Sarah Everard alleged murder by a Police Officer

[WBarnes]

For those unfamiliar.

Sarah Everard: 33-year-old's body found in large bag, court hears as police officer remanded into custody

Sarah Everard vanished while walking home from her friend's house - police officer Wayne Couzens has been charged with murder.

news.sky.com

Protestors letting their feelings be known on the issue.

 

[Matski]

#KilltheBill refers to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill the government is pushing through which seeks to give the police greater power to clamp down on protests and protesting in the UK, in case any one is wondering.

 

[David Brent]

Several issues with this post.

1) The thread title should be changed asap. The police officer has only been CHARGED with the murder of Sarah Everard. As he has not stood trial yet, never mind been found guilty, it is libelous and is also in contempt of court. A mod should change the title if they know what's good for the forum. I mean, how difficult is it to post factually correct information?

2) "Kill The Bill" refers to the current attempts by the Conservative governent to pass the "Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill" through parliament. Amongst many things it proposes sentances for up to ten years for "causing a nuisance". Anybody who is not horrified by some the proposals either favours a dictatorship-style state, or hasn't understood the implications of the bill.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The usual attention to detail I'd expect from this member. Reads a headline or looks at a photo, and then doesn't get bogged down in detail by actually understanding what he's read.

 

[David Brent]

A reminder:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Matski]

Effectively, if a person puts another person at risk of annoyance or inconvenience, they can face up to 10 years in prison.

Good ol' Tories. Closing the avenues of opposition for the people.

 

[WBarnes]

It's already been published that he exposed himself in a restaurant. It'll be interesting to see whether they chase down if any other complaints that were made against this guy and how they were handled.

Sarah Everard suspect ‘exposed himself in restaurant’

The Met Police officer arrested on suspicion of murder is accused of ‘flashing’ in fast food outlet in south London at the end of February

www.telegraph.co.uk

Sarah Everard suspect: Met faces inquiry over indecent exposure claim

Force facing investigation into handling of incident days before woman’s disappearance

www.theguardian.com

 

[WBarnes]

The usual attention to detail I'd expect from this member. Reads a headline or looks at a photo, and then doesn't get bogged down in detail by actually understanding what he's read.

Says the guy who posts every single thing he finds on twitter that he agrees with.

 

[chonkoa]

Effectively, if a person puts another person at risk of annoyance or inconvenience, they can face up to 10 years in prison.

Good ol' Tories. Closing the avenues of opposition for the people.

That doesn't make sense. That is a very silly law if passed. I hope the Senate/House of Lords (Upper house) will not rubber stamp it.

 

[WBarnes]

How can 'serious annoyance' seriously be put in a law. That just basically gives police and CPS freedom to stick anyone in prison for 10 years based on an arbitrary decision of what the like and don't like. Raising a bill like this during a pandemic is also highly sinister given current restrictions on protest.

Annoyance?

A barking dog, feeding pigeons (although I wouldn't mind that being banned personally), lime green cars, 3 spoke alloys, mopeds..... The government needs to stop taking recommendations on legislation from the police. They will only recommend things that make their job easier and not things that make any sense.

 

[Matski]

Says the guy who posts every single thing he finds on twitter that he agrees with.

You made a clear and distinct choice to post an image that does not represent the subject of the thread you posted. To say this thread was on thin ice from the first post would be an understatement.

From my personal point of view, it appears that you want to impress upon the forum that women want to kill members of the police force. Maybe I'm wrong.

That is a very silly law if passed. I hope the Senate/House of Lords (Upper house) will not rubber stamp it.

They can propose amendments, they cannot kick it out entirely.

How can 'serious annoyance' seriously be put in a law. That just basically gives police and CPS freedom to stick anyone in prison for 10 years based on an arbitrary decision of what the like and don't like.

Imagine for a moment a Labour government got in. Imagine for a moment they wanted to rejoin the EU without a referendum. Imagine you took to the streets to demonstrate against this action, and imagine you were imprisoned for it.

We already have laws that criminalise certain behaviour. This proposed law does not protect the people, it protects the government.

 

[SCOTT27]

Ah I read that the family were quite rightly upset that the vigil was highjacked by the usual Marxist Champagne socialists, bourgeois and expected leftwaffe.

