Emergency legislation - information and commentary
Discussion
RSTurboPaul said:
Please can you explain how Government extending police powers to effectively stop all peaceful protest against lockdown (amongst other things), as mass-vaccination is rolled out and the risk from Covid drops (even further) to effectively zero for 99.9% of the population, suggests they are getting ready to rescind all of their restrictions?
And how the requirement to prove one's 'innocence' on demand via proposed 'Health Passports' in order to be permitted access to day-to-day activities does not create a 'Papiere, bitte' situation?
It doesn’t matter what I say, you want to run around waving your arms in the air screaming “we’re all doomed”, because it fits with your narrative. This is being overplayed. We don’t know if it’s going to be extended, even if it is, it can be withdrawn at any point. However, again, this common sense statement of fact won’t fit with your agenda. You want it to be some sort of new-fascist state, when it’s never going to happen. The health passport again may or may not exist. It has a variety of potential formats. A passport to allow for overseas travel is nothing new, one for internal use would be unusual. It could be short lived if the vaccination programme goes well, equally it could be longer term if the anti-vaxxers get sufficient traction that cause problems with having sufficient numbers inoculated. And how the requirement to prove one's 'innocence' on demand via proposed 'Health Passports' in order to be permitted access to day-to-day activities does not create a 'Papiere, bitte' situation?
Of course, none of that matters. Much better to rant and rave about stuff that won’t happen, whilst pretending it’s already here. ‘Papiere bitte” being a classic example of something that doesn’t exist at all, but has been ranted about for months on here as if it does.
The other bit of legislation about protests has nothing at all to do with Covid. Maybe those who voted this government into power with a huge majority due to “Let’s Get Brexit Done” should have looked beyond the end of their nose.
Breadvan72 said:
Ok, so grappling people to the ground for doing nothing that posed any meaningful Covid risk is OK because that wasn't as bad as old school kickings? Good to know!
Only four arrests? Why not zero? Four BS arrests are four too many.
It was you who referred to the police as 'thuggish'. If this was thuggery it wasn't very effective. With regard to the arrests, do you know what they were for and what the outcomes were?Only four arrests? Why not zero? Four BS arrests are four too many.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 17th March 13:15
unident said:
... Much better to rant and rave about stuff that won’t happen, whilst pretending it’s already here. ‘Papiere bitte” being a classic example of something that doesn’t exist at all, but has been ranted about for months on here as if it does.
...
It has happened - see the Neale case, where luckily the Divisional Court got it right but the police, CPS, and magistrates' court had got it badly wrong. In general the latest lockdown has seen a LOT of heavy handed policing based on zero legal foundation. Many spurious FPNs have been issued and many will have gone unchallenged, because people are intimidated or uninformed. The scenes at Clapham should concern anyone who supports the idea of democracy. Even if democracy is of no interest, how about logic. What is the logic of a bunch of coppers piling on top of people to stop them getting to close to others (whilst standing outdoors where the risks of catching Covid are tiny)? This abandonment of rational analysis and focus on compliance at all costs is troubling....
Breadvan72 said:
unident said:
... Much better to rant and rave about stuff that won’t happen, whilst pretending it’s already here. ‘Papiere bitte” being a classic example of something that doesn’t exist at all, but has been ranted about for months on here as if it does.
...
It has happened - see the Neale case, where luckily the Divisional Court got it right but the police, CPS, and magistrates' court had got it badly wrong. In general the latest lockdown has seen a LOT of heavy handed policing based on zero legal foundation. Many spurious FPNs have been issued and many will have gone unchallenged, because people are intimidated or uninformed. The scenes at Clapham should concern anyone who supports the idea of democracy. Even if democracy is of no interest, how about logic. What is the logic of a bunch of coppers piling on top of people to stop them getting to close to others (whilst standing outdoors where the risks of catching Covid are tiny)? This abandonment of rational analysis and focus on compliance at all costs is troubling....
I thought they wanted to deal with the matter by way of FPN but couldn't because they refused their details, which meant that they couldn't issue the FPNs & that led to arrests.
Breadvan72 said:
unident said:
... Much better to rant and rave about stuff that won’t happen, whilst pretending it’s already here. ‘Papiere bitte” being a classic example of something that doesn’t exist at all, but has been ranted about for months on here as if it does.
...
It has happened - see the Neale case, where luckily the Divisional Court got it right but the police, CPS, and magistrates' court had got it badly wrong. In general the latest lockdown has seen a LOT of heavy handed policing based on zero legal foundation. Many spurious FPNs have been issued and many will have gone unchallenged, because people are intimidated or uninformed. The scenes at Clapham should concern anyone who supports the idea of democracy. Even if democracy is of no interest, how about logic. What is the logic of a bunch of coppers piling on top of people to stop them getting to close to others (whilst standing outdoors where the risks of catching Covid are tiny)? This abandonment of rational analysis and focus on compliance at all costs is troubling....
I digress, the fact we have courts who can make these rulings suggests it hasn’t happened. We’re not in a fascist state, if we were then the courts would be stooges and never overturn anything or challenge the government / police position.
You keep merging law with medical expertise. If the law states that something is illegal then isn’t that all that you should be concerned with? You are not an expert in whether the virus can be transmitted or not outdoors. You may be correct, but that doesn’t alter what the legal requirements are for people currently.
You have banged on about people only doing the absolute minimum of what the law states and nothing else, you have even started a locked thread at the top of this sub-forum to promote this. However, now you’re suggesting that law breaking is OK, because “medical stuff”, which is no more than your personal opinion of it, unless you’ve just spent the past few weeks away becoming a qualified epidemiologist.
vonhosen said:
They didn't pile on them to stop them getting too close though did they?
I thought they wanted to deal with the matter by way of FPN but couldn't because they refused their details, which meant that they couldn't issue the FPNs & that led to arrests.
Is there an obligation to give your name and address?..................................;)I thought they wanted to deal with the matter by way of FPN but couldn't because they refused their details, which meant that they couldn't issue the FPNs & that led to arrests.
XCP said:
I agree. The police should not have had anything to do with the Clapham 'vigil'.
But if they hadn't that would have been wrong. I think Lord Sumption said as much on Monday this week.
As usual a no win situation.
Sumption was on Radio 4 Any Questions on Friday evening discussing the proposed Vigil.But if they hadn't that would have been wrong. I think Lord Sumption said as much on Monday this week.
As usual a no win situation.
The police gave an easy ride to previous Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter protests and the suspect in this case is a serving officer and it had been in the news that the police had referred themselves to the IOPC as it seems two days before the abduction he'd allegedly exposed himself to a woman at a fast food joint.
I'd suggest part of the problem is it seems the police have policed protests differently for different groups. The law hasn't been applied equally.
I would have donated £10 to their fine, partially because I am against Covid being used as an excuse for them not to protest.
What was the difference between a Vigil for Sarah Everard and loads of Cops standing around on a bridge in London clapping for the NHS? The Cops on the bridge clapping were less likely to spread Covid?
Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 17th March 16:59
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
They didn't pile on them to stop them getting too close though did they?
I thought they wanted to deal with the matter by way of FPN but couldn't because they refused their details, which meant that they couldn't issue the FPNs & that led to arrests.
Is there an obligation to give your name and address?..................................;)I thought they wanted to deal with the matter by way of FPN but couldn't because they refused their details, which meant that they couldn't issue the FPNs & that led to arrests.
Bigends said:
If youre suspected of commiting an offence and the Police are considering getting you to court for that offence - then yes.
How does this figure then?A person suspected of breaching the coronavirus regulations is not required by law to give the police their name and address, an appeal has ruled. Keith Neale, a 60-year-old homeless man, had his conviction for obstructing a police officer by failing to give his details quashed, by the High Court sitting in Cardiff.
blueg33 said:
Bigends said:
If youre suspected of commiting an offence and the Police are considering getting you to court for that offence - then yes.
How does this figure then?A person suspected of breaching the coronavirus regulations is not required by law to give the police their name and address, an appeal has ruled. Keith Neale, a 60-year-old homeless man, had his conviction for obstructing a police officer by failing to give his details quashed, by the High Court sitting in Cardiff.
Why did they charge him with obstructing?
Why not just with the original offence
I've seen videos that look as if they they first tried to engage with those on the bandstand, explain & encourage them in order to avoid enforcement & then enforcement was only a last resort when the prior didn't work.
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
Bigends said:
If youre suspected of commiting an offence and the Police are considering getting you to court for that offence - then yes.
How does this figure then?A person suspected of breaching the coronavirus regulations is not required by law to give the police their name and address, an appeal has ruled. Keith Neale, a 60-year-old homeless man, had his conviction for obstructing a police officer by failing to give his details quashed, by the High Court sitting in Cardiff.
Why not just with the original offence
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
Bigends said:
If youre suspected of commiting an offence and the Police are considering getting you to court for that offence - then yes.
How does this figure then?A person suspected of breaching the coronavirus regulations is not required by law to give the police their name and address, an appeal has ruled. Keith Neale, a 60-year-old homeless man, had his conviction for obstructing a police officer by failing to give his details quashed, by the High Court sitting in Cardiff.
Why not just with the original offence
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
Bigends said:
If youre suspected of commiting an offence and the Police are considering getting you to court for that offence - then yes.
How does this figure then?A person suspected of breaching the coronavirus regulations is not required by law to give the police their name and address, an appeal has ruled. Keith Neale, a 60-year-old homeless man, had his conviction for obstructing a police officer by failing to give his details quashed, by the High Court sitting in Cardiff.
Why not just with the original offence
I don't think the ruling means what you think it does.
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
Bigends said:
If youre suspected of commiting an offence and the Police are considering getting you to court for that offence - then yes.
How does this figure then?A person suspected of breaching the coronavirus regulations is not required by law to give the police their name and address, an appeal has ruled. Keith Neale, a 60-year-old homeless man, had his conviction for obstructing a police officer by failing to give his details quashed, by the High Court sitting in Cardiff.
Why not just with the original offence
I don't think the ruling means what you think it does.
If the police want to enforce the regs and cannot issue a FPN, they have to either arrest or drop it. AIUI that means they have to have a reason for arrest, but then that reason probably applied to everyone there, so surely they should arrest more than 4 people? Perhaps starting with the Duchess of Cambridge....
unident said:
Breadvan72 said:
unident said:
... Much better to rant and rave about stuff that won’t happen, whilst pretending it’s already here. ‘Papiere bitte” being a classic example of something that doesn’t exist at all, but has been ranted about for months on here as if it does.
...
It has happened - see the Neale case, where luckily the Divisional Court got it right but the police, CPS, and magistrates' court had got it badly wrong. In general the latest lockdown has seen a LOT of heavy handed policing based on zero legal foundation. Many spurious FPNs have been issued and many will have gone unchallenged, because people are intimidated or uninformed. The scenes at Clapham should concern anyone who supports the idea of democracy. Even if democracy is of no interest, how about logic. What is the logic of a bunch of coppers piling on top of people to stop them getting to close to others (whilst standing outdoors where the risks of catching Covid are tiny)? This abandonment of rational analysis and focus on compliance at all costs is troubling....
I digress, the fact we have courts who can make these rulings suggests it hasn’t happened. We’re not in a fascist state, if we were then the courts would be stooges and never overturn anything or challenge the government / police position.
You keep merging law with medical expertise. If the law states that something is illegal then isn’t that all that you should be concerned with? You are not an expert in whether the virus can be transmitted or not outdoors. You may be correct, but that doesn’t alter what the legal requirements are for people currently.
You have banged on about people only doing the absolute minimum of what the law states and nothing else, you have even started a locked thread at the top of this sub-forum to promote this. However, now you’re suggesting that law breaking is OK, because “medical stuff”, which is no more than your personal opinion of it, unless you’ve just spent the past few weeks away becoming a qualified epidemiologist.
XCP said:
Do we know why the people were arrested at Clapham? I haven't seen any details.
At the end of the day people who get themselves arrested under PACE only have themselves to blame. Much easier to receive a FPN and contest that.
YupAt the end of the day people who get themselves arrested under PACE only have themselves to blame. Much easier to receive a FPN and contest that.
The BBC state
One person remains in custody after being arrested on suspicion of assaulting an emergency worker.
Three people were held on suspicion of breaching the Health Protection Regulations, police said.
Police issued two people with fixed penalty notices for breaching lockdown rules.
unident said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Please can you explain how Government extending police powers to effectively stop all peaceful protest against lockdown (amongst other things), as mass-vaccination is rolled out and the risk from Covid drops (even further) to effectively zero for 99.9% of the population, suggests they are getting ready to rescind all of their restrictions?
And how the requirement to prove one's 'innocence' on demand via proposed 'Health Passports' in order to be permitted access to day-to-day activities does not create a 'Papiere, bitte' situation?
It doesn’t matter what I say, you want to run around waving your arms in the air screaming “we’re all doomed”, because it fits with your narrative. This is being overplayed. We don’t know if it’s going to be extended, even if it is, it can be withdrawn at any point. However, again, this common sense statement of fact won’t fit with your agenda. You want it to be some sort of new-fascist state, when it’s never going to happen. The health passport again may or may not exist. It has a variety of potential formats. A passport to allow for overseas travel is nothing new, one for internal use would be unusual. It could be short lived if the vaccination programme goes well, equally it could be longer term if the anti-vaxxers get sufficient traction that cause problems with having sufficient numbers inoculated. And how the requirement to prove one's 'innocence' on demand via proposed 'Health Passports' in order to be permitted access to day-to-day activities does not create a 'Papiere, bitte' situation?
Of course, none of that matters. Much better to rant and rave about stuff that won’t happen, whilst pretending it’s already here. ‘Papiere bitte” being a classic example of something that doesn’t exist at all, but has been ranted about for months on here as if it does.
The other bit of legislation about protests has nothing at all to do with Covid. Maybe those who voted this government into power with a huge majority due to “Let’s Get Brexit Done” should have looked beyond the end of their nose.
You appear to be suggesting that one has no reason to be concerned about any given proposal until it comes to pass, in which case I admire your faith in the Government.
Israel is pushing societal divide via 'Health Passports' and actively seeking to limit the activities of those who do not submit to vaccination (ref: various articles on The Times of Israel website).
Canada has also stated that those without proof of vaccination will be unable to live life with the freedoms the vaccinated have.
Merkel has stated that Vaccine Passports will take three months to develop (which seems to tie in nicely with the June 'unlocking' date here) and would lead in time to Digital ID.
Austria has set out that those not vaccinated must wear FFP2 (or whatever the term is) masks in public (IIRC).
The UK Government has stated 'we have no plans to introduce vaccine passports' but has just opened a consultation on how exactly 'COVID-Status Certification' would work and its 'benefits', with a consultation period of a whole two weeks (closing date 29th March) for something that would fundamentally turn the relationship between the state and the individual on its head, and undo the 'innocent until proven guilty' ethos that has taken centuries to secure and maintain:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/covid-...
GOV.UK said:
The government is reviewing whether COVID-status certification could play a role in reopening our economy, reducing restrictions on social contact and improving safety.
COVID-status certification refers to the use of testing or vaccination data to confirm in different settings that individuals have a lower risk of getting sick with or transmitting COVID-19 to others. Such certification would be available both to vaccinated people and to unvaccinated people who have been tested.
The government will assess to what extent certification would be effective in reducing risk, and its potential uses in enabling access to settings or relaxing COVID-secure mitigations.
The government is looking to consider the ethical, equalities, privacy, legal and operational aspects of a potential certification scheme, and what limits, if any, should be placed on organisations using certification.
We are issuing this call for evidence to inform this review into COVID-status certification, to ensure that the recommendations reflect a broad range of interests and concerns. We welcome views from all respondents.
They have also run a consultation on how a system would need to work to enable other parties to utilise digital identification (which I think is still running but now can't find the link).COVID-status certification refers to the use of testing or vaccination data to confirm in different settings that individuals have a lower risk of getting sick with or transmitting COVID-19 to others. Such certification would be available both to vaccinated people and to unvaccinated people who have been tested.
The government will assess to what extent certification would be effective in reducing risk, and its potential uses in enabling access to settings or relaxing COVID-secure mitigations.
The government is looking to consider the ethical, equalities, privacy, legal and operational aspects of a potential certification scheme, and what limits, if any, should be placed on organisations using certification.
We are issuing this call for evidence to inform this review into COVID-status certification, to ensure that the recommendations reflect a broad range of interests and concerns. We welcome views from all respondents.
Yes, such things are not in place yet. But frankly I don't understand how anyone can look at the jigsaw pieces on the table and not notice how it would all fit together remarkably conveniently.
How do you eat an elephant? Small bites.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff