Thread by @mlothianmclean

This morning the Home Affairs committee will hear evidence about the policing of the Clapham vigil. Live here now if anyone wants to tune in 👇🏽parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/34…

RTS organiser giving evidence that the group "tried to ensure as many female officers as possible". Finishes by saying "it's very stark that the arrests seem to be made by male officers". Hmm. More salient point in the observation that officers were from New Scotland Yard

Organiser is talking at length about the difference between Lambeth officers and New Scotland Yard officers – latter "obstructive" and "kept referring to vigil as protest organisers". Says her role as a "councillor" had a pre-existing relationship with Lambeth police.

Immediately a narrative of 'good' organisation and a 'vigil' vs 'illegal organisation' and a 'protest' emerges. RTS organiser blaming police for making it a 'protest'. Diana Johnson says that their way seems to be the 'right way' of doing things.

Going unchallenged is the idea that protest is a right that should not be illegal – instead the New Scotland Yard police are being criticised for essentially creating the protest vs Lambeth police who are being portrayed as cosy community force who understood it was a 'vigil'

Bell Ribeiro Addy testifies that she spoke to officer on Clapham Common who said people began making "leftwing political speeches" and that's when police "had to come in" because the speeches signified it "was a protest and we aren't allowed to protest".

Finally, RTS organiser cites judgement in defence of protest, quoting judge who said "there could not be a blanket ban on protest".

RTS organiser still follows it up by saying "a vigil for a murdered girl, with a group of women, organised by elected representatives – that's the most benign end of any form of exercise of those rights".

"good protest"

But does add "the right to protest, the right to disagree... in a peaceful way, all of that should be permissible".

RTS organiser says government dealt police a "difficult hand" by giving them vague regulations. Also says judgement told them that at no time can a blanket ban on protest exist and the government can't try and enforce that. Notes that new protest exemptions come in on 29 March

But that the government "still create limits on the right to protest".

Those limits are not lawful and can't exist.

Legal observer testifies "protests happen organically... I'm not sure how much can be done by self-appointed organisers" in response to question about organising protests in pandemic by Simon Fell

Legal observer now asked directly whether Clapham Common was a vigil or a protest by Tim Loughton. Answer: "In many ways, that's just semantics... there's a problem with the conception of something as a vigil OR a protest. For many people, a vigil is a form of protest"

Loughton now quotes from witness statements that blame a "minority of individuals, all male" who were there to "cause trouble" and that it's "not right to mix protest and vigil". Again, the "good protest" narrative coming strongly through.

(Also i was there, this 'bad male agents who stirred up protest' is absolute horseshit).

Loughton challenging the narrative that crowds were socially distanced until police came. I was at the front of the crowd when I arrived – my section wasn't completely socially distanced imo but can confirm it was police arrival that caused people to then crush together.

Loughton says some people had a "political agenda" and weren't there for a "respectful vigil". LO says "to pretend that a vigil for a woman that was murdered was not in some way political, that the issues were not political... I don't know how you can reach that interpretation"

Loughton: "I think most people would agree that [signs cussing the police] are not appropriate things to have at a vigil".

Loughton asks Legal Observer from Black Protest Legal Support if the org "have an agenda" and cites LO apparently saying BPLS's aim was to prevent police "stifling protests that [...] shines a light on state violence". LO denies this was said and that Loughton misheard.

Checked the video – LO did not say that but was quoting instead from statement that said attempts to restrict right to protest will "sharply affect Black, Brown and Racialised Groups, and issues that impact them - stifling protests that seek to shine a light on state violence".

Vid here: parliamentlive.tv/event/index/34…

RTS organiser stands up for right to protest: 'Whether it's a protest or a vigil, it would be contravening our rights under articles 10 or 11 of the HRA for there to be a blanket ban on either. Peaceful protests can have a placard saying anything they like."

(I'm several minutes behind due to checking transcriptions properly)

Evidence being given by Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police about decision to "allow" vigil in the county. "We have to be proportionate and realistic... and be aware of the wider realities of what could come to pass".

Loughton back. Starts by "congratulating" the Chief Constable for handling of the vigil. Cites conversation with LO, asking "one of the witnesses was unable to distinguish between a vigil and protest. Do you think they're one and the same?"

CC says they're "one and the same".

Loughton clearly not expecting this; follows up with: "would you expect people attending a peaceful vigil to bring along placards and chant anti-police slogans?"

CC: "On occasion, placards yes. Slogans – on rare occasions maybe, but not in the mainstream, no".

Loughton stutters a little on next question but asks if deploying female officers was deliberate – CC says yes, definitely. Then Loughton asks if they've had problems with people "trying to pull down statues". ????????????

CC says "no" regardless and adds that their role is "facilitative" and Nottinghamshire police "respect the right to protest".

In response to question from Yvette Cooper about whether purpose of protest/vigil is relevant to safety concerns, CC says yes, always. "Purpose is key factor in determining numbers". Cooper then asks about whether policing response is based on "content" of "placards or speeches"

CC says temperature on the ground needs to be taken but what's recorded on placards is of "secondary importance" as long as it's not "specifically offensive"

Cooper then says police may get drawn into judging "content" of speech – clearly has Met comment about "leftwing speeches" at Clapham Common in mind. CC agrees that for his force, the concern is not the content but the impact on crowd behaviour.

Taking a break for a call.

That was basically it – can rewatch here! parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/34…