 

[Matski]

the vigil was highjacked by the usual Marxist Champagne socialists, bourgeois and expected leftwaffe

It was Hijacked by anti-lockdown protests, from what I've heard. You can position that group however you like in relation to your own political ideals... I suspect "leftwaffe" is anything left of the far right in this case.

 

[David Brent]

Says the guy who posts every single thing he finds on twitter that he agrees with.

Not just agrees with, but cruicially understands too.

You can't even manage a factually correct and non-libelous thread title, nevermind a photo without getting the wrong end of the stick.

That doesn't make sense. That is a very silly law if passed. I hope the Senate/House of Lords (Upper house) will not rubber stamp it.

They're not in a position to. And even if they were, because the House of Lords are unelected (yes, they're unelected bureaucrats), there's an unwritten rule that they don't interfere too much with the House of Commons.

How can 'serious annoyance' seriously be put in a law. That just basically gives police and CPS freedom to stick anyone in prison for 10 years based on an arbitrary decision of what the like and don't like. Raising a bill like this during a pandemic is also highly sinister given current restrictions on protest.

Annoyance?

A barking dog, feeding pigeons (although I wouldn't mind that being banned personally), lime green cars, 3 spoke alloys, mopeds..... The government needs to stop taking recommendations on legislation from the police. They will only recommend things that make their job easier and not things that make any sense.

You seem surprised. This is what you can expect from the Tory government with a big majority. If this was China we'd be mocking them and looking down our noses at them. You can expect more of this from a government who increasingly think they're untouchable. It was only a few months ago when the Home Secretary was found to have been a bully to staff after an official investigation. Boris Johnson's response? To ignore the report and do nothing about it, prompting the reports author, Sir Alex Allen, to resign. Last week, £340,000 of public money was paid to the victim of the bullying in an out of court settlement. For anybody else, this would mean losing your job. Not Pritti Patel.

Ah I read that the family were quite rightly upset that the vigil was highjacked by the usual Marxist Champagne socialists, bourgeois and expected leftwaffe.

You really need to change your news sources.

 

[Bucketslash11]

Ah I read that the family were quite rightly upset that the vigil was highjacked by the usual Marxist Champagne socialists, bourgeois and expected leftwaffe.

well that was a whole lot of buzzwords for a sentence that says essentially nothing

 

[WBarnes]

Not just agrees with, but cruicially understands too.

You can't even manage a factually correct and non-libelous thread title, nevermind a photo without getting the wrong end of the stick.

I'm very confident that I won't be sued in this instance. When the police have been forced to arrest and charge one of their own I know where my money is. The real question will be how many complaints this guy has had against him previously and whether the police followed regulations, whether the matters were handed to the IOPC or dealt with internally in breach of the regulations, and whether porkies were told about the location of police vehicles during the handling of said complaints etc.

You seem surprised. This is what you can expect from the Tory government with a big majority. If this was China we'd be mocking them and looking down our noses at them. You can expect more of this from a government who increasingly think they're untouchable.

Stop and search was brought in under Labour, so I would argue that this is what happens when you take recommendations on legislation from the police force seriously.

 

[WBarnes]

well that was a whole lot of buzzwords for a sentence that says essentially nothing

I think it's a general sentiment about how every valid protest gets hijacked by anarchist lunatics these days, who just see it as an opportunity for mayhem. That said, it is a valid protest for many reasons.

 

[WBarnes]

You made a clear and distinct choice to post an image that does not represent the subject of the thread you posted. To say this thread was on thin ice from the first post would be an understatement.

From my personal point of view, it appears that you want to impress upon the forum that women want to kill members of the police force. Maybe I'm wrong.

The protest is a mixed protest if you look at all the banners. The handling of protestors is what relates to the large banner.

Imagine for a moment a Labour government got in. Imagine for a moment they wanted to rejoin the EU without a referendum. Imagine you took to the streets to demonstrate against this action, and imagine you were imprisoned for it.

We already have laws that criminalise certain behaviour. This proposed law does not protect the people, it protects the government.

Well I agree there, it's a bill that's all about order and no law other than what we say it is for the police. That said, Labour did sign the Lisbon Treaty with no referendum in much the same silent way that this bill was smuggled into parliament.

