17 year old father of 3 killed at funeral by motorbike
Discussion
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/19/ma...
-Father of 3 aged 17.
-Attending a funeral where 150 people turned up all ignoring the lockdown guidance.
- antisocial motorbike riding occurring at the funeral, that resulted in him being hit by a bike and killed...
Now would I be right in thinking that although nowhere is stating it, this young gentleman may have belonged to a community famous for having a disregard for police, the law, and paying tax?
-Father of 3 aged 17.
-Attending a funeral where 150 people turned up all ignoring the lockdown guidance.
- antisocial motorbike riding occurring at the funeral, that resulted in him being hit by a bike and killed...
Now would I be right in thinking that although nowhere is stating it, this young gentleman may have belonged to a community famous for having a disregard for police, the law, and paying tax?
Insane. A good friend of the wife's, known her for 50+ years, died the other week from CV19. Only 2 people were allowed at her cremation, she had 4 kids and just became a grandmother 2 days before, and no flowers or service. Yet the untouchables get to do what they want, under the eyes of the cops
paulguitar said:
Greshamst said:
take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:
What... Hedge fund managers?
That made me chuckle 
This does raise questions of the Police though. Happy to drone over a handful of people all hundreds of metres apart in Derbyshire & lecture them. yet unwilling to keep numbers at a funeral to a reasonable and sensible number. Makes no sense.
mikeiow said:
This does raise questions of the Police though. Happy to drone over a handful of people all hundreds of metres apart in Derbyshire & lecture them. yet unwilling to keep numbers at a funeral to a reasonable and sensible number. Makes no sense.
Section 7 doesn't place a numerical limit on attending a funeral.
Law said:
Restrictions on gatherings
7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of
more than two people except—
(a) where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household,
(b) where the gathering is essential for work purposes,
(c) to attend a funeral,
(d) where reasonably necessary—
(i) to facilitate a house move,
(ii) to provide care or assistance to a vulnerable person, including relevant personal care
within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of
Vulnerable Groups Act 2006,
(iii) to provide emergency assistance, or
(iv) to participate in legal proceedings or fulfil a legal obligation.
7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of
more than two people except—
(a) where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household,
(b) where the gathering is essential for work purposes,
(c) to attend a funeral,
(d) where reasonably necessary—
(i) to facilitate a house move,
(ii) to provide care or assistance to a vulnerable person, including relevant personal care
within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of
Vulnerable Groups Act 2006,
(iii) to provide emergency assistance, or
(iv) to participate in legal proceedings or fulfil a legal obligation.
A father of three at seventeen? Really? One or more mothers?
The UK is an odd place. If you took a foreign visitor with no knowledge of the U.K. to (say) some leafy part of Surrey, East London and then some of the lawless council estates full of chavs you would be hard pushed to explain how they were all part of the same country.
The UK is an odd place. If you took a foreign visitor with no knowledge of the U.K. to (say) some leafy part of Surrey, East London and then some of the lawless council estates full of chavs you would be hard pushed to explain how they were all part of the same country.
They're not breaking the law.
An interesting dilemma for the PH hierarchy of hate. Is the hatred of gypsy / travellers (assuming they are) sufficiently above the level of hate for the police breaking the law to allow the latter to target the former? Or can they bring themselves to be consistent in their wish for the law to be applied correctly?
2) Negotiation and engagement. Short notice and perhaps not people very willing to 'engage' with the police.
3) Facilitation and containment with health risks being a priority.
Looks like 3) is what they did. They may have done some of 2).
An interesting dilemma for the PH hierarchy of hate. Is the hatred of gypsy / travellers (assuming they are) sufficiently above the level of hate for the police breaking the law to allow the latter to target the former? Or can they bring themselves to be consistent in their wish for the law to be applied correctly?
semisane said:
Boils my piss but how would the good and great on PH have dealt with it, if they were in charge of the police?
Serious Q btw
1) Is it against the law? No. So no enforcement aspect. Serious Q btw
2) Negotiation and engagement. Short notice and perhaps not people very willing to 'engage' with the police.
3) Facilitation and containment with health risks being a priority.
Looks like 3) is what they did. They may have done some of 2).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff