Emergency legislation - information and commentary
Discussion
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 We don’t know if it’s going to be extended, even if it is, it can be withdrawn at any point.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.
Bigends 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
Covid regs = no requirement to give your name and address, but if they want to FPN they need your details.
PACE = arrest to enable details to be confirmed.
(Arguably coercion at work, as what generally law-abiding citizen with a job and a reputation to maintain wants an arrest or worse on their record?)
But where does the right to silence sit?
This video on YouTube (posted by 'Jimmy OneTime': https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUcpYqZxQV-cdImAO... ) seems to be saying that under Rice vs Connolly 1966, one is not required to furnish details at any point and can rely on the Right to Silence??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NeCqOgjpKg
Or have I misunderstood things entirely?
EDIT: Rice vs Connolly links:
https://swarb.co.uk/rice-v-connolly-1966/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_v_Connolly
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Wednesday 17th March 18:14
carinaman said:
ha, you posted as I was trawling/adding links 
Please can I ask if someone can explain it to me like they are explaining quantum physics to a 5-year old that isn't Stephen Hawking?
Breadvan72 said:
unident said:
Breadvan72 said:
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.
What’s happened? Do you see our legal processes and courts as a mere lottery? Just that you said it was “lucky” that a court got it right. 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.
You don’t debate. You make statements, you expect them to be accepted in full. You don’t answer the challenges raised, you play the man, then walk away with a misplaced opinion that you hold the higher ground.
There isn’t a single insult in there. What I have said is factual and representative of both what you’ve written and what you’re relying on to make your wild claims.
blueg33 said:
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....
The reason behind the arrests was because the names & addresses were refused & so they couldn't go that path.
That didn't apply to everyone present, only those that they wanted to issue FPNs to because of their individual particular offending.
That wasn't applicable to all those present & why would it be?
There had been hours of peaceful vigil, including the attendance of the Duchess of Cambridge & that only changed at a later hour when it become more than a peaceful vigil following the actions of those individuals that the Police tried to engage with, explain to & encourage to desist.
RSTurboPaul said:
ha, you posted as I was trawling/adding links
Please can I ask if someone can explain it to me like they are explaining quantum physics to a 5-year old that isn't Stephen Hawking?
It's actually easy to understand but hard (For me) to explain succinctly.Please can I ask if someone can explain it to me like they are explaining quantum physics to a 5-year old that isn't Stephen Hawking?
Everyone has a right to silence and using that right is not against the law (Unless in some very limited circumstances such as when driving or keeping a car).
That doesn't mean it is always consequence free. If this means having decided to deal with you for an offence, they cannot ascertain your name and address then it may lead to an arrest in order to prosecute you for THAT offence. What was way out there, as far as I can see, on this occasion they tried to argue that, not giving your name and address, amounted to obstruction. It has long been held that merely not helping is not obstructing police and there is no reason the obstruction offence, under the regulations, is any different other than applying to any "Official". N.B giving a false name or address can amount to obstruction.
If the Police, believe you are breaking certain Covid regulations they have a range of options they can of course do nothing, advise explain etc. This is nothing new. One oddity is they can direct you to go home, order an illegal gathering to disperse and remove anyone part of an illegal gathering.
Issuing an FPN for Covid is just like speeding, an option they may offer to avoid a prosecution and a conviction. They don't have to it depends on the circumstances. However in order to do that they need a name and address. If that cannot be ascertained then they deal with you in the same way as if they decided not to offer the FPN in the first place.
That is usually in cases like this the SJPN, which also requires the name and address. Which is where the arrest comes in. For all offences a constable can arrest if they reasonable suspect someone is guilty AND if any of a list of conditions apply as listed subsection 5 here in addition for COVID it also includes to maintain public health;
or to maintain public order.
The key ones for name and address though are:
(a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);
(b)correspondingly as regards the person's address;
TLDR.
If you don't tell them your name and address you commit no offence. But, if they suspect you have committed some actual offence, they can arrest you, (For amongst other reasons) if they can't readily ascertain your real name and address, by any other means.
Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 17th March 19:08
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
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....
The reason behind the arrests was because the names & addresses were refused & so they couldn't go that path.
That didn't apply to everyone present, only those that they wanted to issue FPNs to because of their individual particular offending.
That wasn't applicable to all those present & why would it be?
There had been hours of peaceful vigil, including the attendance of the Duchess of Cambridge & that only changed at a later hour when it become more than a peaceful vigil following the actions of those individuals that the Police tried to engage with, explain to & encourage to desist.
vonhosen said:
It looked like they wanted to issue a few FPNs, couldn't, so arrested (having first engaged, explained & encouraged to try & avoid resorting to that).
The reason behind the arrests was because the names & addresses were refused & so they couldn't go that path.
That didn't apply to everyone present, only those that they wanted to issue FPNs to because of their individual particular offending.
That wasn't applicable to all those present & why would it be?
There had been hours of peaceful vigil, including the attendance of the Duchess of Cambridge & that only changed at a later hour when it become more than a peaceful vigil following the actions of those individuals that the Police tried to engage with, explain to & encourage to desist.
Surely if they wanted to issue FPN’d for COVID everyone there was breaking the same law. So why single out 4? If they were committing different offences why not arrest them for those? The law applies equally to all, surely it’s not right to pick some people over other’s because you don’t like them?The reason behind the arrests was because the names & addresses were refused & so they couldn't go that path.
That didn't apply to everyone present, only those that they wanted to issue FPNs to because of their individual particular offending.
That wasn't applicable to all those present & why would it be?
There had been hours of peaceful vigil, including the attendance of the Duchess of Cambridge & that only changed at a later hour when it become more than a peaceful vigil following the actions of those individuals that the Police tried to engage with, explain to & encourage to desist.
Bigends said:
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
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....
The reason behind the arrests was because the names & addresses were refused & so they couldn't go that path.
That didn't apply to everyone present, only those that they wanted to issue FPNs to because of their individual particular offending.
That wasn't applicable to all those present & why would it be?
There had been hours of peaceful vigil, including the attendance of the Duchess of Cambridge & that only changed at a later hour when it become more than a peaceful vigil following the actions of those individuals that the Police tried to engage with, explain to & encourage to desist.
Not everybody was.
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
It looked like they wanted to issue a few FPNs, couldn't, so arrested (having first engaged, explained & encouraged to try & avoid resorting to that).
The reason behind the arrests was because the names & addresses were refused & so they couldn't go that path.
That didn't apply to everyone present, only those that they wanted to issue FPNs to because of their individual particular offending.
That wasn't applicable to all those present & why would it be?
There had been hours of peaceful vigil, including the attendance of the Duchess of Cambridge & that only changed at a later hour when it become more than a peaceful vigil following the actions of those individuals that the Police tried to engage with, explain to & encourage to desist.
Surely if they wanted to issue FPN’d for COVID everyone there was breaking the same law. So why single out 4? If they were committing different offences why not arrest them for those? The law applies equally to all, surely it’s not right to pick some people over other’s because you don’t like them?The reason behind the arrests was because the names & addresses were refused & so they couldn't go that path.
That didn't apply to everyone present, only those that they wanted to issue FPNs to because of their individual particular offending.
That wasn't applicable to all those present & why would it be?
There had been hours of peaceful vigil, including the attendance of the Duchess of Cambridge & that only changed at a later hour when it become more than a peaceful vigil following the actions of those individuals that the Police tried to engage with, explain to & encourage to desist.
vonhosen said:
Because they were the ones on the bandstand (where speeches were being made from) which became the focal point that the crowd clambered towards & as a result of which it was no longer a vigil but an unlawful gathering?
Only 4 on the bandstand? I don’t buy it. If they were breaking Covid regs so was everyone else. It looks like they choose who they didn’t like and booked them. I don’t think the way the vigil was handled is defensible. It’s a f
k up. blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
Because they were the ones on the bandstand (where speeches were being made from) which became the focal point that the crowd clambered towards & as a result of which it was no longer a vigil but an unlawful gathering?
Only 4 on the bandstand? I don’t buy it. If they were breaking Covid regs so was everyone else. It looks like they choose who they didn’t like and booked them. I don’t think the way the vigil was handled is defensible. It’s a f
k up. Greendubber said:
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
Because they were the ones on the bandstand (where speeches were being made from) which became the focal point that the crowd clambered towards & as a result of which it was no longer a vigil but an unlawful gathering?
Only 4 on the bandstand? I don’t buy it. If they were breaking Covid regs so was everyone else. It looks like they choose who they didn’t like and booked them. I don’t think the way the vigil was handled is defensible. It’s a f
k up. blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
Because they were the ones on the bandstand (where speeches were being made from) which became the focal point that the crowd clambered towards & as a result of which it was no longer a vigil but an unlawful gathering?
Only 4 on the bandstand? I don’t buy it. If they were breaking Covid regs so was everyone else. It looks like they choose who they didn’t like and booked them. I don’t think the way the vigil was handled is defensible. It’s a f
k up. They don't have to arrest everybody, but it's likely they want those that they believe were a cause of it if they can.
It didn't appear there was a problem with the vigil, it's when it became something else.
Perhaps it was by design.
Perhaps there were those that wanted to make a political statement & make headlines, wanted publicity for a cause & the bigger the headlines the bigger the publicity for that cause. Perhaps a peaceful vigil (as it had appeared to have been for hours) didn't suit that cause so they were trying to force that alternate outcome for that purpose.
There's going to be an enquiry, but the Police have been hung drawn & quartered in (not even a trial by) the media already.
By the time any enquiry concludes then it won't matter if they are exonerated at that point.
Still we will have a more balanced/evidenced & nuanced view of it all then, rather than just conjecture.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 17th March 20:39
blueg33 said:
Greendubber said:
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
Because they were the ones on the bandstand (where speeches were being made from) which became the focal point that the crowd clambered towards & as a result of which it was no longer a vigil but an unlawful gathering?
Only 4 on the bandstand? I don’t buy it. If they were breaking Covid regs so was everyone else. It looks like they choose who they didn’t like and booked them. I don’t think the way the vigil was handled is defensible. It’s a f
k up. To establish the truth of the matter.
blueg33 said:
Greendubber said:
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
Because they were the ones on the bandstand (where speeches were being made from) which became the focal point that the crowd clambered towards & as a result of which it was no longer a vigil but an unlawful gathering?
Only 4 on the bandstand? I don’t buy it. If they were breaking Covid regs so was everyone else. It looks like they choose who they didn’t like and booked them. I don’t think the way the vigil was handled is defensible. It’s a f
k up. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff