Emergency legislation - information and commentary

[Stay in Bed Instead]

Sign at the side of the road on the A47 on the way into work today:

ONLY ESSENTIAL JOURNEYS TO AND FROM LEICESTER ALLOWED


And then once in I hear an advert on the radio from the Government along the lines of mis-information about coronavirus is widespread and to look on gov.uk for the correct information.

[Pegscratch]

Desiderata said:

As Nichola Sturgeon's promised mandatory wearing of facecoverings in shops from this Friday (10th July) approaches, has anyone actually seen any new legislation for this? Or does it automatically become law because Nichola says so?

Fumble fumble fumble, face masks, shops, fumble, control the virus, fumble, independence!!!

[Elysium]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

Sign at the side of the road on the A47 on the way into work today:

ONLY ESSENTIAL JOURNEYS TO AND FROM LEICESTER ALLOWED


And then once in I hear an advert on the radio from the Government along the lines of mis-information about coronavirus is widespread and to look on gov.uk for the correct information.

There is a matrix sign near me, close to a motorway junction, that continuously read "essential journeys only" until last week.

[Pegscratch]

Elysium said:

There is a matrix sign near me, close to a motorway junction, that continuously read "essential journeys only" until last week.

Given the inability of these matrix signs to display anything relevant (how many times have you seen the animal, pedestrians, vehicle or debris in the road they refer to) I wouldn't pay any real attention to them.

[Elysium]

Pegscratch said:

Elysium said:

There is a matrix sign near me, close to a motorway junction, that continuously read "essential journeys only" until last week.

Given the inability of these matrix signs to display anything relevant (how many times have you seen the animal, pedestrians, vehicle or debris in the road they refer to) I wouldn't pay any real attention to them.

I didn't, but I would have much rather that it had displayed advice relating to the law or even Govt guidance, rather than the whimsy of the person running the local control room.

[djohnson]

Pegscratch said:

Elysium said:

There is a matrix sign near me, close to a motorway junction, that continuously read "essential journeys only" until last week.

Given the inability of these matrix signs to display anything relevant (how many times have you seen the animal, pedestrians, vehicle or debris in the road they refer to) I wouldn't pay any real attention to them.

Off topic but I find those signs massively irritating, I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve slowed for a non-existent obstruction and then the one time there was a broken down car in lane 1 of a ‘smart motorway’ not a peep of warming from the matrix sign.

[Jasandjules]

AS expected.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/lockdownlegalcha...

Can people really be content to allow Ministers the power to close cities on a capricious or arbitrary basis?

[Pegscratch]

Yawn. So much principle he can't even bring himself to do it with his own money, instead rousing the rabble to pay for it for him.

[unident]

Pegscratch said:

Yawn. So much principle he can't even bring himself to do it with his own money, instead rousing the rabble to pay for it for him.

And there’s no way he’ll be pocketing any surplus. No way at all

[markyb_lcy]

unident said:

Pegscratch said:

Yawn. So much principle he can't even bring himself to do it with his own money, instead rousing the rabble to pay for it for him.

And there’s no way he’ll be pocketing any surplus. No way at all

That’s a pretty baseless accusation of fraud.

Edited by markyb_lcy on Thursday 9th July 15:02

[unident]

markyb_lcy said:

That’s a pretty baseless accusation of fraud.

Edited by markyb_lcy on Thursday 9th July 15:02

How is it fraud? People give him money and he can do what he wants with any surplus. If anything it’s a clever ruse to raise some funds. Plenty of people out there raising money for all sorts of stuff with no guarantee where the money goes. Tommy Robinson seems to start a go fund me campaign every 5 minutes for some sort of legal defence.

[markyb_lcy]

unident said:

markyb_lcy said:

That’s a pretty baseless accusation of fraud.

Edited by markyb_lcy on Thursday 9th July 15:02

How is it fraud? People give him money and he can do what he wants with any surplus. If anything it’s a clever ruse to raise some funds. Plenty of people out there raising money for all sorts of stuff with no guarantee where the money goes. Tommy Robinson seems to start a go fund me campaign every 5 minutes for some sort of legal defence.

Asking for money via an online funding platform for a judicial review and then pocketing the extra personally is very much fraud.

[unident]

markyb_lcy said:

Asking for money via an online funding platform for a judicial review and then pocketing the extra personally is very much fraud.

Is it? He had the review, he paid for it out of the funds donated. Is he supposed to return the balance? Is it fraud if he doesn’t? I don’t think it is.

[redjohn]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

Sign at the side of the road on the A47 on the way into work today:

ONLY ESSENTIAL JOURNEYS TO AND FROM LEICESTER ALLOWED


And then once in I hear an advert on the radio from the Government along the lines of mis-information about coronavirus is widespread and to look on gov.uk for the correct information.

