Murder of Sarah Everard

[RandBlade]

Tragic and sickening story in the UK at the moment about the murder of a young woman, Sarah Everard. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56367223

She was abducted and kidnapped off the streets of London by a stranger, a stereotype that thankfully is pretty rare and shocking enough. 'Human remains' were subsequently found in Kent.

To make it even worse the arrested suspect is a serving Metropolitan Police Officer from the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Command (working in Parliament etc) who allegedly was off duty and used his warrant card to convince her to approach his car before he kidnapped her.

The Police Officer has also been charged with indecent exposure as well as murder. This apparently refers to an incident a fortnight ago, prior to the abduction and murder which leaves major questions to answer as to how this Officer was still a serving officer with his warrant card.

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

This story just gets more and more horrible and shocking. Truly tragic.

EDIT: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ecent-exposure

The Met got the report of indecent exposure on 28/2 ... then poor Sarah got abducted on 3/3. This is truly shocking and terrible . The 'human remains' are in such a poor condition that they're going to take some time to identify it is her body, so something terrible has been done to the body too, that's not a week's exposure to have done that.

EDIT2: The arrested Police Officer has now been named and has been taken to hospital with head injuries sustained in custody. Self inflicted or an 'accident' by his colleagues?

[RandBlade]

Women mourning Everard an attending a vigil were harrassed and attacked last night by the Met Police for "breaking Covid regulations".

Seriously WTF !?

Horrific images online. Despite the fact that protests and rallies have been taking place during Covid including BLM protests and others - and the High Court ruled in advance of the vigil that protests are not necessarily illegal during Covid and the Police response must be proportionate.

No idea WTF the Met were thinking. Wouldn't surprise me if Cressida Dick has to resign over this, she should and should never have been in the job, she's got a long history of failure including noticeably the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes.

[Timbuk2]

Not handled well in the first instance by the Met - allowing the vigil to proceed, then doing a complete U-turn and not allowing it. Put people in a combative frame of mind from the off.

However, from that point on the vigil was illegal. Current Covid restrictions are legally-binding, no gatherings outdoors are allowed. The police either enforce the law, or they do not.

[RandBlade]

Although the law hasn't been enforced like that before now and the High Court had already ruled that protests are not necessarily unlawful and that the Police response needs to be proportionate.

Breaking up a non-violent vigil with force is not proportional.

[Timbuk2]

Breaking up a non-violent vigil with force is not proportional.

Agreed. The pictures across the media paint a poor picture.

I did speculate to my wife; since this was largely a coming together of women to protest violence at the hands of men in memory of Sarah Everard's murder, and the photos splashed across media are of policemen restraining those protesting women, what would the response have been if the Met had sent only PCWs to break up the vigil.

[RandBlade]

A more proportional response would have been to send PCWs to Police the vigil. Stand back, encourage distancing, ensure no violence. Not go rushing in to break up people who are angry and mourning with force.

[Flixy]

Not handled well in the first instance by the Met - allowing the vigil to proceed, then doing a complete U-turn and not allowing it. Put people in a combative frame of mind from the off.

However, from that point on the vigil was illegal. Current Covid restrictions are legally-binding, no gatherings outdoors are allowed. The police either enforce the law, or they do not.

Over here, if I'm not mistaken, public gathering for protests/ demonstrations are specifically not banned because of free speech, as long as people keep distances.

[Flixy]

https://www.businessinsider.com/bori...noyance-2021-3

That seems poorly timed. What's 'serious annoyance' anyway?

[gogobongopop]

https://www.businessinsider.com/bori...noyance-2021-3

That seems poorly timed. What's 'serious annoyance' anyway?

It seems like a horrible bit of legislation. We'll no longer be able to protest if we annoy someone or make "too much" noise.

Tell me one protest, ever, that hasn't seriously annoyed at least one person.

I imagine it's been thrown in there to make it easier to arrest Extinction Rebellion; but as I understand it existing laws already protect us from protesters causing significant disruption to the public.

I can understand the Tories pushing this through; because Priti Patel is a vacant death penalty supporting simpleton, and I doubt Boris had any idea what was in it or what any of it meant and now it's too late to admit it's a bad idea, but I'm perhaps most pissed off with Labor. Up until the weekend they were going to abstain on this bill. Then cue the Sarah Everard vigil that went to shit, Twitter exploded in rage, and all of a sudden they changed their position and voted against. Completely lacking in principles.

I'm far from an expert on legislation, but it does seem incredibly vague, subjective and badly worded. It coudl well be a massive infringement on our right to protest.

Over the last few days I've seen lots of Tories defending this bill, but not that particular clause. IDS admitted it was problematic, but overall the bill contained some good things so who gives a fuck. It's clear they don't like it but obviously can't vote against because, well, it's a Boris Johnson government and it's loyalty over principles. Vote against and that's the end of you.

Hopefully the Lords will do the right thing.

[RandBlade]

Overall the Bill seems sensible but I do not approve of that element.

However there are multiple opportunities to amend the Bill from here so "who gives a fuck" is not how the Parliamentary Process works. The vote yesterday was Second Reading which means accepting the general principles of the Bill before it gets scrutinised and amended. Its possible to be amended in the Commons before it even gets Third Reading and goes to the Lords, let alone the opportunity for the Lords to amend it and send for scrutiny back to the Commons. If you accept the general principles but have a problem with one element the proper procedure is to vote Aye at Second Reading, then vote for an amendment to it. This is why Oppositions sometimes abstain or vote Aye at Second Reading, then vote No at Third Reading, because they didn't get their amendments through.

Voting No at Second Reading throws the entire package out without opportunity to amend it.

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

[RandBlade]

I remember that story, from a few years ago. Horrible.

[Aimless]

I think we can put this matter to rest now. It's been properly investigated and the police did nothing wrong.

[RandBlade]

Fair enough, that surprises me. My gut said the opposite.

Goes to show images can be misleading.

Also goes to show the massive difference between UK and USA cops. Here police were attacked for enforcing Covid laws, there for routinely killing people. I'm definitely glad we have the law drawn where we do in this nation.

[Steely Glint]

Twitter Link

Background for non-UK Folks: We now know that Sarah Everard's murderer kidnapped her by claiming he was arresting her for 'covid violations', flashing his warrant card, then forcing her into his car. The response by the police to this revelation has astonishingly, perhaps even intentionally, obtuse, but this muppet is taking it to a whole new level.

[Hazir]

He's right, but in such a high grade know-it-all way, that you have to wonder if he has the people skills needed to be an effective leader.

[Steely Glint]

He's not right, resisting in that way is a good way to end up handcuffed, face down on the pavement with a knee in your back, and that's when the officer isn't set on murdering you.

[LittleFuzzy]

You're right, Steely, but so is Hazir. Hazir is correct with cases where the officer is set on murdering you. A disagreement and even an ensuing confrontation can garner attention and someone who is bent on knowingly doing something unlawful may end up balking and moving on which is way better than what will happen if you quietly comply And in the more run of the mill situations where you're dealing with officers who are just ignorant, petty, or bullying you're correct and even a tiny confrontation on the matter is going to be much worse for you than peacable if reluctant compliance. Unfortunately there's no way to know which situation is actually the case when you're better informed about your rights and the law than the officer is. In the US, where the cops trying to lawfully pursue their duties seem to engage with reckless force all too often compliance is statistically still probably the better option because you'll be just as dead at their hands as from someone more malevolent. I'm not sure how the compared odds stack up in other countries though. It seems certain that the odds of an unpleasant outcome are still higher with non-compliance but I'm hopeful that the severity of the unpleasantness will be much lower.

[Aimless]

The coverage of the ruling has sparked a wave of testimonials on social media, from women who were betrayed by police when they tried to report sexual assault. Dismissed or outright coerced to withdraw the complaint, frequently with no records of the interaction or the complaint. Especially disturbing are the accounts from women who were harrassed by fucked-up cops.

[Steely Glint]

A disagreement and even an ensuing confrontation can garner attention and someone who is bent on knowingly doing something unlawful may end up balking and moving on which is way better than what will happen if you quietly comply

There actually was a witness who saw Sarah Everard being abducted, but they just seemed to have assumed it was a normal arrest, no reason to think there would have been a different reaction if Everard had been uncooperative. Anyone who tried to intervene would just have had his warrant card flashed at them, if they'd tried to report it to the other police they'd just have been told that, yes, he's a legitimate policeman. Likewise detaining someone who is being difficult it something the police a trained to do, and would have been well within his psychological comfort zone, so to speak. Reality is, she was dead from the moment he decided to target her and nothing anyone could have realistically have done could have stopped it.

However, her death could have been prevented had the Met decided to actually act on any of the three incidents of indecent exposure which we know they knew about, or whatever other troubling behaviour lead him to other police officers to refer to him as, quote, 'the rapist', which is why statements are so offensive and clueless: they offer women this bullshit non-advice, like 'if i had been sarah everard i would simply have refused to let the policeman abduct and murder me', while they themselves have this culture of constantly lying and covering for each other when they misuse their power, which simultaneously means they give free reign officers who are the very danger they're trying to tell women how to avoid, and also means that the advice they're giving out is dangerous to actually try and put into practice. It's like an angry, violent drunk saying "if I go to far, just tell me to stop".

[LittleFuzzy]

There actually was a witness who saw Sarah Everard being abducted, but they just seemed to have assumed it was a normal arrest, no reason to think there would have been a different reaction if Everard had been uncooperative.

Note, I did say may, and further pointed out that with those bent on unlawful intent, trying isn't going to leave you worse off than complying anyway.

[Hazir]

Note, I did say may, and further pointed out that with those bent on unlawful intent, trying isn't going to leave you worse off than complying anyway.

Indeed. I also didn't agree with the commissioner. One does not have to to see that technically he's right.

Given that the UK is not the USA I could go a bit further than LF when I consider chances of survival. Unless of course in the UK putting on a uniform would exempt you from scrutiny by the actual public (as in people around). I think here in Amsterdam a policeman trying to abduct a person who knows he/she didn't do anything wrong could actually find members of the public in his way. You'd have to be visibly under the influence of a substance to be stripped of that kind of protection.

I'm about as law abiding as it gets, but I'll be damned if I start following orders of some person in a uniform who's violating my rights. If I am not breaking the law or any specific general order wrt security a policeman has no powers over me.