With regard to your coverage of the vigil for Sarah Everard in Clapham Common on Saturday, it seems that the morality of the gathering is being used as a justification for the breaking of lockdown rules, and for the consequent potential for coronavirus to spread (Cressida Dick refuses to quit over vigil policing and dismisses ‘armchair critics’, 15 March).
There can be no argument against the validity of the reasons for the protest, but in itself that’s not a justification for the form it took. A picture of a woman being arrested has been widely circulated and discussed, whereas the significance of almost every other picture of the protest, which show people crowded together, against the rules, seems to be largely ignored.
The police behaviour has to be seen in the context of the rules and laws they are required to enforce, and morality is similarly being used as a diversion when the question of responsibility is raised. The protesters went to the rally in the knowledge that what they were doing was wrong in the eyes of the law.
It seems that the attendees in London were people who, because of the justifiable courage of their convictions, decided that the rules in place to bring the pandemic under control didn’t apply to them. I wonder how many of those people, like me, thought that Dominic Cummings considered that the rules applied to other people, and not to him.
Dr Peter Howarth
Allendale, Northumberland
• As a woman, I rail against the level of violence perpetrated on women and girls, which has sadly been highlighted by the killing of Sarah Everard, to whose family and to the families of other victims of violence, I send my condolences. However, I do not support the view that the rights to assemble and protest trounce all other rights, including the right to life.
In the midst of a national health crisis, where improvement is fragile, allowing large gatherings of people, when travel is restricted and meeting others in numbers is illegal, cannot be in the public interest.
The police, who we ask to uphold the law and protect the public, are criticised because they challenge illegal gatherings, when the fault lies with those who gathered. With rights come responsibilities. Surely we have to be sensible and choose the right, safe moments to exercise our rights to assemble and protest. The issues, sadly, will no doubt still be present when the time is right.
Name and address supplied
• I find it hard to believe that Cressida Dick did not liaise with Priti Patel before making the crucial decision not to negotiate with the protest groups to provide a safe environment for their important protest this weekend. As on previous occasions, they underestimated the outrage across the country. The end result was a vicious and unwarranted quashing of a peaceful group. They had plenty of time to get it right and failed miserably. Not a good advert for the Metropolitan police. Their reputation has been badly tarnished.
David Reynolds
London
• My disabled daughter rarely leaves her home. But, needing to express her solidarity with all female victims of male violence, she made every effort to get to Sarah Everard’s vigil. Peacefully holding up her light in memory of Sarah, she was roughly manhandled by a police officer. She was utterly powerless, and is left traumatised by the experience. Those responsible for such use of force against women must be called to account.
Name and address supplied
