Vigil for Sarah Everard (Debate)

Tue 23 Mar 2021, 17:39

No criticism, Dave. 

Tue 16 Mar 2021, 10:09

Dave, you put that wonderfully. Thank you.

Tue 16 Mar 2021, 10:00

As a man I will probably be criticised for posting on this thread. However, the theme of the posts is similar to the reactions of many to the "Black Lives Matter" movement when many missed the point by shouting that "All lives matter". The fact is, we live in a society where it is potentially dangerous to walk our streets irrespective of gender, sexuality or ethnicity. However as with the BLM protests, it sometimes takes a single incident such as the tragedies of Sarah Everard and George Floyd to bring it to the fore. It is therefore sadly inevitable that Sarah's case will attract more attention that a similar case involving a sex-worker or drug addict. However, if the fact that Sarah was a white, middle class female puts it on the front page, then as long as that drives change to protect ALL women, then maybe some positive good can come out of such a heinous crime.

I firmly believe we should embrace and support the groundswell of a demand for change that these incidents elicit. 

My thoughts and sympathies are with Sarah, her family and friends

Mon 15 Mar 2021, 19:49 (last edited on Mon 15 Mar 2021, 21:05)

It's a matter of record that in the UK the "Reclaim the Night" marches started in Leeds in 1977, and were a protest against the way that police were providing an inadequate response to the rape and murders of a variety of women (including prostitutes and drug addicts) who had been raped and/or murdered by Peter Sutcliffe (the so-called Yorkshire Ripper).

I don't remember any attempt to write off some of these women as "low life" -- rather the concern was to stand shoulder to shoulder with all women (of whatever profession and whatever class) who had been advised by the police to stay indoors after dark. There have been numerous marches of a similar kind over the years.

This means that I don't agree with Harriet's post, but it was a mistake to write it off as "trolling". The Clapham Common Vigil was seeking to address a variety of quite different problems, and a variety of very different  responses by both women and men might therefore be expected. This is not to say that I think the police response was justified!

Mon 15 Mar 2021, 18:57 (last edited on Mon 15 Mar 2021, 20:13)

There was never going to be a MASS gathering in Charlbury. Probably no more than 10 people stated they might have attended. Social distancing was never going to be jeopardized I'm sure.

"Prostitutes or drug addicts..someone like that" Certainly sounds like branding  them all as  nasty low-lives as opposed to "nice middle-class" which is incorrect and highly offensive.

It was supposed to be about ALL women who have suffered  from violence.

Can we please stop this now? Seriously bad taste.

Mon 15 Mar 2021, 18:35 (last edited on Mon 15 Mar 2021, 18:45)

As I said - I did not reference the Police officer - that was done by the originator - whom I quoted in the post. They were not my words...

Mon 15 Mar 2021, 18:08

I believe this is your original post Helen, in its entirety.  

"Can we please respect the 'innocent until proven guilty'

Emily's news item states that it was done by a serving police officer - at the time of this posting no charges have been laid, no plea entered, no trial, no verdict. Everyone deserves a fair trial"

Mon 15 Mar 2021, 15:27

I am, in one way, pleased that selected posts have been moved into Debate from Forum, because I now feel less constrained. 

I was very surprised at the suggestion the debate was hijacked 'make it about a serving Metropolitan police officer'.  At no point have I made ANY reference to a serving police officer - that reference has only been by the originator.

My point was not to defend the police or the perpetrator. My original post was simply to state the fact that at the time of calling for the vigil, no-one had yet even been charged with any offence and the News item of the vigil should not be making any such reference in the interest of justice. Innocent until proven guilty. This was mis-interpreted as an attack on the vigil, which was never the case. 

At no point have I questioned the validity or purpose of the vigil or the good intentions or the motives of the organiser.  My personal opinion is that in view of the fact that we have not even been able to attend funerals for our own family and friends at the moment, it is not appropriate to hold a vigil for a victim - at the current time. 

Sun 14 Mar 2021, 17:43

James, trolling is defined in your internet dictionary as "the act of leaving an insulting message on the internet in order to annoy someone".

You (and others) might not agree with Harriet, but I doubt very much that she set out to be deliberately annoying, but that is what trolls set out to do. 

Trolls are, incidentally, generally anonymous, and this board is set up in a way to stop anonymous trolling. Differences of opinion and expressing views that can be read by some as insensitive are not at all the same thing as trolling! 

If they were identical, a lot of the views expressed in this debate section (including your own, and also mine) would count as trolling.

Sun 14 Mar 2021, 16:16 (last edited on Tue 16 Mar 2021, 10:10)

[no comment]

Sun 14 Mar 2021, 14:03

Harriet, that last remark is the most insensitive thing I have ever seen on here.

Sat 13 Mar 2021, 09:37

I personally think that any suggestions for mass gatherings - however well intentioned and whatever your personal convictions or political beliefs are inappropriate at the moment.  We are hopefully beginning to see a way out of this dreadful pandemic and I will not be doing anything that will jeopardise the progress made so far.

Fri 12 Mar 2021, 18:49

Folks, can I remind you to make the more contentious postings over on the Debate board. Thank you.

Fri 12 Mar 2021, 18:16

Believe me Harriet, the specifics of Sarah Everard's case are not lost on me. I am fully aware as to why this case is getting more attention than that of , as you say, sex workers or drug addicts and I am not suggesting that we ignore these cases.

This post was designed to advertise a sister vigil and to either receive agreement or disagreement for the idea. That is all. 

I would also like to remind those who have taken issue with the idea of a sister vigil to please re-read my first post where I say that the vigil is “...to show our support for Sarah and other women and girls who have experienced harassment, stalking or assault”. 

Fri 12 Mar 2021, 18:00

What makes it seem like bandwagon jumping is you have a nice middle-class woman dead. Why hasn't this been done for any prostitutes or drug addicts? Aren't they worth it? Until complete strangers hold a vigil for someone like that, you're all making it quite clear they're not. And is that the attitude you want to put out?