Emergency legislation - information and commentary
Discussion
The one reason that was put forward for the partial but very significant and unprecedented restrictions on freedom no longer exists, but the restrictions are still here and the Government wants to extend them. That reason was "stop the NHS from collapsing". Leave out the "stop it from collapsing because our last ten years of policy have denied it resilience" bit, and and say, OK then, fair enough. That reason no longer exists. It cannot come back in the autumn without a level of incompetence that would exceed even that shown by this Government.
The Government has boxed itself into a corner by over-promising, and, having started out saying "Covid? No biggie" in an almost Trumpy way, it is now stuck way down the other end of the silly-scale. I do not think that Johnson is Hitler, but one of his big problems is lack of courage and leadership, so he can't bring himself to say "the rules aren't needed any more, let's bin them".
I do think that Johnson, Patel etc pose big and intentional threats to the rule of law more generally, but that is for reasons unconnected with the Covid rules.
The media are addicted to Covid as THE story, and love the news being bad. The BBC announces that about 100 people, most of whom were very old or already very ill, have sadly died with the same solemnity as if it was announcing that London has been nuclear bombed or that the Queen's dog is a bit poorly. As these threads show, many here are addicted to the idea that this is a Doomsday event and we must still hunker down for another ten or twenty years or so. I find that way of thinking weird, but some people love to be gloomy.
The Government has boxed itself into a corner by over-promising, and, having started out saying "Covid? No biggie" in an almost Trumpy way, it is now stuck way down the other end of the silly-scale. I do not think that Johnson is Hitler, but one of his big problems is lack of courage and leadership, so he can't bring himself to say "the rules aren't needed any more, let's bin them".
I do think that Johnson, Patel etc pose big and intentional threats to the rule of law more generally, but that is for reasons unconnected with the Covid rules.
The media are addicted to Covid as THE story, and love the news being bad. The BBC announces that about 100 people, most of whom were very old or already very ill, have sadly died with the same solemnity as if it was announcing that London has been nuclear bombed or that the Queen's dog is a bit poorly. As these threads show, many here are addicted to the idea that this is a Doomsday event and we must still hunker down for another ten or twenty years or so. I find that way of thinking weird, but some people love to be gloomy.
unident said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Is he wrong?
Of course he is. Maybe not in the comment that people fought for freedoms, but the implication that those freedoms are now gone forever as we enter the Fourth Reich, because he’s a sensationalist. 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?
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.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff