News3 mins ago
We're These Women Out Of Order
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by piggynose. 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.
//NJ, I think you mean "martial law"...//
Yes do, Corby. Thanks for the correction (it was getting late!).
//Diabolical that you find 79,000 deaths and rising exponentially because people feel they can do as they please a source for mirth and ridicule.//
//As for the rest I’ve no idea why people feel the need to quibble over fine detail and semantics when the government are telling people to stay home unless absolutely necessary.//
They are not telling them that. They are telling them that they can only go out if they have a “reasonable excuse.” The legislation they have imposed provides a non-exhaustive list of “reasonable excuses”. Among thoseis to take exercise. It is not absolutely necessary to leave home to exercise. You can exercise sufficiently to keep you well in a studio flat if you have to. What we are experiencing now is not “the new normal.” It’s about as abnormal as you can get.
//when the government are telling people to stay at home and exercise locally,…//
Once again, no they are not (at least as far as their legislation goes). You seem to be missing the point here. Nobody is making light of 79k deaths, nor of the seriousness of the situation. But I am not making light of the police assuming powers that they do not have. Whatever the situation, that is the beginning of a very slippery slope. What next? I often travel to different shops to collect my goods. Some are further away than others. When I’m apprehended by the police in one of the more distant ones are they to assume similar powers and issue me with a fixed penalty for not restricting my shopping to my nearest shop?
Yes, much of our legislation relies on precedent to cope with situations that are nor covered by statute or common law. But there is no need for precedent to be set or used here. The Derbyshire police now realise that, as the legislation is written, they would not have a hope in Hell’s chance of securing a conviction in court against these two women. The NPCC has probably advised them of that. The worrying thing is that they (or at least the individual officers concerned) ever thought they could. They have said now they will “offer advice” in similar circumstances. I’m perfectly OK with that because their advice can be politely ignored. This wasn’t about advice. This was using the threat of criminal sanctions to enforce an interpretation of legislation that simply didn’t exist.
Nobody thought a year ago that people in the UK would be clamouring for restrictions that would prevent them from leaving home. Needs must. But I never thought I would be reading of people willing to support the police when they exceed their powers. For me that is far more worrying, especially when it is spoken in the same breath as "the new normal."
Yes do, Corby. Thanks for the correction (it was getting late!).
//Diabolical that you find 79,000 deaths and rising exponentially because people feel they can do as they please a source for mirth and ridicule.//
//As for the rest I’ve no idea why people feel the need to quibble over fine detail and semantics when the government are telling people to stay home unless absolutely necessary.//
They are not telling them that. They are telling them that they can only go out if they have a “reasonable excuse.” The legislation they have imposed provides a non-exhaustive list of “reasonable excuses”. Among thoseis to take exercise. It is not absolutely necessary to leave home to exercise. You can exercise sufficiently to keep you well in a studio flat if you have to. What we are experiencing now is not “the new normal.” It’s about as abnormal as you can get.
//when the government are telling people to stay at home and exercise locally,…//
Once again, no they are not (at least as far as their legislation goes). You seem to be missing the point here. Nobody is making light of 79k deaths, nor of the seriousness of the situation. But I am not making light of the police assuming powers that they do not have. Whatever the situation, that is the beginning of a very slippery slope. What next? I often travel to different shops to collect my goods. Some are further away than others. When I’m apprehended by the police in one of the more distant ones are they to assume similar powers and issue me with a fixed penalty for not restricting my shopping to my nearest shop?
Yes, much of our legislation relies on precedent to cope with situations that are nor covered by statute or common law. But there is no need for precedent to be set or used here. The Derbyshire police now realise that, as the legislation is written, they would not have a hope in Hell’s chance of securing a conviction in court against these two women. The NPCC has probably advised them of that. The worrying thing is that they (or at least the individual officers concerned) ever thought they could. They have said now they will “offer advice” in similar circumstances. I’m perfectly OK with that because their advice can be politely ignored. This wasn’t about advice. This was using the threat of criminal sanctions to enforce an interpretation of legislation that simply didn’t exist.
Nobody thought a year ago that people in the UK would be clamouring for restrictions that would prevent them from leaving home. Needs must. But I never thought I would be reading of people willing to support the police when they exceed their powers. For me that is far more worrying, especially when it is spoken in the same breath as "the new normal."
how many respondents in this thread who have criticised the "fined" women, would support COVID marshals who act like this?
https:/
https:/
New Judge
More convoluted machinations about the whys and wherefores.
Just stay at home unless it’s absolutely necessary and walk around the block for exercise, it’s not difficult except for a few special ones. Why is it such a strain for some to do as they’re told.
https:/
More convoluted machinations about the whys and wherefores.
Just stay at home unless it’s absolutely necessary and walk around the block for exercise, it’s not difficult except for a few special ones. Why is it such a strain for some to do as they’re told.
https:/
This sort of thing makes me despair.
If you cannot rely on the police to exercise common sense ...
It’ll likely only make people crosser more frustrated and more rebellious
It would be interesting to know what Derbyshire police would make of the open air “cafe” that’s been selling coffees to the legions on walkers near here who converge by car.
I’m about to find out how it’s going up there :-)
If you cannot rely on the police to exercise common sense ...
It’ll likely only make people crosser more frustrated and more rebellious
It would be interesting to know what Derbyshire police would make of the open air “cafe” that’s been selling coffees to the legions on walkers near here who converge by car.
I’m about to find out how it’s going up there :-)
mushroom25
how many respondents in this thread who have criticised the "fined" women, would support COVID marshals who act like this?
Not a single one but then this is a post about the idiocy of two women not an overly enthusiastic marshall so let’s keep it in context.
The government are asking people to stay at home and not make a journey unless it’s ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for the next few weeks because they are obviously going to crack down on it even further if the bbc is correct
how many respondents in this thread who have criticised the "fined" women, would support COVID marshals who act like this?
Not a single one but then this is a post about the idiocy of two women not an overly enthusiastic marshall so let’s keep it in context.
The government are asking people to stay at home and not make a journey unless it’s ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for the next few weeks because they are obviously going to crack down on it even further if the bbc is correct
Yes but that is exactly my point: plainly you have to have the rules but they necessarily are meaningless and open to ridicule if enforced without common sense.
They drove five miles to an isolated spot and in the end were fined for carrying mugs of tea. Not even a warning and presumably no thought given to the actual risk.
They drove five miles to an isolated spot and in the end were fined for carrying mugs of tea. Not even a warning and presumably no thought given to the actual risk.
ichkeria
“ walk around the block for exercise,”
What if your “block” is in a built up or residential area.
These rules are broad brushes and make no sense unless they are interpreted sensibly by everyone
Can’t you stagger your exercise? Do some Joe Wicks stuff in the living room. Sidestep someone coming the other way inthe pavement. Does someone have to do all your thinking and common sense approaches for you?
Will the rules make better sense if you catch covid ?
“ walk around the block for exercise,”
What if your “block” is in a built up or residential area.
These rules are broad brushes and make no sense unless they are interpreted sensibly by everyone
Can’t you stagger your exercise? Do some Joe Wicks stuff in the living room. Sidestep someone coming the other way inthe pavement. Does someone have to do all your thinking and common sense approaches for you?
Will the rules make better sense if you catch covid ?
// The government are asking people to stay at home and not make a journey unless it’s ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY //
if that's what the government want, then the regulations need to state that, explicitly and without equivocation, without exception, without "reasonable excuse", without schools for "the vulnerable", without sneaky popping to the shops - in fact curfew, or you vill be shot. nothing less will get the result they seek.
if that's what the government want, then the regulations need to state that, explicitly and without equivocation, without exception, without "reasonable excuse", without schools for "the vulnerable", without sneaky popping to the shops - in fact curfew, or you vill be shot. nothing less will get the result they seek.
https:/
As I said on a post a few days ago we will get what we deserve, no less.
As I said on a post a few days ago we will get what we deserve, no less.
Is the picture of the two women walking with their coffee cups which has appeared online and in the press from the time they were stopped by the police? If so, who took it? Someone else with them?
Whatever the answer the police action does seem over the top, but have the police made any specific comment?
Whatever the answer the police action does seem over the top, but have the police made any specific comment?
“ Can’t you stagger your exercise? Do some Joe Wicks stuff in the living room. Sidestep someone coming the other way inthe pavement. Does someone have to do all your thinking and common sense approaches for you?
Will the rules make better sense if you catch covid ?”
No. You’re being silly now. As mushroom says, total lockdown is not possible and is not being asked for. It’s impossible actually to keep 2 metres apart from everyone all the time but I think most people make a good effort at balancing that with living.
The thing is out of control anyway si elle you can do is manage as best you can.
The women in question don’t appear to have broken the rules anyway. They were fined for having a picnic
Will the rules make better sense if you catch covid ?”
No. You’re being silly now. As mushroom says, total lockdown is not possible and is not being asked for. It’s impossible actually to keep 2 metres apart from everyone all the time but I think most people make a good effort at balancing that with living.
The thing is out of control anyway si elle you can do is manage as best you can.
The women in question don’t appear to have broken the rules anyway. They were fined for having a picnic
Avatar Image ichkeria
I think this is ultimately a thread about the idiocy of the police and you should ask yourself what damage it might have fine to the credibility of people with the admittedly awkward job of upholding the law
Again: the government are TELLING people to stay indoors as much as possible, exercise close to home. Why do an entitled few believe the rules don’t apply in their case?
I think this is ultimately a thread about the idiocy of the police and you should ask yourself what damage it might have fine to the credibility of people with the admittedly awkward job of upholding the law
Again: the government are TELLING people to stay indoors as much as possible, exercise close to home. Why do an entitled few believe the rules don’t apply in their case?
Latest Posts
Technology5 mins ago
The Incredible Shrinking Majority....
News7 mins ago
News13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Instead Of Crowing About The Win.......
Politics18 mins ago
