Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

RIP Sarah Everard, who went missing from Brixton in March 2021

It's so out-of-touch. I know they want to be seen to be doing something, but more cops in clubs is something I don't recall seeing any woman (or, for that matter, anyone) ever call for! There's so many things they could do to make a difference that show how ridiculous this token gesture really is.
 
Athos said:
Because not recognising the defiance is not recognising their wrongful use of authority. Its significant that simply attending a vigil was in defiance of the police.
Click to expand...


That’s the point.

Attending a vigil held to honour a woman snatched off the street and murdered (maybe by a policeman) should not be interpreted as defiant.

That it is considered defiant to do so is a problem.

I therefore take issue with the word being applied to my choice to attend the vigil.
 
SheilaNaGig said:
That’s the point.

Attending a vigil held to honour a woman snatched off the street and murdered (maybe by a policeman) should not be interpreted as defiant.

That it is considered defiant to do so is a problem.

I therefore take issue with the word being applied to my choice to attend the vigil.
Click to expand...


However, I am proud of our pure bold collective defiance against the police in the circumstances that played out.

And thank you to ash and Miss-Shelf for being actively present and witnessing events as they developed.
 
SheilaNaGig said:
That it is considered defiant to do so is a problem.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Please don't think that, by pointing out that people attending is an open challenge to the police's purported authority to prevent the vigil, I'm suggesting for one moment that such a use of authority is legitimate.
 
Athos said:
In this case it's being used by someone on the same side (me), in an explicitly positive way.

And I don't think it's necessarily problematic for people to think/feel differently about something (though, of course, it can be).

Sheila and I interpret the term differently on an intellectual level, and it has different underlying connotations for each of us (and we can differ about that without saying the other is wrong).

I suppose the question is what we do with that? We can make it a point of dispute (between two people on broadly the same 'side'), or we can listen to each other and use that to inform how we interpret others' use of the word in future, and how we use it ourselves.

I'll certainly think twice about saying a woman has behaved defiantly, even when her conduct meets my understanding of the dictionary definition, and notwithstanding I think that defiance is positive.
Click to expand...

I acknowledge and accept your apology.

But again, as I said earlier to Puddy_Tat , I don’t want men to have to weasel their words thoughts or feelings. Instead I want better comprehension of the underlying issues.

Men editing their thoughts isn’t a solution. Trying to second guess what might land badly with women isn’t the way out of this problem.

Your last sentence here is saying that even if you think you’re right, you’ll behave as if she’s right. How is that going to work out in the long run? How does that build solidarity, trust, respect?
 
Brainaddict said:
Has there ever been a more tone deaf policy response?
Click to expand...
i'm trying to think of one and coming up blank. This as a response to the murder of Sarah Everard is just mind bogglingly incredible in its wrongness.
What they need to do is talk about how come the police he worked with for years and years were oblivious to there being anything at all the matter with his attitude to women.
 
Athos said:
Agreed. Please don't think that, by pointing out that people attending is an open challenge to the police's purported authority to prevent the vigil, I'm suggesting for one moment that such a use of authority is legitimate.
Click to expand...


I know you don’t.

That’s not what I’m taking from your posts.
 
I think I’m going to leave this discussion about the word “defiance” where it stands. I keep saying the same thing over and over, and it’s tiresome but also feels rather pointless now. It feels like one of those little whirlwinds of trash that you see in the corner of the high street : kinda interesting in its way, but the rest of the world is happening at my shoulder.

While it may be indicative or symptomatic of other things, there are larger issues to be discussed right now.




But Athos muscovyduck and others: I do appreciate your engagement.
 
SheilaNaGig said:
Your last sentence here is saying that even if you think you’re right, you’ll behave as if she’s right. How is that going to work out in the long run? How does that build solidarity, trust, respect?
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm saying. Just that I'd be mindful of the fact that others feel differently.
 
SheilaNaGig said:
I think I’m going to leave this discussion about the word “defiance” where it stands. I keep saying the same thing over and over, and it’s tiresome but also feels rather pointless now. It feels like one of those little whirlwinds of trash that you see in the corner of the high street : kinda interesting in its way, but the rest of the world is happening at my shoulder.

While it may be indicative or symptomatic of other things, there are larger issues to be discussed right now.




But Athos muscovyduck and others: I do appreciate your engagement.
Click to expand...

No problem. More than happy not to pursue this aspect.
 
Plumdaff said:
Announcing you are going to deploy undercover cops as a response to this at the very time you are bringing in a law allowing undercover cops to act with complete impunity is possibly the worst idea I have ever seen. Jesus we're in a shitty place in this country. Fucking hell.
Click to expand...

Whilst it's a shit idea, I'm not sure anyone's proposing using undercover officers (pain clothed is a different thing), such that they wouldn't have any of the protections contained in the current bill.
 
Athos said:
Whilst it's a shit idea, I'm not sure anyone's proposing using undercover officers (pain clothed is a different thing), such that they wouldn't have any of the protections contained in the current bill.
Click to expand...
How would you know what anyone is proposing in secret, behind closed doors, with impunity? Or do I mean immunity? Or both?
 
Kevbad the Bad said:
How would you know what anyone is proposing in secret, behind closed doors, with impunity?
Click to expand...

I don't. I specifically said "I'm not sure". But I've not seen anything to suggest that is what's proposed. If be interested to know if anyone has a reliable source for the idea that what's being proposed is the deployment of undercover (rather than plain clothed) cops.
 
Athos said:
I don't. I specifically said "I'm not sure". But I've not seen anything to suggest that is what's proposed. If be interested to know if anyone has a reliable source for the idea that what's being proposed is the deployment of undercover (rather than plain clothed) cops.
Click to expand...
Plain clothed or undercover, it doesn’t make a lot of difference to me. I don’t and won’t trust them and won’t feel safer with them lurking around clubs and bars.
 
Athos said:
I don't. I specifically said "I'm not sure". But I've not seen anything to suggest that is what's proposed. If be interested to know if anyone has a reliable source for the idea that what's being proposed is the deployment of undercover (rather than plain clothed) cops.
Click to expand...
I used the word 'you' as in 'one'. How would one know? How would one ever obtain a reliable source for any such secret deployments?
 
Looby said:
Plain clothed or undercover, it doesn’t make a lot of difference to me. I don’t and won’t trust them and won’t feel safer with them lurking around clubs and bars.
Click to expand...

I get that. And I agree it's a shit idea. But the distinction is significant to the suggestion that they'd have immunity should the bill be passed.
 
Athos said:
Whilst it's a shit idea, I'm not sure anyone's proposing using undercover officers (pain clothed is a different thing), such that they wouldn't have any of the protections contained in the current bill.
Click to expand...
Given what I've seen cops get away with in broad daylight while wearing uniforms this isn't remotely reassuring. Like any 'plain clothes' officers wouldn't be able to act with complete impunity against a woman dressed up and having had a few drinks. Who'd be believed? Fucking laughable.
 
Apologies if this has already been said but plain clothes coppers in bars would have done nothing to protect Sarah Everard. It wasn't late, she hadn't been out drinking, she wasn't "dressed provocatively" (yeah I know that's bullshit), she was on a main road.

The usual "women need to do x, y and z to keep themselves safe" just does not apply in this case.
 
Plumdaff said:
Given what I've seen cops get away with in broad daylight while wearing uniforms this isn't remotely reassuring. Like any 'plain clothes' officers wouldn't be able to act with complete impunity against a women dressed up and having had a few drinks. Fucking laughable.
Click to expand...

Of course they would. But that's not because they'd be undercover officers, or anything to do with the proposed law.
 
Couzens appeared at the old Bailey via video link this morning.

Plea and case management hearing set for 9 July

Provisional date for case to be heard 25 October, expected to last 4 weeks. “Lots of evidences to be presented”.

No word about how he sustained his injuries.

No application for bail.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
12
Views
799
editor
editor
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
editor
Where to watch England vs Spain Euro 2024 final in Brixton
Replies
6
Views
505
madolesance
M
editor
RIP Nobby (Albert/Railway)
Replies
7
Views
1K
editor
editor
Back
Top Bottom