A woman arrested at a vigil for Sarah Everard has hit out at Boris Johnson over the Partygate revelations.
Patsy Stevenson was fined £200 after being pinned down by officers for breaching lockdown restrictions at the gathering to honour murdered Sarah last March.
And she blasted the “abhorrent” approach of the Metropolitan Police, who arrested three others at the event yet turned a blind eye to partying by politicians.
The force took weeks to decide whether to investigate 12 bashes that took place at Downing Street between May 2020 and April 2021, including up to six allegedly attended by the Prime Minister.
Physics student Patsy, 29, said: “Boris Johnson won’t get repercussions. It’s hypocritical.
“He thinks that rules don’t apply to him and he can do whatever he wants. I don’t think he has a shred of moral decency.
"It’s not like we had bottles of wine and cheeseboards like they did.
“That’s allowed, but we weren’t allowed to mourn the death of a woman murdered by a police officer. That is abhorrent.”
Politicians on all sides criticised police handling of the vigil on March 13 – the day after 33-year-old Sarah’s body had been formally identified.
Failings
Met Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick faced calls to resign after women were seen being dragged to the floor at Clapham Common in South London.
A planned gathering had been cancelled after police said it would breach lockdown rules.
But hundreds of people turned out anyway to pay their respects.
Serving Met officer Wayne Couzens was later found guilty of Sarah’s murder.
A report into the vigil by MPs found there had been “multiple failings” by the force.
Their actions were in stark contrast to Partygate, where Dame Cressida only announced there would be an investigation on January 25 – more than a month after the revelations emerged.
The initial findings of an inquiry by Sue Gray into the Downing Street parties said there had been a “serious failure” to observe standards the Government had set for the public at the time.
Vigil organisers Reclaim These Streets last week brought a judicial review to the High Court over the Met’s decision to ban it, arguing it was a breach of human rights.
The Met said: “We do not believe our approach was founded on an inaccurate interpretation of the regulations or constituted an unlawful interference with the claimants’ rights.”
Downing Street and the Home Office both declined to comment.
