Murdered by the police: This Site put out the infographic above after the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by Metropolitan Police officer Wayne Couzens. Now a damning report has confirmed that criminals and sexual predators are being allowed into police services across England and Wales. But are we seeing a change in attitude that means these creatures will no longer be protected?
Criminals and sexual predators who should never have been allowed through the vetting process are now acting as police officers in England and Wales, according to a damning report.
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) announced the finding after a review of eight police services in the wake of the abduction, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a Metropolitan Police officer.
Of 725 sample cases closely examined in the review, there were concerns about 131 officers cleared to serve in police forces – but the watchdog said the true total could be much higher.
The authors questioned 11,000 officers and staff – and of the women who responded, “an alarming number alleged appalling behaviour by male colleagues”, raising concerns about risks to people outside the police.
“Almost without exception, they’d been on the receiving end of behaviour which absolutely has no place in the modern workplace,” [Inspector of Constabulary and report author Matt Parr] added.
The report adds: “We found a culture where misogyny, sexism and predatory behaviour towards female police officers and staff and members of the public still exists.”
In the first part of this interview, Transport Secretary Mark Harper said every police force must review their recruitment and disciplinary process:
But the government is currently trying to recruit 20,000 new police officers – and has been since late 2019. Considering the difficulty it is having, can there be any faith that corners aren’t being cut and more “bad apples” are being allowed in?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Heavy-handed: after the Met Police said it would be illegal to stage a socially-distanced vigil under lockdown conditions, organised by Reclaim These Street, an impromptu event happened instead – leading to heavy criticism of the same force for the brutal way it was seen to put down protesters.
Decisions by the Metropolitan Police that discouraged organisers from holding a vigil for Sarah Everard were against the law, according to High Court judges.
Police statements that Covid-19 regulations at the time meant holding the vigil would be unlawful, and had a “chilling” effect, contributing to the decision to cancel the vigil (an impromptu event was then put down by police with what some have described as brutal force).
None of the force’s decisions was in accordance with the law; evidence showed that the force failed to perform its legal duty to consider whether the claimants might have a reasonable excuse for holding the gathering, or to conduct the fact-specific proportionality assessment required in order to perform that duty.
That’s a victory for justice. But the High Court had previously refused to declare that any ban on outdoor gatherings under the coronavirus regulations at the time was “subject to the right to protest” – or to declare that an alleged force policy of “prohibiting all protests, irrespective of the specific circumstances” was unlawful.
And Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services concluded the police “acted appropriately” when dealing with the event.
So this raises an obvious question:
Are the High Court and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary fit for purpose if they can’t make a simple ruling in favour of the law?
In a ruling today (March 11), Lord Justice Warby and Mr Justice Holgate found that the Metropolitan Police breached the rights of Jessica Leigh, Anna Birley, Henna Shah and Jamie Klingler to freedom of speech and assembly, and did not assess the potential risk to public health:
Reclaim These Streets (RTS) proposed a socially-distanced vigil for the 33-year-old, who was murdered by former Met officer Wayne Couzens, near to where she went missing in Clapham, south London, in March last year.
The four women who founded RTS and planned the vigil brought a legal challenge against the force over its handling of the event, which was also intended to be a protest about violence against women.
They withdrew from organising the vigil after being told by the force they would face fines of £10,000 each and possible prosecution if the event went ahead, and a spontaneous vigil and protest took place instead.
The policing of the spontaneous vigil that took place drew criticism from across the political spectrum after women were handcuffed on the ground and led away by officers.
Summarising the decision, Lord Justice Warby said:
“The relevant decisions of the (Met) were to make statements at meetings, in letters, and in a press statement, to the effect that the Covid-19 regulations in force at the time meant that holding the vigil would be unlawful.
“Those statements interfered with the claimants’ rights because each had a ‘chilling effect’ and made at least some causal contribution to the decision to cancel the vigil.
“None of the (force’s) decisions was in accordance with the law; the evidence showed that the (force) failed to perform its legal duty to consider whether the claimants might have a reasonable excuse for holding the gathering, or to conduct the fact-specific proportionality assessment required in order to perform that duty.”
If Lord Justice Warby and Mr Justice Holgate could see this evidence and act upon it, there’s no reason other High Court judges could not do the same – and certainly no reason Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary – which should specialise in the law as it applies to the police – couldn’t.
Why did they make the wrong call, then?
And what will be done to correct what are clearly faults in the attitude of the people who made the wrong decisions?
It costs a fortune to take a case to the High Court; these organisations have a duty to the public to get their decisions right first time.
Sadly, experience suggests to This Writer that the usual action will be taken: nothing at all.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Police: who knows how many more are like Wayne Couzens? But don’t worry! Bus drivers will keep us safe from them! … Does anybody else think there might be a problem with that logic?
Let’s get this straight:
The Metropolitan Police is telling us it won’t take steps to ensure that the people we employ to prevent and detect crime won’t actually commit crimes and/or hide the evidence.
Instead it wants women who don’t trust a male officer to “wave down a bus” and get help from the driver.
What if there aren’t any buses nearby?
What if the driver is also female?
What if the driver is arrested? Pepper-sprayed? Tasered? Who would see any passengers to their destinations?
Other advice urges women to run into a house. Full of strangers? That could lead to misunderstandings, at the very least. And if pursued by the police officer, events could get very messy, very quickly.
Alternatively, it is suggested that women could phone 999. But would a misbehaving police officer really let them?
What if the police officer is carrying out his duty? Then, the bus driver or householder, or whoever, would be open to prosecution for resisting arrest, or obstructing a police officer in the course of his duty, through no fault of their own.
Meanwhile the Met has announced absolutely no plans to change its own recruitment/vetting procedures in order to avoid employing individuals who represent a danger to others.
This is while the same police service is investigating 16 other serving officers who may have committed offences.
And that’s under the leadership of a woman whose own tenure at the top has been extended for two years by the woman in charge of the Home Office.
And what about officers in other forces?
I remember an incident many years ago, when I had a migraine late at night. Unable to sleep, I went out for a walk, thinking some fresh air might help me out. Inevitably, a police car passed by and two men got out.
“Excuse me! May we ask what you’re doing out at this time of night?”
“I’m trying to walk off a migraine.”
“May we ask who you are?”
“I’m the editor of the Brecon and Radnor Express.”
“Right you are. We’ll let you get on your way.”
What if I had been a woman – and not a senior employee of the local newspaper?
Well, I wonder. And I know that’s probably doing a disservice to the officers concerned.
The Couzens case has harmed perception of more than just Metropolitan police officers.
And it isn’t about to go away. Consider these responses to the latest idiocy from Cressida Dick’s office:
How have the police managed to get themselves into a situation where their line is: if a police officer tries to arrest you, run away?
That women are STILL being told to make 'appropriate' decisions in order to protect themselves from male violence rather than the focus being on said violence & the perpetrators of it hurts & angers me in equal measures, so, so much it's hard to express #EnoughIsEnough
— Prof Gayle Letherby 💙 #PeaceAndJustice (@gletherby) October 1, 2021
Absolutely appalling. For far too long women have been told to change their behaviour. It needs to stop. Male violence is the issue. That's what must be tackled. https://t.co/xmJqrAlm0Z
We are told from being girls, just as our mothers were before us, don’t walk home if it’s dark, don’t wear headphones, carry an attack alarm, question a police officer if they want to arrest you, flag down a bus driver to police the police… when can we end this madness?
Having been punched repeatedly by a female police officer at a protest after being wrongly told that what I was doing was an arrestable offence (it wasn't), may I suggest that "ladies learn the law!" and "more women cops!" aren't themselves solutions to police violence?
On ‘Black Friday’ 1910 peaceful women protestors were brutally & sexually assaulted for hours by officers.
‘ they clutched hold of my breasts …pulled up my skirt …threw me into the crowd & incited the men to treat me as they wished’ pic.twitter.com/1Wg2PCnN2y
Home Secretary Winston Churchill was believed by many, including Emmeline Pankhurst, to have officially authorised and encouraged the assaults.#SarahEverardpic.twitter.com/SBW8LiDU9R
It is more than 100 years since those events and even now – with a woman at the top of the Met and a woman running the Home Office, are we really being told that nobody can be bothered to put a stop to this?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Cressida Dick: “Lessons will be learned”. It’s a nice promise but we’ve heard it too many times before. She has had plenty of time to devise a plan for restoring trust and she should have laid it out – but she didn’t, and she hasn’t.
I called it right, didn’t I?
Here’s Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick’s statement after former officer Wayne Couzens was sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison for the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard. It’s more than five minutes long but you need to hear it before reading on:
Wayne Couzens has been sentenced to a whole-life prison term today for the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard.
📺 | Watch Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick's statement in full 🔽
Where was the contrition? This was a member of her organisation, who had been vetted and found fit to represent it despite numerous reports of behaviour that should have caused serious concern in the past. His nickname at the Civil Nuclear Constabulary was “The Rapist”, for crying out loud!
And where was the plan to make the police safe again and restore confidence? On its Twitter feed yesterday, the Met promised “we’ll comment further when hearing is complete”. Well, it is complete and all we’ve had from Commissioner Dick is the hackneyed old assurance that “lessons will be learned”.
And that’s what I called yesterday. I said
They’re likely to say that lessons have been learned – but nobody will act upon them.
I was right on the first part of that, and you can bet I’ll be right on the second.
Others certainly seem to think so. One of the earliest responses to Commissioner Dick’s statement came from a Twitter user who stated: “As a result of this case, I clearly need to advise my daughter how to act/respond to male police officers until such time it’s possible again to have any trust in your organisation.”
I’m willing to wager that’s the majority view.
The judge in the case said there was no evidence that the Met closed ranks to protect one of its officers…
… and I have no doubt that he was right. That is not the issue here.
The issue is the fact that we are seeing no effort to change the structural problems within the Metropolitan Police that allowed a man like Wayne Couzens to be put in a position where he could prey upon women.
Allow me to reiterate what I stated previously about the result of this case: women will be left in greater fear of violence against them than ever – not because of men, as some in politics and the media are signalling, but because of the police.
Cressida Dick had an opportunity to reassure us all that her organisation would take specific steps to restore trust. She has made a conscious decision not to.
Are we really going to just lie back and accept that?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Why are the UK’s news media avoiding any mention of the Metropolitan Police Service’s collusion in the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard?
Commissioner Cressida Dick was well aware of concerns about Wayne Couzens, long before he planned and executed his crimes against Ms Everard.
He had been nicknamed ‘The Rapist’ by colleagues at the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, which he joined in 2011, because he made some female colleagues feel uncomfortable, according to the Evening Standard.
The paper also reported that Kent Police took no action in 2015 after it was alleged that he had been seen driving around Dover, naked from the waist down.
And the Met – which he joined in 2018 – received further accusations of indecent exposure by Couzens on two further occasions. Neither of them were investigated properly in the days before he kidnapped, raped and murdered Ms Everard.
The BBC reported in July that the Independent Office for Police Conduct said a total of 12 gross misconduct or misconduct notices had so far been served on police officers from multiple forces in relation to the Couzens case, including about the handling of two separate claims that Couzens had indecently exposed himself.
And other recent cases show that police turning a blind eye to the crimes of fellow officers is at epidemic levels.
In this context, the Met put out a statement that its members were “sickened, angered and devastated” by Couzens’s crimes. Maybe they are – but is it only because he was caught?
“They betray everything we stand for,” the statement continues. But Met police officers betray everything they stand for on a daily basis.
Look at the Daniel Morgan case, in which the Met was found to be “institutionally corrupt” and Commissioner Dick herself was found to have obstructed access to vital information without reason.
And what punishment did she receive for this corrupt behaviour?
None. Instead she was rewarded for it with a two-year extension of her job.
Real people are disgusted…
Not sickened enough to prevent you from attacking the Sarah Everard vigil, and trampling their flowers into the ground, were you?
… but does that really matter when the media – and the politicians – are backing these corrupt cops to the hilt?
Look at Labour leader Keir Starmer. In his speech at the party conference – on the day we learned Couzens had abused his police powers to arrest Ms Everard before abducting, raping and murdering her – he used rape victims as a tool of emotional blackmail to push for more police powers.
I’ll hand you back to Another Angry Voice for an opinion more succinct than any I could add:
It was only last year that Keir Starmer forced his Labour MPs to abstain on legislation designed to allow undercover cops to get away with raping women!
Yet today he's pretending that he cares about rape victims.
The Met’s comment says staff recognise the concerns raised by Couzens’s actions and will comment further after he has been sentenced for his crimes – but I have no hope that anything useful will be said.
We’ll probably hear that new measures will be put in place to prevent such crimes in the future – that will not be enforced.
They’re likely to say that lessons have been learned – but nobody will act upon them.
The end result is that women will be left in greater fear of violence against them than ever – not because of men, as some in politics and the media are signalling, but because of the police.
You can bet the Met won’t do anything to change that.
If you want proof, all you have to do is wait for the reports of the next crimes committed by officers of the Metropolitan Police.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Cressida Dick: Platitudes outside a court must not save her from the consequences of her failure to root out corruption and crime among her officers.
How did a man who was nicknamed ‘The Rapist’ three years before joining the Metropolitan Police manage to pass its vetting process, let alone get into a position where he could kidnap, rape and murder Sarah Everard?
Those are the questions that should be forcing Met Commissioner Cressida Dick out of her job now, yet she seems secure in her post. For how long?
Wayne Couzens, who last week admitted raping and murdering Sarah Everard, was given the unsavoury nickname by colleagues at the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, which he joined in 2011, because he made some female colleagues feel uncomfortable, according to the Evening Standard.
The paper also reported that Kent Police took no action in 2015 after it was alleged that he had been seen driving around Dover, naked from the waist down.
And the Met – which he joined in 2018 – received further accusations of indecent exposure by Couzens on two further occasions. Neither of them were investigated properly in the days before he kidnapped, raped and murdered Ms Everard.
We’ve heard this story before: it isn’t such a long time since PC (yes, he’s still on the force) Oliver Banfield was convicted of assaulting a woman while she was walking home – just as Sarah Everard was when she was kidnapped, raped and murdered. His colleagues on the Warwickshire force had initially ignored the complaint and would have done nothing about it if the victim had not found CCTV footage that could be used as evidence.
The BBC has reported that the Independent Office for Police Conduct said a total of 12 gross misconduct or misconduct notices had so far been served on police officers from multiple forces in relation to the Couzens case, including about the handling of two separate claims that Couzens had indecently exposed himself; the Banfield case wasn’t a single instance of police turning a blind eye to the crimes of fellow officers – it is an epidemic.
Ms Everard’s murder sparked a wave of protest across the UK that was put down mercilessly by police forces – most notably the Met and Avon and Somerset Constabulary. An independent Parliamentary committee has found that both forces breached the fundamental rights of protesters but neither has accepted the finding and nothing will be done to improve procedures.
Indeed, women across the UK have cause to be even more concerned that the Tory government is bringing in a law to reform criminal investigations and justice – that will put women like Sarah Everard in even more danger.
Two-faced Cressida Dick, who presided over the Met Police throughout, and who supported police in their despicable mishandling of the Sarah Everard vigil, hypocritically voiced platitudes of regret over the murder and anger over the crimes of her now-former officer after attending court.
She said she felt “sickened, angered and devastated” by the crimes: “They are dreadful and everyone in policing feels betrayed.
“Sarah was a fantastic, talented young woman with her whole life ahead of her and that has been snatched away.”
But that hasn’t saved her from the court of public opinion:
I think that if a serving Met Police officer Wayne Couzens was known as 'The Rapist' by his colleagues, and then went on to commit the horrific murder of Sarah Everard, then Cressida Dick's position is now untenable. She's been far from faultless in other areas.
Since Sarah Everard was abducted 52 women have been killed where a man is the principal suspect, according to @K_IngalaSmith's Counting Dead Women. At least 83 women are suspected to have been killed by men since the start of 2021 https://t.co/sAPmDF2ZLT#femicide
It seems strange that Cressida Dick now expresses sadness, anger and regret at the sickening murder of Sarah Everard but only a few weeks ago when her officers behaved appallingly at the Vigil for Sarah Everard, she defended their behaviour unreservedly
This Writer is willing to suggest that public confidence in the Met – and in policing in general – has never fallen so low (although it will fall further if the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is allowed to become law in its current form).
Dick has presided over a quantum plunge in the reputation of the police, ignoring one scandal after another and allowing her force to become a cesspit of corruption and crime.
Meanwhile, the successful investigation of crimes against the public has suffered. How can it not? We can’t trust the police to do their job and we’re living in fear that they will commit crimes against us themselves.
It is a poisonous situation and Cressida Dick has done much to create it.
How long are we going to allow her to continue worsening it?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Clapham Common: police ‘failed to understand their legal duties in respect of protest’. That seems accurate – don’t you think?
Has the UK’s principle news outlet – the BBC – reported this in any way at all?
The report speaks for itself:
Police breached “fundamental rights” in their handling of the Sarah Everard vigil in London and Kill the Bill protests in Bristol, a parliamentary inquiry has found.
The Metropolitan Police and the Avon and Somerset force committed “multiple failings” in their response to the two events, according to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Democracy and the Constitution (APPGDC).
Their report claims that both forces wrongly applied coronavirus lockdown laws and “failed to understand their legal duties in respect of protest”.
It also suggested that officers taking action against protesters – as opposed to engaging with them before the event – “may have increased the risk of COVID-19 transmission” at the Sarah Everard Vigil in Clapham, southwest London.
Officers in Bristol “failed to distinguish between those protesting peacefully and those engaging in acts of violence”, which resulted in “excessive force” being used, it added.
Both police forces mentioned in the report have rejected its findings, meaning nothing will be done to improve policing.
It comes just days before Boris Johnson and Priti Patel’s draconian Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill returns to the Commons with its proposals to make protest events like those on Clapham Common and in Bristol almost entirely illegal.
The findings have led to proposed amendments to the Bill, including abandoning some of the new proposed powers – as they are “unnecessary” and have placed police in an “unfair position” – and suggesting a special code on how to police protests.
The inquiry’s chairman, Labour MP Geraint Davies, said: “The police must not become the enforcement agency of the state against those who choose to publicly and collectively call for change – political, economic, social or environmental.
“Parliament must protect our freedoms and reject attempts to increase police power and restrict our right to peaceful protest.”
And yet the news media are strangely unwilling to report on this.
If the public don’t know about it, they can’t support the proposed changes, or the criticism of the police forces, meaning they can carrying on doing exactly whatever they want, and Johnson will be able to curtail our freedoms in any way he pleases.
Are you happy for that to happen?
If so, then you don’t have to do anything. Just sit back and let him strip you of your rights and freedoms. It will hurt – but not until you have a reason to complain and then find out that you aren’t allowed to.
If not, then it’s time to stand up for yourself. You can start by simply making sure all your friends see this article. Or is even that too much because you’re worried about what they’ll say?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
This casts a huge shadow over the UK’s police services – not only because of the crimes admitted by PC Wayne Couzens but because of the way police across the country tried to suppress public protest.
Couzens, of Deal, has admitted kidnapping and raping Sarah Everard in a hearing at the Old Bailey (although he appeared by video link from Belmarsh Prison).
He also accepted responsibility for her death but did not enter a plea on the charge of murder.
Ms Everard, 33, went missing while walking home in Clapham, south London, on March 3. She was reported missing by her boyfriend on March 4 and her body was discovered hidden in an area of woodland near Ashford, Kent, on March 10.
Couzens…
pleaded guilty to kidnapping Ms Everard “unlawfully and by force or fraud” on 3 March.
He also pleaded guilty to a second charge of rape between 2 and 10 March.
So now we know that the man who murdered Ms Everard was indeed a police officer.
This fact raises serious questions about the trust we place in our police services – as does the way police across the UK handled the public reaction to this crime.
Remember the Clapham Common vigil that police officers deliberately escalated into a full-on confrontation? They kettled peaceful attendees – most, or all, of whom were women – provoked a violent confrontation and arrested them when they protested.
They were transmitting a very clear message to all of us:
Women in the United Kingdom should fear the police. Officers are able to kidnap, rape and murder them and when this causes protest, the protesters will be arrested.
That is what the police service now represents, and while the Conservative government may not be said to be directly responsible for the criminal behaviour of these uniformed thugs, it is certainly clear that the politicians in charge have done nothing to prevent it and everything to suppress protest against it.
It stated that the force “was justified in adopting the view that the risks of transmitting COVID-19 at the vigil were too great to ignore” and that it was therefore perfectly reasonable for burly uniformed policemen to inflict violence on defenceless women.
On March 14, a further public event – this time a protest demonstration against the policing of the Sarah Everard vigil – attracted a much more low-key police response but even then the officers attending could not hide their priorities.
They clustered around a statue of Winston Churchill that they had (allegedly) been told to protect “at any cost”:
Police have come back into the crowd to stand around the Winston Churchill statue. Heard from a legal observer that a commanding officer told his colleagues “protect Churchill at all costs”. Chants of “protect women not statues”. pic.twitter.com/WJlVr18sfK
We were told that it was believed the “inappropriate graphic” contained offensive comments about her death.
The family of Ms Everard were informed of the incident but we were not told whether they had received the grovelling apology that they deserved.
The incident also served as a reminder that only last year, two policemen caused a scandal when it was revealed that they had taken selfies of themselves with the bodies of two murdered women and shared them on WhatsApp.
While we were all told at the time that “lessons have been learned” it became crystal clear that this was not true and that all women could be sure of getting from the police was contempt.
Four days later – March 20 – a serving police officer who assaulted a woman while she was walking home late at night (a direct parallel with what happened to Sarah Everard) using police techniques walked free after magistrates let him off with a fine and a curfew. He was excused community service because his lawyer said it would be hard for him to work with criminals, even though he is now a criminal himself.
The first thing Warwickshire police had done on receiving the victim’s complaint was to ignore it.
The victim then had to undergo an uphill struggle to get that police service to take her seriously, and it is unlikely that she would have had any justice at all if she had not been able to find CCTV footage of the assault.
It showed that Oliver Banfield, 25, hurled a stream of misogynistic abuse at Emma Holmer, 11 years his senior, as he tried to employ techniques he learned from police training to drag her to the ground and put her in a headlock.
I stated at the time: “Apparently this has been described as an ‘unlawful arrest’. I’m sure you can think of a much better description for what is clearly a hate attack against a woman.
“And let’s remind ourselves that Sarah Everard was ‘just walking home’ (the words have been used as a slogan ever since the incident) when she was attacked” by another serving policeman.
I added: “Two incidents cannot suggest that such behaviour is epidemic in the UK’s police. But they are enough to instil fear in every woman who has to walk home in the dark because they know they cannot automatically rely on the police to keep them safe.
“When a trust is betrayed, it can be extremely difficult to win back. Sometimes it is impossible. It seems clear that the police – and the justice system – isn’t even bothering to try.”
It is clear that we can no longer trust the police to uphold the law and protect us against crime. That contract has been broken by the police themselves.
Today, the police are able to commit crimes against us with impunity, with protests silenced by heavy-handed colleagues and suppression by both individual police services and the government, and their actions whitewashed by so-called watchdogs.
This cannot be allowed to continue.
This corruption must be purged. But how can it be done when nobody who is in a position to do it can be trusted to?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Is anybody surprised that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) has cleared the Metropolitan Police of any inappropriate behaviour at the Clapham Common vigil for Sarah Everard?
The review said the force “was justified in adopting the view that the risks of transmitting COVID-19 at the vigil were too great to ignore”.
So that made it reasonable to kettle these people – crowd them into an ever-smaller space, making those risks much greater, did it?
That made it reasonable to arrest these people, did it? Were they crammed like sardines in police vans? Were they crammed like sardines into cells?
Forcing people into close contact with each other seems an extremely odd way to combat a disease that is spread by close contact – especially people who had been very recently injured.
The review said “officers remained calm and professional when subjected to abuse” and “did not act inappropriately or in a heavy handed manner”.
So this wasn’t heavy-handed?
How about this?
Clashes broke out between police and crowds gathering on Clapham Common.
The Metropolitan Police is facing criticism for its handling of the vigil in memory of Sarah Everard.
