cells now in police stations in the met have CCTV. So if the police have rushed in and given him a kick in, it will be on CCTV, which it won't because it never happened. He self harmed, ie banged his head of the wall or floor. The second time is the mistake, because after the first time, he should have been on a constant watch.

Sephiroth_dude

Mr.burgess wrote: »

He had to go to hospital with a head injury he suffered in the police station by cops so no they didnt look after him they beat him up

Anymore posts like this where no evidence is provided , cards and bans will be handed out.

BorneTobyWilde

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Are you not keeping up with news.


Mayor of London just now said he was given assurances this vigil would be policed sensitively, and has called police out for their excuses as to why they attacked those at the Vigil, and said he doesn't buy their explanations, and has called in The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner into his office immediately to get answers. And looking for an independent investigation into those police caught on tape dragging and pulling women to the ground and kneeing them in the back and arresting them.


I'm only repeating facts.

The vigil was cancelled and there shouldn't have been anybody there.
Sarah's family and friends were not there or left early on, so the only people left were those who did not know her and should not have been there.

Spanish Eyes

bubblypop wrote: »

The vigil was cancelled and there shouldn't have been anybody there.
Sarah's family and friends were not there or left early on, so the only people left were those who did not know her and should not have been there.

Maybe they were "just" women trying to highlight their rights to reclaim their safety while out walking or something. There is great anger about this and it was bound to spill over.

I now see that Priti Platel is trying to get a law through Parliament to ban protest.
She is sponsoring the The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which includes a ten (yes ten) year sentence for being at any protest that, amongst other things, causes or is at risk of causing 'serious annoyance'. Sounds like all protests to me!

I'd like to see how that works out. Freedom to protest and democracy my eye. People can be pushed too far.

tara73

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I now see that Priti Platel is trying to get a law through Parliament to ban protest.
She is sponsoring the The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which includes a ten (yes ten) year sentence for being at any protest that, amongst other things, causes or is at risk of causing 'serious annoyance'. Sounds like all protests to me!

is that the new thing here in this forum to spout out stuff without backing it up with a link? f*** annoying and useless.

provide a link/ proof if you write such stuff.

Spanish Eyes

tara73 wrote: »

is that the new thing here in this forum to spout out stuff without backing it up with a link? f*** annoying and useless.

provide a link/ proof if you write such stuff.

Who rattled your cage ha ha. Anger issues hmmm. There is no need to be so insulting.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/mar/11/civil-liberties-groups-call-police-plans-for-demos-an-assault-on-right-to-protest

ArmaniJeanss

Max H wrote: »

All cells now in police stations in the met have CCTV. So if the police have rushed in and given him a kick in, it will be on CCTV, which it won't because it never happened. He self harmed, ie banged his head of the wall or floor. The second time is the mistake, because after the first time, he should have been on a constant watch.

Someone constantly looking at CCTV can't prevent a prisoner banging their head off the wall or floor.
All it means is that they can get attention (medical or restraint) to them within 10 seconds of it happening.

tara73

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Who rattled your cage ha ha. Anger issues hmmm. There is no need to be so insulting.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/mar/11/civil-liberties-groups-call-police-plans-for-demos-an-assault-on-right-to-protest

that's what I was expecting. Nothing in this article about banning protests altogether or handing out 10 year sentences for protestors. Just about implementing all kind of new restrictions or measurements. so very sorry, but if you tell BS, be prepared you are called out on your BS, nothing insulting about it.

tara73

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Someone constantly looking at CCTV can't prevent a prisoner banging their head off the wall or floor.
All it means is that they can get attention (medical or restraint) to them within 10 seconds of it happening.

so doesn't the police have the right to restrain such a person in prison? it's the right in psychiatric wards, why not here, it's the same situation, that guy is a danger to himself (absurd as it is, in this context). Why somebody has to be on constant suicide watch, that might be impossible to do, as we see.

FunLover18

tara73 wrote: »

that's what I was expecting. Nothing in this article about banning protests altogether or handing out 10 year sentences for protestors. Just about implementing all kind of new restrictions or measurements. so very sorry, but if you tell BS, be prepared you are called out on your BS, nothing insulting about it.

https://twitter.com/nickreeves9876/status/1371132997722894343?s=19

beakerjoe

bubblypop wrote: »

The vigil was cancelled and there shouldn't have been anybody there.
Sarah's family and friends were not there or left early on, so the only people left were those who did not know her and should not have been there.

Like its a pandemic, a huge turn out could have lead to a big spread and more deaths.

Those protestors or vigil attendees, should not have been there.

Spanish Eyes

tara73 wrote: »

that's what I was expecting. Nothing in this article about banning protests altogether or handing out 10 year sentences for protestors. Just about implementing all kind of new restrictions or measurements. so very sorry, but if you tell BS, be prepared you are called out on your BS, nothing insulting about it.

Go away and spew your bile elsewhere. :P

I suppose you didn't see the extract of the Bill kindly provided by FunLover18 above.

tara73

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Go away and spew your bile elsewhere. :P

I suppose you didn't see the extract of the Bill kindly provided by FunLover18 above.

you better go away and spew your BS elsewhere. you proved it yourself with your guardian article. and twitter is the biggest scam sh**, everybody with just a bit of a working brain knows that.

Spanish Eyes

tara73 wrote: »

you better go away and spew your BS elsewhere. you proved it yourself with your guardian article. and twitter is the biggest scam sh**, everybody with just a bit of a working brain knows that.

Did you read the extract of the Bill above?

Anyway you are so angry that you are now on my tiny ignore list. I don't do it lightly, but I have made an exception in your case. Lol

end of the road

beakerjoe wrote: »

Like its a pandemic, a huge turn out could have lead to a big spread and more deaths.

Those protestors or vigil attendees, should not have been there.

they shouldn't, but they were.
and instead of that being dealt with properly, we ended up with a complete train wreck of a response to it.

kippy

end of the road wrote: »

they shouldn't, but they were.
and instead of that being dealt with properly, we ended up with a complete train wreck of a response to it.

How do you know what the response was?

end of the road

kippy wrote: »

How do you know what the response was?

because it has been discussed a plenty today on british radio.
it has been across uk papers.
videos of it on social media no doubt.

kippy

end of the road wrote: »

because it has been discussed a plenty today on british radio.
it has been across uk papers.
videos of it on social media no doubt.

So what was the response, didn't hear or see the details of it myself.

Yamanoto

The narcissistic twits who couldn't stay away would be the same folks tweeting about the disproportionate Covid mortality rate among ethnic minorities and blaming it on 'The Man'.

beakerjoe

end of the road wrote: »

they shouldn't, but they were.
and instead of that being dealt with properly, we ended up with a complete train wreck of a response to it.

They were asked to leave repatedly. They ingored officers instructions. They disobeyed the law.

How would you have liked the officers to act when repeatedly ignored?

kippy

beakerjoe wrote: »

They were asked to leave repatedly. They ingored officers instructions. They disobeyed the law.

How would you have liked the officers to act when repeatedly ignored?

All end of the road sees is the result of the response, the pictures on social media, the commentary.
They have no idea what the actual response was.

wicklowstevo

end of the road wrote: »

they shouldn't, but they were.
and instead of that being dealt with properly, we ended up with a complete train wreck of a response to it.

please explain in detail how you would have dealt with the situation