 

[David Brent]

I'm very confident that I won't be sued in this instance. When the police have been forced to arrest and charge one of their own I know where my money is.

It doesn't matter WHAT you think. You could have somone stood over a body on live television, knife in hand, shouting "I murdered this man". Until they've stood trial and been found guilty, they're not a convicted murderer.

Stop and search was brought in under Labour, so I would argue that this is what happens when you take recommendations on legislation from the police force seriously.

That said, Labour did sign the Lisbon Treaty with no referendum in much the same silent way that this bill was smuggled into parliament.

Labour haven't been in power for nearly eleven years. Why don't you stop your whataboutery and actually hold the government who've been in power since 2010 to account?

I think it's a general sentiment about how every valid protest gets hijacked by anarchist lunatics these days, who just see it as an opportunity for mayhem. That said, it is a valid protest for many reasons.

For every large group of people, whether it be a protest, a football crowd, or whatever, you're going to get an extreme element at the fringes. The level of significance one places on that fringe element depends largely on one's own agenda and bias. @SCOTT27 chose to make it about "the left" (as he has chosen to do constantly over the last few years if you look at his posting history), when that was far from the reality if you look at a broader spectrum of news sources. The story of the vigil in Clapham was one overwhelmingly of a heavy-handed Metropolitan Police force breaking up a group of peaceful people wanting to hold a vigil for a murdered woman. Yes they were breaking COVID restrictions, but it's quite clear the police didn't think it through and completely misread the room. It wasn't a good look for them at all, especially when other police forces have chosen to let people get away with breaking rules on large gatherings, such as with Glasgow Rangers supporters last week.

If anybody chooses to make it about "Marxist Champagne socialists, bourgeois and expected leftwaffe", it says more about THEM than anything.

 

[KiwiRob]

What the U.K. needs is electoral reform, it’s ridiculous that the party who won 43.6% of the vote won 56% of the seats. FPP is an outdated and unacceptable form of voting, happily we gave it the boot in NZ many years ago. MMP or mixed member proportional is a far better and more democratic system.

 

[WBarnes]

It doesn't matter WHAT you think. You could have somone stood over a body on live television, knife in hand, shouting "I murdered this man". Until they've stood trial and been found guilty, they're not a convicted murderer.

Well I'll place a bet.

Labour haven't been in power for nearly eleven years. Why don't you stop your whataboutery and actually hold the government who've been in power since 2010 to account?

I think I made my statements about the bill very obvious, but the fact is that daft shit like this has likely been suggested by the police force, who are unelected, so the party won't matter.

For every large group of people, whether it be a protest, a football crowd, or whatever, you're going to get an extreme element at the fringes. The level of significance one places on that fringe element depends largely on one's own agenda and bias. @SCOTT27 chose to make it about "the left" (as he has chosen to do constantly over the last few years if you look at his posting history), when that was far from the reality if you look at a broader spectrum of news sources. The story of the vigil in Clapham was one overwhelmingly of a heavy-handed Metropolitan Police force breaking up a group of peaceful people wanting to hold a vigil for a murdered woman. Yes they were breaking COVID restrictions, but it's quite clear the police didn't think it through and completely misread the room. It wasn't a good look for them at all, especially when other police forces have chosen to let people get away with breaking rules on large gatherings, such as with Glasgow Rangers supporters last week.

If anybody chooses to make it about "Marxist Champagne socialists, bourgeois and expected leftwaffe", it says more about THEM than anything.

Well I agree with most of that, although I'm not going to check someone's posting history.

What the U.K. needs is electoral reform, it’s ridiculous that the party who won 43.6% of the vote won 56% of the seats. FPP is an outdated and unacceptable form of voting, happily we gave it the boot in NZ many years ago. MMP or mixed member proportional is a far better and more democratic system.

Possibly, it would at least dispose of the SNP's reign in Scotland if no other good came from it. The SNP won 81% of the seats in Scotland with only 45% of the vote. That said the current government is the inevitable result of both the Tories and Labour f#cking around on the Brexit issue between 2016 and 2019. They'd still be doing it now if it wasn't for 2019.