The sign is correct, Leicester is in lockdown, shops are closed, schools are closed and in out traffic is essential only.

[markyb_lcy]

redjohn said:

Stay in Bed Instead said:

Sign at the side of the road on the A47 on the way into work today:

ONLY ESSENTIAL JOURNEYS TO AND FROM LEICESTER ALLOWED


And then once in I hear an advert on the radio from the Government along the lines of mis-information about coronavirus is widespread and to look on gov.uk for the correct information.

The sign is correct, Leicester is in lockdown, shops are closed, schools are closed and in out traffic is essential only.

That's not legally the case at all. The only restrictions regarding freedom of movement (and previously posted on this thread) relate to staying overnight....

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/685/conte...

Perhaps a good idea to familiarise yourself with the legislation before you assert what is and is not allowed?

[markyb_lcy]

unident said:

markyb_lcy said:

Asking for money via an online funding platform for a judicial review and then pocketing the extra personally is very much fraud.

Is it? He had the review, he paid for it out of the funds donated. Is he supposed to return the balance? Is it fraud if he doesn’t? I don’t think it is.

I described a hypothetical situation.

It is you that is asserting there's a good chance he is pocketing the extra, not me.

Accepting charitable donations for a specified cause and then using them to personally enrich oneself is fraud.

Making unfounded accusations of criminality online is also unlawful (and likely against forum rules) so I suggest for your own sake that you now drop this.

[unident]

markyb_lcy said:

unident said:

markyb_lcy said:

Asking for money via an online funding platform for a judicial review and then pocketing the extra personally is very much fraud.

Is it? He had the review, he paid for it out of the funds donated. Is he supposed to return the balance? Is it fraud if he doesn’t? I don’t think it is.

I described a hypothetical situation.

It is you that is asserting there's a good chance he is pocketing the extra, not me.

Accepting charitable donations for a specified cause and then using them to personally enrich oneself is fraud.

Making unfounded accusations of criminality online is also unlawful (and likely against forum rules) so I suggest for your own sake that you now drop this.

You see this smiley it’s what I used at the end of my first comment. You want to get down off your high horse. As unless he has stated explicitly what will happen to the excess then people are allowed to speculate. Equally, if he hasn’t then is he committing fraud by your definition? It would be quite amazing for him to raise the exact amount needed and not a penny more.

I’m going to tweet him and ask what’s happening with a surplus from his crowdfunding. If he doesn’t reply then I’ll take that to mean something, you can take it to mean something else.

[markyb_lcy]

unident said:

markyb_lcy said:

unident said:

markyb_lcy said:

Asking for money via an online funding platform for a judicial review and then pocketing the extra personally is very much fraud.

Is it? He had the review, he paid for it out of the funds donated. Is he supposed to return the balance? Is it fraud if he doesn’t? I don’t think it is.

I described a hypothetical situation.

It is you that is asserting there's a good chance he is pocketing the extra, not me.

Accepting charitable donations for a specified cause and then using them to personally enrich oneself is fraud.

Making unfounded accusations of criminality online is also unlawful (and likely against forum rules) so I suggest for your own sake that you now drop this.

You see this smiley it’s what I used at the end of my first comment. You want to get down off your high horse. As unless he has stated explicitly what will happen to the excess then people are allowed to speculate. Equally, if he hasn’t then is he committing fraud by your definition? It would be quite amazing for him to raise the exact amount needed and not a penny more.

I’m going to tweet him and ask what’s happening with a surplus from his crowdfunding. If he doesn’t reply then I’ll take that to mean something, you can take it to mean something else.

I won't be taking it to mean anything whatsoever and I feel no need like you to speculate what happens to crowdfunding surplus more generally or in this specific case. Feel free to do your own research and engage in your own speculation, I would just suggest to try to be aware of where speculation ventures toward libel.

[unident]

markyb_lcy said:

I won't be taking it to mean anything whatsoever and I feel no need like you to speculate what happens to crowdfunding surplus more generally or in this specific case. Feel free to do your own research and engage in your own speculation, I would just suggest to try to be aware of where speculation ventures toward libel.

Libel. Really? Well all he has to do is sue unident off the internet.

Here’s a bit of research. Initially they wanted to raise £30,000, but apparently would need over £125,000 to take it all the way. They can’t take it all the way, based on the current situation, but their new target is £225,000. Should we see what happens if / when that’s achieved. And they’re up to £209,000. He says all of it will go to the lawyers to hold, but they can’t hold it indefinitely for costs that they haven’t incurred so it will sit in a client account for a while and then have to go somewhere. I know where I think it’s going.

Oh and if Tommy Robinson would like to sue me, I bet he is pocketing money that he was asking for in donations to help him fight one of his many legal battles. I doubt he will.

[markyb_lcy]

At least if nothing else unident, we have found some rules that you don't understand, agree with or aren't prepared to follow.

Progress, of a sort.