#BREAKING: Several people arrested at Sarah Everard vigil in Clapham Common, south London; police say vigil is violating coronavirus-related restrictions pic.twitter.com/5lTmiMWmDV
Like many others, I notice that there was no problem with the Duchess of Cambridge attending the event that Met Police Commissioner Cressida Dick branded illegal.
Why wasn’t Kate Middleton attacked with a baton and bundled into a White Maria?
Ah, but she attended during daylight. The police didn’t move in and start hurting people until after dark. Now, why was that, do you think?
The report by Sky News makes it clear that the atmosphere did not turn hostile until the police started kettling people. Oh, the cops were telling people to leave, were they? How could they do that when the uniforms were cutting off their ability to go?
The bandstand was soon almost surrounded by officers and the atmosphere started to become more hostile. It was at this point that a number of women appeared to be shoved and people starting shouting at the police.
It seems clear to me that HM Inspectorate of Constabulary came to the conclusion it usually reaches – that the police can do no wrong.
How many attendees at the event were consulted during this review?
None, I’m betting.
No wonder the result was one-sided.
Let’s have a proper, public inquiry – then we’ll hear some uncomfortable facts (but of course, that will never happen).
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Police: we’re learning that the behaviour of our supposedly upstanding law guardians is actually vile.
It is time the people of Britain accepted that contempt is the best we can expect from police officers, whether we are alive or dead.
Only last year, two policemen caused a scandal when it was revealed that they had taken selfies of themselves with the bodies of two murdered women and shared them on WhatsApp.
The usual platitudes about “learning the lessons” were bandied about amidst the furore but it is clear that no lessons were learned at all, because –
and let’s bear in mind that this is amid a huge scandal over allegations that a policeman kidnapped and murdered Sarah Everard, and policemen brutally attacked women who were trying to hold a peaceful vigil for her –
A Metropolitan Police officer guarding the scene where Sarah Everard’s body was found has allegedly shared an “inappropriate” message about her death with colleagues on WhatsApp.
It is believed the “inappropriate graphic” contained offensive comments about her death.
The graphic does not contain photographic images, no images of Sarah, nor any other material obtained from or related to the investigation into Sarah’s murder, the Met confirmed.
Sarah’s family have been made aware of the incident.
“Made aware”? When will they receive the grovelling apology they deserve?
My bet is that they will never receive any recompense from the Met or the Home Secretary who issues the orders – Priti Patel.
It seems clear that she expects citizens of the UK to buckle down and accept that, since December 2019 at least, police have been allowed to treat the rest of us with contempt.
No lessons were learned from last year’s incident because nobody in power cares. The officers of the Metropolitan Police don’t care. Their commissioner, Cressida Dick, certainly doesn’t care – and we shouldn’t be fooled by her crocodile tears. And Priti Patel doesn’t care about anybody but herself as we all know.
In contrast, Patel has already promised to clamp down on people who – justifiably, some might say – brandished anti-police signs at the Clapham Common vigil on Saturday, that the police attacked so brutally.
This Writer is ashamed to admit that the signs were brought to Patel’s attention by Fay Jones, Tory MP for my constituency, Brecon and Radnorshire.
It seems she claimed the peaceful vigil “turned into a protest with photographs showing ‘ACAB’ signs, which stands for ‘all cops are bastards’”. Was she there, then? If so, why wasn’t she handling affairs in her own constituency, where she was supposed to be?
The public response to this, I think, can be summed up with the following tweet:
Patel’s problem is that she doesn’t understand that respect must be earned. People don’t automatically deserve it, just because they’ve managed to engineer themselves into cushy jobs.
The Met officers against whom the ACAB signs were directed clearly deserved the criticism, in This Writer’s opinion. The behaviour of the police at Clapham Common fell far below the standard expected by the British people.
And in taking the side of those brutal cops, Patel’s behaviour fell well below the expected standard too (although her behaviour has been well below the expected standard since she first became a member of Parliament).
Possibly worst of all is the fact that scandals like the Everard-related WhatsApp message will push the few decent police officers out of their respective forces.
Yes, I’ve known a few. As a newspaper reporter in Bristol and in Mid Wales, I came into frequent contact with the police and some were good people who genuinely wanted to be of service to the community.
Many weren’t, though – and because of this, and the attitude of Dick and Patel, more won’t be in the future.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
