How it Works0 min ago
Damned If They Do And Damned If They Dont
https:/
I kinda feel sorry for the Police here
I kinda feel sorry for the Police here
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bobbisox1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think they must...the figures are given in the link but its not clear how many withdrawns refer to the same offender...they know the total number of charges but there doesn't seem to be a total number of how many they got wrong, also the CPS will refuse to prosecute even if the charge is right but they don't see a reasonable prospect of a conviction. I would also advance a theory that simply being charged would have had a beneficial effect on supporting the lockdown in that it demonstrated that the police were in earnest.
//The rules are really very very simple.//
Are they? Let’s try this for size. Here’s one of the “reasonable excuses” provided as justification for leaving one’s house:
"to visit a public open space for the purposes of open-air recreation to promote their physical or mental health or emotional wellbeing—
(i)alone,
(ii)with one or more members of their household, or
(iii)with one member of another household;"
So, leaving aside a police officer’s difficulty in establishing whether or not a person was out and about “to promote their physical or mental health or emotional wellbeing" (or whether, perhaps, he was on his way to commit suicide) let’s consider this. I go out with Mrs NJ to promote our physical or mental health or emotional wellbeing. (As much as we’re both dying for a pie and a pint, neither of us is yet at the stage where we’re considering jumping off the local railway bridge). Whilst we’re out we meet a neighbour doing likewise. “Would you like to join us in promoting our emotional health and wellbeing?” I suggest. He can join me, provided Mrs NJ goes elsewhere or Mrs NJ can join him provided I go home. Of course that would mean that my neighbour’s wife cannot join him if he chooses to join one of us.
If the legislation is all too much and you decide to look at the guidance instead, you will be badly misled. It says this:
"People will also be able to see one person from another household, as long as they follow social distance guidance."
The police have no powers to enforce social distancing. So to place a proviso on this newly established freedom is simply wrong. There can be no proviso and if I choose to embrace my neighbour as a long lost friend when I meet him there is nothing anybody can do about it.
The legislation is mired in superfluous legalese (“to promote their physical or mental health or emotional wellbeing”); the advice contradicts the law; the entire output is the result of a committee of civil servants and lawyers unused to dealing with anybody outside their bubble.
Of course if our exercise in promoting our respective physical or mental health or emotional wellbeing took place on the Llanymynech golf course, all bets are off:
https:/
The government has a responsibility to get economic activity moving again and it’s making a dog’s breakfast of the task even at this early stage.
Are they? Let’s try this for size. Here’s one of the “reasonable excuses” provided as justification for leaving one’s house:
"to visit a public open space for the purposes of open-air recreation to promote their physical or mental health or emotional wellbeing—
(i)alone,
(ii)with one or more members of their household, or
(iii)with one member of another household;"
So, leaving aside a police officer’s difficulty in establishing whether or not a person was out and about “to promote their physical or mental health or emotional wellbeing" (or whether, perhaps, he was on his way to commit suicide) let’s consider this. I go out with Mrs NJ to promote our physical or mental health or emotional wellbeing. (As much as we’re both dying for a pie and a pint, neither of us is yet at the stage where we’re considering jumping off the local railway bridge). Whilst we’re out we meet a neighbour doing likewise. “Would you like to join us in promoting our emotional health and wellbeing?” I suggest. He can join me, provided Mrs NJ goes elsewhere or Mrs NJ can join him provided I go home. Of course that would mean that my neighbour’s wife cannot join him if he chooses to join one of us.
If the legislation is all too much and you decide to look at the guidance instead, you will be badly misled. It says this:
"People will also be able to see one person from another household, as long as they follow social distance guidance."
The police have no powers to enforce social distancing. So to place a proviso on this newly established freedom is simply wrong. There can be no proviso and if I choose to embrace my neighbour as a long lost friend when I meet him there is nothing anybody can do about it.
The legislation is mired in superfluous legalese (“to promote their physical or mental health or emotional wellbeing”); the advice contradicts the law; the entire output is the result of a committee of civil servants and lawyers unused to dealing with anybody outside their bubble.
Of course if our exercise in promoting our respective physical or mental health or emotional wellbeing took place on the Llanymynech golf course, all bets are off:
https:/
The government has a responsibility to get economic activity moving again and it’s making a dog’s breakfast of the task even at this early stage.
2nd go - computer being disobedient again. Mr J2 and I and dog took our morning walk, met a friend with his dog, chatted (on opposite sides of the road) and were eventually joined by another friend on a dog-walk, who stood a bit down the road to join in.
My brain freezes at trying to calculate how many rules were broken (how many dogs can meet together?) but what harm could possibly have been done?
My brain freezes at trying to calculate how many rules were broken (how many dogs can meet together?) but what harm could possibly have been done?
NJ,
What about a parent and their toddler being told they cannot be in their garden on a sunny day ?
https:/
What about a parent and their toddler being told they cannot be in their garden on a sunny day ?
https:/
//What about a parent and their toddler being told they cannot be in their garden on a sunny day ?//
Yes I commented on that when it first arose, Gromit. It demonstrated that the officer involved had not had the courtesy to read what was a fairly short piece of legislation before chucking his weight around. It was quite clear about the definition of "the place where a person is living":
"For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises."
I know that "appurtenance" is probably not too commonly used but the rest of it is.
//NJ, if some police in Wales were using English legislation and some police in England were using Welsh legislation, that is not misinterpretation of the law, it's incompetence.//
I quite agree, Corby. What I don't agree with is that there should be different laws that apply either side of the Welsh border.
Much of this legislation is abject nonsense. I cannot visit my neighbour in her garden. But she can employ a gardener. So, I can go into her garden, do a bit of weeding for which she can pay me fifty pence. I can spend as long as I like there and she and I can both sit on a chair and have a chat whilst I'm resting. She can even make me a cup of tea to slake my thirst following my labours. But I can't just go to visit her. It's utter nonsense.
Yes I commented on that when it first arose, Gromit. It demonstrated that the officer involved had not had the courtesy to read what was a fairly short piece of legislation before chucking his weight around. It was quite clear about the definition of "the place where a person is living":
"For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises."
I know that "appurtenance" is probably not too commonly used but the rest of it is.
//NJ, if some police in Wales were using English legislation and some police in England were using Welsh legislation, that is not misinterpretation of the law, it's incompetence.//
I quite agree, Corby. What I don't agree with is that there should be different laws that apply either side of the Welsh border.
Much of this legislation is abject nonsense. I cannot visit my neighbour in her garden. But she can employ a gardener. So, I can go into her garden, do a bit of weeding for which she can pay me fifty pence. I can spend as long as I like there and she and I can both sit on a chair and have a chat whilst I'm resting. She can even make me a cup of tea to slake my thirst following my labours. But I can't just go to visit her. It's utter nonsense.
//How would you ease up on the lockdown NewJudge...//
Well I wouldn't introduce legislation that can lead to the ridiculous situation I described above. I would also not publish a document like this:
https:/
It contains (for example) this preamble:
"Details on a range of outdoor activities which will be allowed in England from 13 May 2020 subject to social distancing rules."
If people choose to mix closely with each other whilst out and about under these relaxions there is absolutely nothing the police can do about it. They have no powers to enforce social distancing rules because there are no social distancing rules. They can choose their "one person from another household", give them a hug, give them a kiss and sit on their lap. A little later they can choose another person from a different household and do the same again.
The police are in an unenviable position. The government wants people to "stay alert" but the police are in no position to make them do so. I said when the lockdown was introduced that if it was not eased considerably by early June then it would crumble by default. When people realise how ridiculous the latest amendments to the legislation are they will hasten that demise.
If the government wants to ease the lockdown but retain its integrity it needs to introduce rules that are not ridiculous and which everybody can understand. Last Wednesday the government told everybody they could go out near enough where they liked (but ridiculously, only in England). Today we see scenes of police road blocks near popular spots preventing drivers from proceeding "in case they get crowded". They have no powers to do this and if the government wants places to remain uncrowded they need to introduce proper legislation that gives police the necessary powers. Otherwise people will increasingly stick two fingers in the air.
Well I wouldn't introduce legislation that can lead to the ridiculous situation I described above. I would also not publish a document like this:
https:/
It contains (for example) this preamble:
"Details on a range of outdoor activities which will be allowed in England from 13 May 2020 subject to social distancing rules."
If people choose to mix closely with each other whilst out and about under these relaxions there is absolutely nothing the police can do about it. They have no powers to enforce social distancing rules because there are no social distancing rules. They can choose their "one person from another household", give them a hug, give them a kiss and sit on their lap. A little later they can choose another person from a different household and do the same again.
The police are in an unenviable position. The government wants people to "stay alert" but the police are in no position to make them do so. I said when the lockdown was introduced that if it was not eased considerably by early June then it would crumble by default. When people realise how ridiculous the latest amendments to the legislation are they will hasten that demise.
If the government wants to ease the lockdown but retain its integrity it needs to introduce rules that are not ridiculous and which everybody can understand. Last Wednesday the government told everybody they could go out near enough where they liked (but ridiculously, only in England). Today we see scenes of police road blocks near popular spots preventing drivers from proceeding "in case they get crowded". They have no powers to do this and if the government wants places to remain uncrowded they need to introduce proper legislation that gives police the necessary powers. Otherwise people will increasingly stick two fingers in the air.
Then what I would do is to provide proper protection for the vulnerable groups so that they did not have to go out at all and that risk to them was minimised. I would provide a reasonable level of assistance for those who chose to isolate but were not in those groups. I'd abandon the idea of "tracking and tracing" because it will be ineffective in most of the UK. Then I would lift the lockdown near enough in its entirety as in Sweden. The idea that society and the economy can be locked away until either the virus disappears or a vaccine is found is ludicrous.
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
Road rules4 mins ago
Editor's Blog36 mins ago
ChatterBank47 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles75 mins ago
