The Boris looks worse in that video than the previous ones. No hacking of his guts up, but round his eyes looks like somebody who has been a week bender with no sleep.
I noticed the traffic on the road outside my house last Sunday was similar to a Sunday normal. No doubt some were on the way to essential work; others were caring for vulnerable friends, family and so on; a few may be shopping although this is the centre of town and there are plenty supermarkets in walking distance.
Point is, probably most of these people were breaking the social distancing requirements imposed on the population to slow the epidemic. I don't want the police to be issuing fines like confetti, but I am in favour of them reminding citizens what their obligations are, in the same way they might talk to an unruly neighbour or break up a spontaneous large gathering of youths. The choice isn't just between heavy-handedness and doing nothing.
“What their obligations are” is the key phrase here.
The legal obligations are not the same as the advice and the police are confusing the two, as the NPCC guidance shows. This is not just confusion. It appears to be intentional. And it is wrong to mislead citizens about what is or is not a criminal offence.
I have no problem with a policeman reminding someone of the advice. I have a very big problem indeed with them telling someone that they will be committing a criminal offence when they won’t be or stopping them doing something which is lawful.
I agree with this except, maybe, on your distinction in practice between guidance and legal obligations.
The law is categorical: "no person may leave the place where they are living."
Which is an extraordinary restriction on personal liberty. We are in an extraordinary situation.
It then qualifies this: "Except to the extent that a defence would be available." That defence is "to show that the person, in the circumstances, had a reasonable excuse"
The law doesn't define "reasonable excuse" but it does list a small number of tightly defined reasons for leaving the house that are included within "reasonable excuse" for example, "obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household"
In summary the law is that you mustn't leave your house. If you do leave your house, it is only to do one of the specified things. If you are outside the house for any other purpose the assumption is that it is disallowed unless you can successfully argue that you have a reasonable excuse.
It's hard to see anyone following government guidance wouldn't have a reasonable excuse. Therefore anything that's explicitly allowed either by the act or the guidance should be OK. I haven't checked but I am guessing the guidance includes all the exceptions in the act. Therefore you can simply follow the guidance.
Anything else is presumed not OK, but you can try arguing if you wish.
The list of reasonable excuses is not exhaustive. It includes those listed but is not limited to them.
The US intelligence community is famous for its 'conclusions'. Envy of the world.
Who in their right mind believes the Chinese statistics?
I'm not sure whether anyone believes the entire body of Chinese statistics, but at the height of the outbreak in Wuhan the WHO sent fact finding missions who monitored what the Chinese were doing and they came to the conclusion that their reporting was adequate. Make of that what you will.
Same WHO that can't say Taiwan without breaking out in a cold sweat?
Are you insinuating that their monitoring mission was colluding with the Chinese to bullshit the rest of the world? That would be quite a serious allegation.
More like cheerfully accepting any horse manure the Chinese gave them.
Well, all we can really do is guess. And when I have to chose who to trust the most out of China, US, and WHO, I will probably neither go for China nor the US.
Then you're not particularly bright and rather prejudiced.
Some of these global institutions with nice sounding names stink.
As far as I'm concerned, the extent to which any UN body can be remotely trusted on anything, is the extent to which the US government is leaning on them to behave themselves.
That's out of date.
Look at the countries the UN has sitting on its human rights commission:
My point was that the question of "who do you trust more, the US or [a UN body]" is redundant, because your answer to the first places a ceiling on your answer to the second.
It does not imply that I necessarily trust either of them overly, and clearly I can trust specific UN bodies a whole lot less than the US. The bit that enables and turns a blind eye to rape by UN "peacekeeping forces", for example.
The Boris looks worse in that video than the previous ones. No hacking of his guts up, but round his eyes looks like somebody who has been a week bender with no sleep.
The current government has made curtailing judicial oversight of public authority a central plank of its programme. The police are simply taking their cue from government in this regard. The state is seeking to return to a medieval age where its word is the law.
There is no way more calculated of bringing a law into disrepute than its rigid enforcement. The police seem determined to demonstrate that.
And yet they have public support.
Round here there is virtual unanimous support for their actions though the goats in Llandudno are a bit unruly
Oh come off it!
If the question is: do you support the police enforcing the law? pretty much everyone, including me, would say yes.
If the question is: do you think the police should be allowed to break the law? Or should the police be allowed to make up the law? Or should the police be able to mislead you about what the law is? Or should the police be allowed to stop you doing something which is legal?
What do you think the answers might be then?
What would your answers be?
The answer would be no but enforcement in this emergency is vital as there are so many who do not care and even see it as a challenge to provoke reactions
Believe you me, North Walians endorse the police stopping people coming into Wales at the border in contravention of HMG requirements as they do in enforcing the closure of our national parks.
Indeed our local mp wrote a column in our paper today headed 'We will welcome our English friends when this is all over '
There is no law forbidding English people coming into North Wales. If you have a reasonable excuse anyone is perfectly entitled to go to North Wales or anywhere else, come to that.
You support the police enforcing a “law” which does not exist. You might want to reflect on what that actually means and what exactly it is you are supporting.
The cars turned back did not have a legitimate reason for coming into Wales or the national parks. Those that did were allowed through
How do you know?
The police said so
I give you Mandy Rice-Davies’ famous answer.
Wow! Your hostility to the Police shows through - talk about generalisations.
The Boris looks worse in that video than the previous ones. No hacking of his guts up, but round his eyes looks like somebody who has been a week bender with no sleep.
He does not look well at all
Soon he'll be immune, and will be able to wander amongst the masses, kissing babies at will.
Late to the party: excellent article by Cyclefree.
Whilst there are exceptional and brave individual officers personally I've never much liked or trusted the police. They're never there or able to do anything when you need them (I think they're often lazy and of questionable competence) and they spend far too much time trying to push politically correct tropes and prosecuting easy targets, usually minor infractions made by otherwise law-abiding middle class people.
It's why I had no issue with police cuts and am a sceptic about the "20,000 extra officers" most of which I suspect will only try to interfere in our lives still further.
It seems like your issue is with the political leadership of the police.
The basic problem is that there are too many laws, too much human activity is subject to legislation.
Leadership is at its heart of course, and also culture of the institution.
I suspect what's actually the main focus of the police (as it is for so many organisations these days) is to "celebrate diversity".
The British police tradition is of policing by consent, and the ability to remain unarmed hinges on that. British coppers are not an occupying force like they can appear to be in some parts of the world.
Being representative and sensitive to different communities is an important part of building that trust. That does not mean not enforcing the law, it means engaging with them in order to enforce it.
That's not what "celebrating diversity" means, although it's touching you think so.
I'm fairly certain that Hannan, Hitchens, Young et al, now that their robust philisophical approach to the problem has received the appropriate amount of attention, will no longer hesitate to step into the limelight, sign their DNRs in a public ceremony and then get back to work, taking the tube.
Certainly not. They're challenging the boundaries of the lockdown in a free press. Something I'm very grateful for.
I'd be terrified if no-one was doing it. It's not an open and shut case and there's lot of uncertainty about it.
Yes. I am amazed at the amount of vitriol poured on dissenters on the states behalf for daring to question its approach (whilst complying fully with it) not to mention egging on heavy handed policing. It sets a worrying precedent
What kind of country only allows journalists who don’t ask awkward questions?
The Boris looks worse in that video than the previous ones. No hacking of his guts up, but round his eyes looks like somebody who has been a week bender with no sleep.
That's how it feels.
Even if he didn't have it it would still be a very stressful and tiring time for him, as I'm sure it is for many of us on here.
The Boris looks worse in that video than the previous ones. No hacking of his guts up, but round his eyes looks like somebody who has been a week bender with no sleep.
He does not look well at all
Soon he'll be immune, and will be able to wander amongst the masses, kissing babies at will.
The US intelligence community is famous for its 'conclusions'. Envy of the world.
Who in their right mind believes the Chinese statistics?
I'm not sure whether anyone believes the entire body of Chinese statistics, but at the height of the outbreak in Wuhan the WHO sent fact finding missions who monitored what the Chinese were doing and they came to the conclusion that their reporting was adequate. Make of that what you will.
I think you're placing too much trust in the WHO.
I am not convinced by the WHO in regard to China
I think the Chinese figures are probably no further out than other countries.
My wife works on medical journals which include Chinese senior doctors.... She said that the Chinese have been particularly transparent in sharing data about all things Covid 19...but heh...why let the truth get in the way of a good old racist anti-Chinese conspiracy theory.....
Your moronic thinking is what infects so much of the West these days.
China is essentially like a privately owned corporation which is not subject to any laws or rules; it does whatever it thinks is in its interest.
It's a nasty authoritarian state, is what it is.
I don't think anyone denies that, do they?
It is however, the economic colossus of our age, as dominant as the British Empire in mid Victorian times in terms of trade, manufacturing and influence. We rely on it not just for manufactures but also for investment, in our gilts and our industries. They have surplus capital and we do not.
I am more inclined to forge economic links with our neighbours, who are democratic, and freedom loving, but that was ruled out in 2016.
The Boris looks worse in that video than the previous ones. No hacking of his guts up, but round his eyes looks like somebody who has been a week bender with no sleep.
Nearly one week in to the infection he doesn't look too bad to me. I think he's going to be fine.
Late to the party: excellent article by Cyclefree.
Whilst there are exceptional and brave individual officers personally I've never much liked or trusted the police. They're never there or able to do anything when you need them (I think they're often lazy and of questionable competence) and they spend far too much time trying to push politically correct tropes and prosecuting easy targets, usually minor infractions made by otherwise law-abiding middle class people.
It's why I had no issue with police cuts and am a sceptic about the "20,000 extra officers" most of which I suspect will only try to interfere in our lives still further.
It seems like your issue is with the political leadership of the police.
The basic problem is that there are too many laws, too much human activity is subject to legislation.
Leadership is at its heart of course, and also culture of the institution.
I suspect what's actually the main focus of the police (as it is for so many organisations these days) is to "celebrate diversity".
The British police tradition is of policing by consent, and the ability to remain unarmed hinges on that. British coppers are not an occupying force like they can appear to be in some parts of the world.
Being representative and sensitive to different communities is an important part of building that trust. That does not mean not enforcing the law, it means engaging with them in order to enforce it.
That's not what "celebrating diversity" means, although it's touching you think so.
I'm fairly certain that Hannan, Hitchens, Young et al, now that their robust philisophical approach to the problem has received the appropriate amount of attention, will no longer hesitate to step into the limelight, sign their DNRs in a public ceremony and then get back to work, taking the tube.
Certainly not. They're challenging the boundaries of the lockdown in a free press. Something I'm very grateful for.
I'd be terrified if no-one was doing it. It's not an open and shut case and there's lot of uncertainty about it.
Yes. I am amazed at the amount of vitriol poured on dissenters on the states behalf for daring to question its approach (whilst complying fully with it) not to mention egging on heavy handed policing. It sets a worrying precedent
What kind of country only allows journalists who don’t ask awkward questions?
Awkward questions are fine; making things up to promote your views is not.
What would be the likely consequences for a member of the public who happened to be well informed legally , and who declined to follow a police officer's instructions on the basis that he had no authority to order him to behave in that way - ie that he was exceeding his powers in that he was relying on guidance rather than the law of the land? Would he face arrest or a fine - or should be advised to comply and then bring an action against the officer concerned?
Under the legislation, refusing to follow the police instruction is sufficient justification for a fixed penalty, which if not paid lands you in court. For that penalty to stick, refusal to follow the instruction is sufficient, regardless of any argument you might have to justify your excursion from home.
The question is whether you could later seek redress because the police acted unreasonably.
But you can make the argument before the courts that the police had no lawful basis for issuing the summons, that therefore you cannot have committed the offence and that it is entirely unreasonable of the court to impose a penalty for you for not complying with an order which should never have been made and that, in addition, you will seek an order ruling the police’s guidance on this unlawful etc etc.
A well written letter to the police which will make their legal advisers sigh should do the trick. The last thing the police need is some smart-arsed lawyer taking them to court and then finding themselves restricted in what they can do with all the attendant bad publicity and costs.
They rely on people paying the fine just to get rid of it rather than being bolshy and arguing back.
However, if anyone does need a bolshy smart-arsed lawyer with time on her hands ......
I usually agree with your posts but am parting the ways on this one. Now is not the time to be nit-picking about whether the police can technically do this or that.
IMO the vast majority accept that the police are trying to enforce the government guidelines for the general good, They are guidelines therefore there will be grey areas and cussed individuals trying to dodge them by driving to North Wales on a jolly will get scant public sympathy.
Only idiots like Hitchens believe that this heralds the start of a police state.
What a relief to see one or 2 sensible posts on here. A pleasant change from the ever popular game of piling in on the Police and barrack room lawyerdom which has really gone on long enough tonight. All hail to the great Cyclefree and her crusade - count me out.
Cycle has missed the point anyway. Refusing to follow the instruction is in itself lawful reason to issue the summons. That is why some see the law as so draconian.
The US intelligence community is famous for its 'conclusions'. Envy of the world.
Who in their right mind believes the Chinese statistics?
I'm not sure whether anyone believes the entire body of Chinese statistics, but at the height of the outbreak in Wuhan the WHO sent fact finding missions who monitored what the Chinese were doing and they came to the conclusion that their reporting was adequate. Make of that what you will.
I think you're placing too much trust in the WHO.
I am not convinced by the WHO in regard to China
I think the Chinese figures are probably no further out than other countries.
My wife works on medical journals which include Chinese senior doctors.... She said that the Chinese have been particularly transparent in sharing data about all things Covid 19...but heh...why let the truth get in the way of a good old racist anti-Chinese conspiracy theory.....
Your moronic thinking is what infects so much of the West these days.
China is essentially like a privately owned corporation which is not subject to any laws or rules; it does whatever it thinks is in its interest.
It's a nasty authoritarian state, is what it is.
I don't think anyone denies that, do they?
It is however, the economic colossus of our age, as dominant as the British Empire in mid Victorian times in terms of trade, manufacturing and influence. We rely on it not just for manufactures but also for investment, in our gilts and our industries. They have surplus capital and we do not.
I am more inclined to forge economic links with our neighbours, who are democratic, and freedom loving, but that was ruled out in 2016.
They're not even the world's biggest single economy. And they won't get there unless we enable them, and the key lesson of 2020 is not to do that until we get a whole lot more comfortable that they're not going to abuse their position once we do. Which right now looks a very long way off.
It's not just journalism, there will be a lot fewer people employed in the advertising industry in the next few months time.
It will be interesting to see the impact on Google and Facebook.
“Facebook. It’s free and always will be.” Until it’s not.
If you aren't paying for it, you are the product...
True. Whether they (Facebook) lose sufficient revenue to make it not worthwhile continuing though? In that case, they may have to (try to) make the product the customer.
The US intelligence community is famous for its 'conclusions'. Envy of the world.
Who in their right mind believes the Chinese statistics?
I'm not sure whether anyone believes the entire body of Chinese statistics, but at the height of the outbreak in Wuhan the WHO sent fact finding missions who monitored what the Chinese were doing and they came to the conclusion that their reporting was adequate. Make of that what you will.
I think you're placing too much trust in the WHO.
I am not convinced by the WHO in regard to China
I think the Chinese figures are probably no further out than other countries.
My wife works on medical journals which include Chinese senior doctors.... She said that the Chinese have been particularly transparent in sharing data about all things Covid 19...but heh...why let the truth get in the way of a good old racist anti-Chinese conspiracy theory.....
Your moronic thinking is what infects so much of the West these days.
China is essentially like a privately owned corporation which is not subject to any laws or rules; it does whatever it thinks is in its interest.
It's a nasty authoritarian state, is what it is.
I don't think anyone denies that, do they?
It is however, the economic colossus of our age, as dominant as the British Empire in mid Victorian times in terms of trade, manufacturing and influence. We rely on it not just for manufactures but also for investment, in our gilts and our industries. They have surplus capital and we do not.
I am more inclined to forge economic links with our neighbours, who are democratic, and freedom loving, but that was ruled out in 2016.
They're not even the world's biggest single economy. And they won't get there unless we enable them, and the key lesson of 2020 is not to do that until we get a whole lot more comfortable that they're not going to abuse their position once we do. Which right now looks a very long way off.
I think they'll probably get there whether we enable them or not. There are rather a lot of them, after all.
Talking about creeping authoritarianism I hope this consideration to pay for TV by tacking a charge onto a utility or broadband bill would spare non-owners.
What would be the likely consequences for a member of the public who happened to be well informed legally , and who declined to follow a police officer's instructions on the basis that he had no authority to order him to behave in that way - ie that he was exceeding his powers in that he was relying on guidance rather than the law of the land? Would he face arrest or a fine - or should be advised to comply and then bring an action against the officer concerned?
Under the legislation, refusing to follow the police instruction is sufficient justification for a fixed penalty, which if not paid lands you in court. For that penalty to stick, refusal to follow the instruction is sufficient, regardless of any argument you might have to justify your excursion from home.
The question is whether you could later seek redress because the police acted unreasonably.
But you can make the argument before the courts that the police had no lawful basis for issuing the summons, that therefore you cannot have committed the offence and that it is entirely unreasonable of the court to impose a penalty for you for not complying with an order which should never have been made and that, in addition, you will seek an order ruling the police’s guidance on this unlawful etc etc.
A well written letter to the police which will make their legal advisers sigh should do the trick. The last thing the police need is some smart-arsed lawyer taking them to court and then finding themselves restricted in what they can do with all the attendant bad publicity and costs.
They rely on people paying the fine just to get rid of it rather than being bolshy and arguing back.
However, if anyone does need a bolshy smart-arsed lawyer with time on her hands ......
I usually agree with your posts but am parting the ways on this one. Now is not the time to be nit-picking about whether the police can technically do this or that.
IMO the vast majority accept that the police are trying to enforce the government guidelines for the general good, They are guidelines therefore there will be grey areas and cussed individuals trying to dodge them by driving to North Wales on a jolly will get scant public sympathy.
Only idiots like Hitchens believe that this heralds the start of a police state.
When this is is over, there will be an attempt in the Home Office/Police ranks to hang onto some of these really useful powers.
For The Greater Good.
Michael Howard commented that it was one of the jobs of the Home Secretary to say no to the large pile of ideas that got wheeled out every time there was an emergency of some kind.
Then that's the time to enquire they are rolled back.
The US intelligence community is famous for its 'conclusions'. Envy of the world.
Who in their right mind believes the Chinese statistics?
I'm not sure whether anyone believes the entire body of Chinese statistics, but at the height of the outbreak in Wuhan the WHO sent fact finding missions who monitored what the Chinese were doing and they came to the conclusion that their reporting was adequate. Make of that what you will.
I think you're placing too much trust in the WHO.
I am not convinced by the WHO in regard to China
I think the Chinese figures are probably no further out than other countries.
My wife works on medical journals which include Chinese senior doctors.... She said that the Chinese have been particularly transparent in sharing data about all things Covid 19...but heh...why let the truth get in the way of a good old racist anti-Chinese conspiracy theory.....
Your moronic thinking is what infects so much of the West these days.
China is essentially like a privately owned corporation which is not subject to any laws or rules; it does whatever it thinks is in its interest.
It's a nasty authoritarian state, is what it is.
I don't think anyone denies that, do they?
It is however, the economic colossus of our age, as dominant as the British Empire in mid Victorian times in terms of trade, manufacturing and influence. We rely on it not just for manufactures but also for investment, in our gilts and our industries. They have surplus capital and we do not.
I am more inclined to forge economic links with our neighbours, who are democratic, and freedom loving, but that was ruled out in 2016.
What would be the likely consequences for a member of the public who happened to be well informed legally , and who declined to follow a police officer's instructions on the basis that he had no authority to order him to behave in that way - ie that he was exceeding his powers in that he was relying on guidance rather than the law of the land? Would he face arrest or a fine - or should be advised to comply and then bring an action against the officer concerned?
Under the legislation, refusing to follow the police instruction is sufficient justification for a fixed penalty, which if not paid lands you in court. For that penalty to stick, refusal to follow the instruction is sufficient, regardless of any argument you might have to justify your excursion from home.
The question is whether you could later seek redress because the police acted unreasonably.
But you can make the argument before the courts that the police had no lawful basis for issuing the summons, that therefore you cannot have committed the offence and that it is entirely unreasonable of the court to impose a penalty for you for not complying with an order which should never have been made and that, in addition, you will seek an order ruling the police’s guidance on this unlawful etc etc.
A well written letter to the police which will make their legal advisers sigh should do the trick. The last thing the police need is some smart-arsed lawyer taking them to court and then finding themselves restricted in what they can do with all the attendant bad publicity and costs.
They rely on people paying the fine just to get rid of it rather than being bolshy and arguing back.
However, if anyone does need a bolshy smart-arsed lawyer with time on her hands ......
I usually agree with your posts but am parting the ways on this one. Now is not the time to be nit-picking about whether the police can technically do this or that.
IMO the vast majority accept that the police are trying to enforce the government guidelines for the general good, They are guidelines therefore there will be grey areas and cussed individuals trying to dodge them by driving to North Wales on a jolly will get scant public sympathy.
Only idiots like Hitchens believe that this heralds the start of a police state.
What a relief to see one or 2 sensible posts on here. A pleasant change from the ever popular game of piling in on the Police and barrack room lawyerdom which has really gone on long enough tonight. All hail to the great Cyclefree and her crusade - count me out.
Cycle has missed the point anyway. Refusing to follow the instruction is in itself lawful reason to issue the summons. That is why some see the law as so draconian.
I am aware of that (and as stated below think there are good arguments to challenge such a summons). But I wanted the header to focus on the respective responsibilities of government, people and public officials - not just the question of enforcement by the last.
Interesting that the comments BTL have ignored what I have written about the first two.
Late to the party: excellent article by Cyclefree.
Whilst there are exceptional and brave individual officers personally I've never much liked or trusted the police. They're never there or able to do anything when you need them (I think they're often lazy and of questionable competence) and they spend far too much time trying to push politically correct tropes and prosecuting easy targets, usually minor infractions made by otherwise law-abiding middle class people.
It's why I had no issue with police cuts and am a sceptic about the "20,000 extra officers" most of which I suspect will only try to interfere in our lives still further.
It seems like your issue is with the political leadership of the police.
The basic problem is that there are too many laws, too much human activity is subject to legislation.
Leadership is at its heart of course, and also culture of the institution.
I suspect what's actually the main focus of the police (as it is for so many organisations these days) is to "celebrate diversity".
This is a feature but I doubt it is their main focus.
Example: Several years ago I fell of my bike as I went through a pothole. Ambulance came along with the police.
Police initially realised it was an accident and no one to blame so drove off. Ambulance took me to hospital.
Another police officer then turned up at hospital an hour later wanting to interview me about what happened, and my friend. Took an hour or so.
Police accompanied me to all the medical examinations. They took several statements from me and my friend. They were there for a couple of hours, following us around the hospital.
Eventually I asked them if I was under suspicion for something, in some way. The officer said that the only thing she could do me for is driving without due caution, but she wasn't going to do that.
A month later I got a letter saying that the police were taking no further action.
ALL THAT HAPPENED WAS I FELL OFF MY BIKE.
edit - Main lesson from this experience was to respect the police but have as little involvement as possible with them; they don't seem to help very much and create a whole load of stress.
The US intelligence community is famous for its 'conclusions'. Envy of the world.
Who in their right mind believes the Chinese statistics?
I'm not sure whether anyone believes the entire body of Chinese statistics, but at the height of the outbreak in Wuhan the WHO sent fact finding missions who monitored what the Chinese were doing and they came to the conclusion that their reporting was adequate. Make of that what you will.
I think you're placing too much trust in the WHO.
I am not convinced by the WHO in regard to China
I think the Chinese figures are probably no further out than other countries.
My wife works on medical journals which include Chinese senior doctors.... She said that the Chinese have been particularly transparent in sharing data about all things Covid 19...but heh...why let the truth get in the way of a good old racist anti-Chinese conspiracy theory.....
Your moronic thinking is what infects so much of the West these days.
China is essentially like a privately owned corporation which is not subject to any laws or rules; it does whatever it thinks is in its interest.
It's a nasty authoritarian state, is what it is.
I don't think anyone denies that, do they?
It is however, the economic colossus of our age, as dominant as the British Empire in mid Victorian times in terms of trade, manufacturing and influence. We rely on it not just for manufactures but also for investment, in our gilts and our industries. They have surplus capital and we do not.
I am more inclined to forge economic links with our neighbours, who are democratic, and freedom loving, but that was ruled out in 2016.
There we have it.
Your views on China are informed by.. Brexit.
Many people who are now ardent Eurosceptics wouldn't have countenanced Brexit before the collapse of the USSR.
I'm fairly certain that Hannan, Hitchens, Young et al, now that their robust philisophical approach to the problem has received the appropriate amount of attention, will no longer hesitate to step into the limelight, sign their DNRs in a public ceremony and then get back to work, taking the tube.
Certainly not. They're challenging the boundaries of the lockdown in a free press. Something I'm very grateful for.
I'd be terrified if no-one was doing it. It's not an open and shut case and there's lot of uncertainty about it.
Yes. I am amazed at the amount of vitriol poured on dissenters on the states behalf for daring to question its approach (whilst complying fully with it) not to mention egging on heavy handed policing. It sets a worrying precedent
What kind of country only allows journalists who don’t ask awkward questions?
Awkward questions are fine; making things up to promote your views is not.
Nobody made anything up. The 5700 number was an accurate quote from a paper, wrong as it seems to be. You can’t start calling bad predictions ‘making things up’!
What would be the likely consequences for a member of the public who happened to be well informed legally , and who declined to follow a police officer's instructions on the basis that he had no authority to order him to behave in that way - ie that he was exceeding his powers in that he was relying on guidance rather than the law of the land? Would he face arrest or a fine - or should be advised to comply and then bring an action against the officer concerned?
Under the legislation, refusing to follow the police instruction is sufficient justification for a fixed penalty, which if not paid lands you in court. For that penalty to stick, refusal to follow the instruction is sufficient, regardless of any argument you might have to justify your excursion from home.
The question is whether you could later seek redress because the police acted unreasonably.
But you can make the argument before the courts that the police had no lawful basis for issuing the summons, that therefore you cannot have committed the offence and that it is entirely unreasonable of the court to impose a penalty for you for not complying with an order which should never have been made and that, in addition, you will seek an order ruling the police’s guidance on this unlawful etc etc.
A well written letter to the police which will make their legal advisers sigh should do the trick. The last thing the police need is some smart-arsed lawyer taking them to court and then finding themselves restricted in what they can do with all the attendant bad publicity and costs.
They rely on people paying the fine just to get rid of it rather than being bolshy and arguing back.
However, if anyone does need a bolshy smart-arsed lawyer with time on her hands ......
I usually agree with your posts but am parting the ways on this one. Now is not the time to be nit-picking about whether the police can technically do this or that.
IMO the vast majority accept that the police are trying to enforce the government guidelines for the general good, They are guidelines therefore there will be grey areas and cussed individuals trying to dodge them by driving to North Wales on a jolly will get scant public sympathy.
Only idiots like Hitchens believe that this heralds the start of a police state.
The police are not there to enforce the government guidelines. That is your fundamental mistake. And theirs. They are there to enforce the government’s rules.
It is not a “technicality” to say that the police should obey and comply with the law.
Anymore than it would be ok to take food from your local supermarket without paying because you and your dear old mother and young child were starving and it was an emergency and that to call this theft was a “technicality”.
With all the stress people are under right now I simply do not see the problem you are concerned about as a priority right now. I have more urgent things to worry about than whether someone might unfairly have been prevented driving out in North Wales because the police overstepped their powers slightly.
Late to the party: excellent article by Cyclefree.
Whilst there are exceptional and brave individual officers personally I've never much liked or trusted the police. They're never there or able to do anything when you need them (I think they're often lazy and of questionable competence) and they spend far too much time trying to push politically correct tropes and prosecuting easy targets, usually minor infractions made by otherwise law-abiding middle class people.
It's why I had no issue with police cuts and am a sceptic about the "20,000 extra officers" most of which I suspect will only try to interfere in our lives still further.
It seems like your issue is with the political leadership of the police.
The basic problem is that there are too many laws, too much human activity is subject to legislation.
Leadership is at its heart of course, and also culture of the institution.
I suspect what's actually the main focus of the police (as it is for so many organisations these days) is to "celebrate diversity".
The British police tradition is of policing by consent, and the ability to remain unarmed hinges on that. British coppers are not an occupying force like they can appear to be in some parts of the world.
Being representative and sensitive to different communities is an important part of building that trust. That does not mean not enforcing the law, it means engaging with them in order to enforce it.
That's not what "celebrating diversity" means, although it's touching you think so.
What do you think it means?
Genuflecting and obsessive political correctness and policing it in others with the goal being to "out" dissenters in the most high-profile and public way possible.
It is a doctrine and a religion where heretics must be punished.
It long ago ceased to be really about ensuring all communities felt the police were on their side, addressing a historic and genuine concern of discrimination in the police that certainly used to be there.
As this thread demonstrates they've gone backwards on that.
I noticed the traffic on the road outside my house last Sunday was similar to a Sunday normal. No doubt some were on the way to essential work; others were caring for vulnerable friends, family and so on; a few may be shopping although this is the centre of town and there are plenty supermarkets in walking distance.
Point is, probably most of these people were breaking the social distancing requirements imposed on the population to slow the epidemic. I don't want the police to be issuing fines like confetti, but I am in favour of them reminding citizens what their obligations are, in the same way they might talk to an unruly neighbour or break up a spontaneous large gathering of youths. The choice isn't just between heavy-handedness and doing nothing.
“What their obligations are” is the key phrase here.
The legal obligations are not the same as the advice and the police are confusing the two, as the NPCC guidance shows. This is not just confusion. It appears to be intentional. And it is wrong to mislead citizens about what is or is not a criminal offence.
I have no problem with a policeman reminding someone of the advice. I have a very big problem indeed with them telling someone that they will be committing a criminal offence when they won’t be or stopping them doing something which is lawful.
I agree with this except, maybe, on your distinction in practice between guidance and legal obligations.
The law is categorical: "no person may leave the place where they are living."
Which is an extraordinary restriction on personal liberty. We are in an extraordinary situation.
It then qualifies this: "Except to the extent that a defence would be available." That defence is "to show that the person, in the circumstances, had a reasonable excuse"
The law doesn't define "reasonable excuse" but it does list a small number of tightly defined reasons for leaving the house that are included within "reasonable excuse" for example, "obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household"
In summary the law is that you mustn't leave your house. If you do leave your house, it is only to do one of the specified things. If you are outside the house for any other purpose the assumption is that it is disallowed unless you can successfully argue that you have a reasonable excuse.
It's hard to see anyone following government guidance wouldn't have a reasonable excuse. Therefore anything that's explicitly allowed either by the act or the guidance should be OK. I haven't checked but I am guessing the guidance includes all the exceptions in the act. Therefore you can simply follow the guidance.
Anything else is presumed not OK, but you can try arguing if you wish.
The list of reasonable excuses is not exhaustive. It includes those listed but is not limited to them.
Agreed, but it's up to you to argue that other excuses for being outside your house are reasonable, on the presumption that they are not. This is why the guidance becomes important in determining what's reasonable.
Whether or not we deem the basic prescription to stay at home to be tolerable, I think the government's methodology is the appropriate one: define the base case and a small number of important exceptions, then work out the detail in guidance rather than legislate the detail. This is a crisis and potentially fast moving situation.
The US intelligence community is famous for its 'conclusions'. Envy of the world.
Who in their right mind believes the Chinese statistics?
I'm not sure whether anyone believes the entire body of Chinese statistics, but at the height of the outbreak in Wuhan the WHO sent fact finding missions who monitored what the Chinese were doing and they came to the conclusion that their reporting was adequate. Make of that what you will.
I think you're placing too much trust in the WHO.
I am not convinced by the WHO in regard to China
I think the Chinese figures are probably no further out than other countries.
My wife works on medical journals which include Chinese senior doctors.... She said that the Chinese have been particularly transparent in sharing data about all things Covid 19...but heh...why let the truth get in the way of a good old racist anti-Chinese conspiracy theory.....
Your moronic thinking is what infects so much of the West these days.
China is essentially like a privately owned corporation which is not subject to any laws or rules; it does whatever it thinks is in its interest.
It's a nasty authoritarian state, is what it is.
I don't think anyone denies that, do they?
It is however, the economic colossus of our age, as dominant as the British Empire in mid Victorian times in terms of trade, manufacturing and influence. We rely on it not just for manufactures but also for investment, in our gilts and our industries. They have surplus capital and we do not.
I am more inclined to forge economic links with our neighbours, who are democratic, and freedom loving, but that was ruled out in 2016.
They're not even the world's biggest single economy. And they won't get there unless we enable them, and the key lesson of 2020 is not to do that until we get a whole lot more comfortable that they're not going to abuse their position once we do. Which right now looks a very long way off.
I think they'll probably get there whether we enable them or not. There are rather a lot of them, after all.
Indeed, and they have the manufacturing surplus that allows our consumer economy, the capital that we crave for investment and the students that keep our universities solvent and cutting edge. The world has changed in the last 150 years, and now they are in the driving seat. We chose our path in 2016 to turn away from our neighbours, we cannot be too choosy about our new partners.
I'm fairly certain that Hannan, Hitchens, Young et al, now that their robust philisophical approach to the problem has received the appropriate amount of attention, will no longer hesitate to step into the limelight, sign their DNRs in a public ceremony and then get back to work, taking the tube.
Certainly not. They're challenging the boundaries of the lockdown in a free press. Something I'm very grateful for.
I'd be terrified if no-one was doing it. It's not an open and shut case and there's lot of uncertainty about it.
Yes. I am amazed at the amount of vitriol poured on dissenters on the states behalf for daring to question its approach (whilst complying fully with it) not to mention egging on heavy handed policing. It sets a worrying precedent
What kind of country only allows journalists who don’t ask awkward questions?
Awkward questions are fine; making things up to promote your views is not.
Yes, but tell that to B. Johnson who did little else but make things up when he was a crappy journalist.
Late to the party: excellent article by Cyclefree.
Whilst there are exceptional and brave individual officers personally I've never much liked or trusted the police. They're never there or able to do anything when you need them (I think they're often lazy and of questionable competence) and they spend far too much time trying to push politically correct tropes and prosecuting easy targets, usually minor infractions made by otherwise law-abiding middle class people.
It's why I had no issue with police cuts and am a sceptic about the "20,000 extra officers" most of which I suspect will only try to interfere in our lives still further.
It seems like your issue is with the political leadership of the police.
The basic problem is that there are too many laws, too much human activity is subject to legislation.
Leadership is at its heart of course, and also culture of the institution.
I suspect what's actually the main focus of the police (as it is for so many organisations these days) is to "celebrate diversity".
This is a feature but I doubt it is their main focus.
Example: Several years ago I fell of my bike as I went through a pothole. Ambulance came along with the police.
Police initially realised it was an accident and no one to blame so drove off. Ambulance took me to hospital.
Another police officer then turned up at hospital an hour later wanting to interview me about what happened, and my friend. Took an hour or so.
Police accompanied me to all the medical examinations. They took several statements from me and my friend. They were there for a couple of hours, following us around the hospital.
Eventually I asked them if I was under suspicion for something, in some way. The officer said that the only thing she could do me for is driving without due caution, but she wasn't going to do that.
A month later I got a letter saying that the police were taking no further action.
ALL THAT HAPPENED WAS I FELL OFF MY BIKE.
edit - Main lesson from this experience was to respect the police but have as little involvement as possible with them; they don't seem to help very much and create a whole load of stress.
Late to the party: excellent article by Cyclefree.
Whilst there are exceptional and brave individual officers personally I've never much liked or trusted the police. They're never there or able to do anything when you need them (I think they're often lazy and of questionable competence) and they spend far too much time trying to push politically correct tropes and prosecuting easy targets, usually minor infractions made by otherwise law-abiding middle class people.
It's why I had no issue with police cuts and am a sceptic about the "20,000 extra officers" most of which I suspect will only try to interfere in our lives still further.
It seems like your issue is with the political leadership of the police.
The basic problem is that there are too many laws, too much human activity is subject to legislation.
Leadership is at its heart of course, and also culture of the institution.
I suspect what's actually the main focus of the police (as it is for so many organisations these days) is to "celebrate diversity".
The British police tradition is of policing by consent, and the ability to remain unarmed hinges on that. British coppers are not an occupying force like they can appear to be in some parts of the world.
Being representative and sensitive to different communities is an important part of building that trust. That does not mean not enforcing the law, it means engaging with them in order to enforce it.
That's not what "celebrating diversity" means, although it's touching you think so.
What do you think it means?
Genuflecting and obsessive political correctness and policing it in others with the goal being to "out" dissenters in the most high-profile and public way possible.
It is a doctrine and a religion where heretics must be punished.
It long ago ceased to be really about ensuring all communities felt the police were on their side, addressing a historic and genuine concern of discrimination in the police that certainly used to be there.
As this thread demonstrates they've gone backwards on that.
Enforcing rules made by a Tory government is hardly genuflecting to political correctness, and is in any case greatly exaggerated. It is the silly season come early because of the need for manufactured outrage.
Late to the party: excellent article by Cyclefree.
Whilst there are exceptional and brave individual officers personally I've never much liked or trusted the police. They're never there or able to do anything when you need them (I think they're often lazy and of questionable competence) and they spend far too much time trying to push politically correct tropes and prosecuting easy targets, usually minor infractions made by otherwise law-abiding middle class people.
It's why I had no issue with police cuts and am a sceptic about the "20,000 extra officers" most of which I suspect will only try to interfere in our lives still further.
It seems like your issue is with the political leadership of the police.
The basic problem is that there are too many laws, too much human activity is subject to legislation.
Leadership is at its heart of course, and also culture of the institution.
I suspect what's actually the main focus of the police (as it is for so many organisations these days) is to "celebrate diversity".
The British police tradition is of policing by consent, and the ability to remain unarmed hinges on that. British coppers are not an occupying force like they can appear to be in some parts of the world.
Being representative and sensitive to different communities is an important part of building that trust. That does not mean not enforcing the law, it means engaging with them in order to enforce it.
That's not what "celebrating diversity" means, although it's touching you think so.
What do you think it means?
Genuflecting and obsessive political correctness and policing it in others with the goal being to "out" dissenters in the most high-profile and public way possible.
It is a doctrine and a religion where heretics must be punished.
It long ago ceased to be really about ensuring all communities felt the police were on their side, addressing a historic and genuine concern of discrimination in the police that certainly used to be there.
As this thread demonstrates they've gone backwards on that.
It's a Common Purpose thing isn't it? That organisation has a lot to answer for. Having been through their course should be an active disadvantage to getting a job in public service.
At lot of them see to deserve it.. There is a fine line here between doing their job and being busybodies and a lot of them see to be happy to cross it.
Late to the party: excellent article by Cyclefree.
Whilst there are exceptional and brave individual officers personally I've never much liked or trusted the police. They're never there or able to do anything when you need them (I think they're often lazy and of questionable competence) and they spend far too much time trying to push politically correct tropes and prosecuting easy targets, usually minor infractions made by otherwise law-abiding middle class people.
It's why I had no issue with police cuts and am a sceptic about the "20,000 extra officers" most of which I suspect will only try to interfere in our lives still further.
It seems like your issue is with the political leadership of the police.
The basic problem is that there are too many laws, too much human activity is subject to legislation.
Leadership is at its heart of course, and also culture of the institution.
I suspect what's actually the main focus of the police (as it is for so many organisations these days) is to "celebrate diversity".
The British police tradition is of policing by consent, and the ability to remain unarmed hinges on that. British coppers are not an occupying force like they can appear to be in some parts of the world.
Being representative and sensitive to different communities is an important part of building that trust. That does not mean not enforcing the law, it means engaging with them in order to enforce it.
That's not what "celebrating diversity" means, although it's touching you think so.
What do you think it means?
Genuflecting and obsessive political correctness and policing it in others with the goal being to "out" dissenters in the most high-profile and public way possible.
It is a doctrine and a religion where heretics must be punished.
It long ago ceased to be really about ensuring all communities felt the police were on their side, addressing a historic and genuine concern of discrimination in the police that certainly used to be there.
As this thread demonstrates they've gone backwards on that.
Enforcing rules made by a Tory government is hardly genuflecting to political correctness, and is in any case greatly exaggerated. It is the silly season come early because of the need for manufactured outrage.
The gender pay gap reporting rule made by May is also another silly one, and totally ineffective.
The US intelligence community is famous for its 'conclusions'. Envy of the world.
Who in their right mind believes the Chinese statistics?
I'm not sure whether anyone believes the entire body of Chinese statistics, but at the height of the outbreak in Wuhan the WHO sent fact finding missions who monitored what the Chinese were doing and they came to the conclusion that their reporting was adequate. Make of that what you will.
I think you're placing too much trust in the WHO.
I am not convinced by the WHO in regard to China
I think the Chinese figures are probably no further out than other countries.
My wife works on medical journals which include Chinese senior doctors.... She said that the Chinese have been particularly transparent in sharing data about all things Covid 19...but heh...why let the truth get in the way of a good old racist anti-Chinese conspiracy theory.....
Your moronic thinking is what infects so much of the West these days.
China is essentially like a privately owned corporation which is not subject to any laws or rules; it does whatever it thinks is in its interest.
It's a nasty authoritarian state, is what it is.
I don't think anyone denies that, do they?
It is however, the economic colossus of our age, as dominant as the British Empire in mid Victorian times in terms of trade, manufacturing and influence. We rely on it not just for manufactures but also for investment, in our gilts and our industries. They have surplus capital and we do not.
I am more inclined to forge economic links with our neighbours, who are democratic, and freedom loving, but that was ruled out in 2016.
There we have it.
Your views on China are informed by.. Brexit.
As all our views should be. We have turned away from Europe. We could turn inwards, towards an English Peronism, or outwards to trade with the strongly growing economies of the far East. Personally I think it was a mistake to do so, but of the remaining options of either isolationism or being Trumps poodle, China doesn't look a bad option.
As an aside, if the EU (or the North Korean government for that matter) wants to open an office on the Strand or in Belfast or wherever, then surely that's up to them.
What we cannot do is subsidise this in any way.
The issue is this was heavily negotiated last year and the EU is seeking to open it by the back door
They have the right to be present when checks are carried out. They are not joint checks. So fly in rights are entirely reasonable.
Late to the party: excellent article by Cyclefree.
Whilst there are exceptional and brave individual officers personally I've never much liked or trusted the police. They're never there or able to do anything when you need them (I think they're often lazy and of questionable competence) and they spend far too much time trying to push politically correct tropes and prosecuting easy targets, usually minor infractions made by otherwise law-abiding middle class people.
It's why I had no issue with police cuts and am a sceptic about the "20,000 extra officers" most of which I suspect will only try to interfere in our lives still further.
It seems like your issue is with the political leadership of the police.
The basic problem is that there are too many laws, too much human activity is subject to legislation.
Leadership is at its heart of course, and also culture of the institution.
I suspect what's actually the main focus of the police (as it is for so many organisations these days) is to "celebrate diversity".
The British police tradition is of policing by consent, and the ability to remain unarmed hinges on that. British coppers are not an occupying force like they can appear to be in some parts of the world.
Being representative and sensitive to different communities is an important part of building that trust. That does not mean not enforcing the law, it means engaging with them in order to enforce it.
That's not what "celebrating diversity" means, although it's touching you think so.
What do you think it means?
Genuflecting and obsessive political correctness and policing it in others with the goal being to "out" dissenters in the most high-profile and public way possible.
It is a doctrine and a religion where heretics must be punished.
It long ago ceased to be really about ensuring all communities felt the police were on their side, addressing a historic and genuine concern of discrimination in the police that certainly used to be there.
As this thread demonstrates they've gone backwards on that.
It's a Common Purpose thing isn't it? That organisation has a lot to answer for. Having been through their course should be an active disadvantage to getting a job in public service.
My take now, having digested a lot of knowledge about this from various sources, it’s not really an obvious mistake we can blame the government for.
There was a point of decision put to ministers early on, with pressure on from WHO to test, and lobbying from private enterprise, to throw it open as quickly as possible to as many Laboratories in the private sector as possible, copying the mass testing programmes of other countries. The alternative lobby, such as Profs from the university’s, was control and standardisation. You cede control you lose some degree of reliability and credibility in the results.
The threat to the government now is, that under media pressure, not least today Daily Mail, they seem to be flip flopping away from that original decision, in the direction of what Nigel Farage said they should have been doing from the start, without Nigel actually doing the nuance. I, egg, will do that nuance. Was the original decision or the flip flopped destination but too late the right one? Certainly the act of flip flop is bad politically, such as claiming yesterday the struggle is lack of ingredients and getting laughed out of town. But I sense technically there was a strong argument in favour of keeping standardisation and control. So as to which direction is best, I don’t know if the governments journey on testing has been a mess up or not.
The US intelligence community is famous for its 'conclusions'. Envy of the world.
Who in their right mind believes the Chinese statistics?
I'm not sure whether anyone believes the entire body of Chinese statistics, but at the height of the outbreak in Wuhan the WHO sent fact finding missions who monitored what the Chinese were doing and they came to the conclusion that their reporting was adequate. Make of that what you will.
I think you're placing too much trust in the WHO.
I am not convinced by the WHO in regard to China
I think the Chinese figures are probably no further out than other countries.
My wife works on medical journals which include Chinese senior doctors.... She said that the Chinese have been particularly transparent in sharing data about all things Covid 19...but heh...why let the truth get in the way of a good old racist anti-Chinese conspiracy theory.....
Your moronic thinking is what infects so much of the West these days.
China is essentially like a privately owned corporation which is not subject to any laws or rules; it does whatever it thinks is in its interest.
It's a nasty authoritarian state, is what it is.
I don't think anyone denies that, do they?
It is however, the economic colossus of our age, as dominant as the British Empire in mid Victorian times in terms of trade, manufacturing and influence. We rely on it not just for manufactures but also for investment, in our gilts and our industries. They have surplus capital and we do not.
I am more inclined to forge economic links with our neighbours, who are democratic, and freedom loving, but that was ruled out in 2016.
The right has suddenly galvanised around an anti Chinese ethos....
They are of course a bunch of fucking racist idiots...we all always knew that after the Brexit debacle....but heh ho another front has been opened.....
The US intelligence community is famous for its 'conclusions'. Envy of the world.
Who in their right mind believes the Chinese statistics?
I'm not sure whether anyone believes the entire body of Chinese statistics, but at the height of the outbreak in Wuhan the WHO sent fact finding missions who monitored what the Chinese were doing and they came to the conclusion that their reporting was adequate. Make of that what you will.
I think you're placing too much trust in the WHO.
I am not convinced by the WHO in regard to China
I think the Chinese figures are probably no further out than other countries.
My wife works on medical journals which include Chinese senior doctors.... She said that the Chinese have been particularly transparent in sharing data about all things Covid 19...but heh...why let the truth get in the way of a good old racist anti-Chinese conspiracy theory.....
Your moronic thinking is what infects so much of the West these days.
China is essentially like a privately owned corporation which is not subject to any laws or rules; it does whatever it thinks is in its interest.
It's a nasty authoritarian state, is what it is.
I don't think anyone denies that, do they?
It is however, the economic colossus of our age, as dominant as the British Empire in mid Victorian times in terms of trade, manufacturing and influence. We rely on it not just for manufactures but also for investment, in our gilts and our industries. They have surplus capital and we do not.
I am more inclined to forge economic links with our neighbours, who are democratic, and freedom loving, but that was ruled out in 2016.
They're not even the world's biggest single economy. And they won't get there unless we enable them, and the key lesson of 2020 is not to do that until we get a whole lot more comfortable that they're not going to abuse their position once we do. Which right now looks a very long way off.
I think they'll probably get there whether we enable them or not. There are rather a lot of them, after all.
Indeed, and they have the manufacturing surplus that allows our consumer economy, the capital that we crave for investment and the students that keep our universities solvent and cutting edge. The world has changed in the last 150 years, and now they are in the driving seat. We chose our path in 2016 to turn away from our neighbours, we cannot be too choosy about our new partners.
Standing up to China is a job for the whole Western world, and India.
Late to the party: excellent article by Cyclefree.
Whilst there are exceptional and brave individual officers personally I've never much liked or trusted the police. They're never there or able to do anything when you need them (I think they're often lazy and of questionable competence) and they spend far too much time trying to push politically correct tropes and prosecuting easy targets, usually minor infractions made by otherwise law-abiding middle class people.
It's why I had no issue with police cuts and am a sceptic about the "20,000 extra officers" most of which I suspect will only try to interfere in our lives still further.
It seems like your issue is with the political leadership of the police.
The basic problem is that there are too many laws, too much human activity is subject to legislation.
Leadership is at its heart of course, and also culture of the institution.
I suspect what's actually the main focus of the police (as it is for so many organisations these days) is to "celebrate diversity".
The British police tradition is of policing by consent, and the ability to remain unarmed hinges on that. British coppers are not an occupying force like they can appear to be in some parts of the world.
Being representative and sensitive to different communities is an important part of building that trust. That does not mean not enforcing the law, it means engaging with them in order to enforce it.
That's not what "celebrating diversity" means, although it's touching you think so.
What do you think it means?
Genuflecting and obsessive political correctness and policing it in others with the goal being to "out" dissenters in the most high-profile and public way possible.
It is a doctrine and a religion where heretics must be punished.
It long ago ceased to be really about ensuring all communities felt the police were on their side, addressing a historic and genuine concern of discrimination in the police that certainly used to be there.
As this thread demonstrates they've gone backwards on that.
It's a Common Purpose thing isn't it? That organisation has a lot to answer for. Having been through their course should be an active disadvantage to getting a job in public service.
There's just a lot of bullshit flying around.
I hate bullshit.
Your anti Chinese nonsense seems to be just that...bullshit....
As an aside, if the EU (or the North Korean government for that matter) wants to open an office on the Strand or in Belfast or wherever, then surely that's up to them.
What we cannot do is subsidise this in any way.
The issue is this was heavily negotiated last year and the EU is seeking to open it by the back door
They have the right to be present when checks are carried out. They are not joint checks. So fly in rights are entirely reasonable.
If they have the right to be present, why is a permanent office objectionable?
The US intelligence community is famous for its 'conclusions'. Envy of the world.
Who in their right mind believes the Chinese statistics?
I'm not sure whether anyone believes the entire body of Chinese statistics, but at the height of the outbreak in Wuhan the WHO sent fact finding missions who monitored what the Chinese were doing and they came to the conclusion that their reporting was adequate. Make of that what you will.
I think you're placing too much trust in the WHO.
I am not convinced by the WHO in regard to China
I think the Chinese figures are probably no further out than other countries.
My wife works on medical journals which include Chinese senior doctors.... She said that the Chinese have been particularly transparent in sharing data about all things Covid 19...but heh...why let the truth get in the way of a good old racist anti-Chinese conspiracy theory.....
Your moronic thinking is what infects so much of the West these days.
China is essentially like a privately owned corporation which is not subject to any laws or rules; it does whatever it thinks is in its interest.
It's a nasty authoritarian state, is what it is.
I don't think anyone denies that, do they?
It is however, the economic colossus of our age, as dominant as the British Empire in mid Victorian times in terms of trade, manufacturing and influence. We rely on it not just for manufactures but also for investment, in our gilts and our industries. They have surplus capital and we do not.
I am more inclined to forge economic links with our neighbours, who are democratic, and freedom loving, but that was ruled out in 2016.
There we have it.
Your views on China are informed by.. Brexit.
Many people who are now ardent Eurosceptics wouldn't have countenanced Brexit before the collapse of the USSR.
Yes, myself and Sean Fear being two of them, but that was then. We need to be a bit careful of correlation v causation too. I could live with the then EC/EEC (as it then was) in the 80s.
I would have started to get coldish feet from around 1988 onwards.
The US intelligence community is famous for its 'conclusions'. Envy of the world.
Who in their right mind believes the Chinese statistics?
I'm not sure whether anyone believes the entire body of Chinese statistics, but at the height of the outbreak in Wuhan the WHO sent fact finding missions who monitored what the Chinese were doing and they came to the conclusion that their reporting was adequate. Make of that what you will.
I think you're placing too much trust in the WHO.
I am not convinced by the WHO in regard to China
I think the Chinese figures are probably no further out than other countries.
My wife works on medical journals which include Chinese senior doctors.... She said that the Chinese have been particularly transparent in sharing data about all things Covid 19...but heh...why let the truth get in the way of a good old racist anti-Chinese conspiracy theory.....
Your moronic thinking is what infects so much of the West these days.
China is essentially like a privately owned corporation which is not subject to any laws or rules; it does whatever it thinks is in its interest.
It's a nasty authoritarian state, is what it is.
I don't think anyone denies that, do they?
It is however, the economic colossus of our age, as dominant as the British Empire in mid Victorian times in terms of trade, manufacturing and influence. We rely on it not just for manufactures but also for investment, in our gilts and our industries. They have surplus capital and we do not.
I am more inclined to forge economic links with our neighbours, who are democratic, and freedom loving, but that was ruled out in 2016.
They're not even the world's biggest single economy. And they won't get there unless we enable them, and the key lesson of 2020 is not to do that until we get a whole lot more comfortable that they're not going to abuse their position once we do. Which right now looks a very long way off.
I think they'll probably get there whether we enable them or not. There are rather a lot of them, after all.
Indeed, and they have the manufacturing surplus that allows our consumer economy, the capital that we crave for investment and the students that keep our universities solvent and cutting edge. The world has changed in the last 150 years, and now they are in the driving seat. We chose our path in 2016 to turn away from our neighbours, we cannot be too choosy about our new partners.
Standing up to China is a job for the whole Western world, and India.
Late to the party: excellent article by Cyclefree.
Whilst there are exceptional and brave individual officers personally I've never much liked or trusted the police. They're never there or able to do anything when you need them (I think they're often lazy and of questionable competence) and they spend far too much time trying to push politically correct tropes and prosecuting easy targets, usually minor infractions made by otherwise law-abiding middle class people.
It's why I had no issue with police cuts and am a sceptic about the "20,000 extra officers" most of which I suspect will only try to interfere in our lives still further.
It seems like your issue is with the political leadership of the police.
The basic problem is that there are too many laws, too much human activity is subject to legislation.
Leadership is at its heart of course, and also culture of the institution.
I suspect what's actually the main focus of the police (as it is for so many organisations these days) is to "celebrate diversity".
This is a feature but I doubt it is their main focus.
Example: Several years ago I fell of my bike as I went through a pothole. Ambulance came along with the police.
Police initially realised it was an accident and no one to blame so drove off. Ambulance took me to hospital.
Another police officer then turned up at hospital an hour later wanting to interview me about what happened, and my friend. Took an hour or so.
Police accompanied me to all the medical examinations. They took several statements from me and my friend. They were there for a couple of hours, following us around the hospital.
Eventually I asked them if I was under suspicion for something, in some way. The officer said that the only thing she could do me for is driving without due caution, but she wasn't going to do that.
A month later I got a letter saying that the police were taking no further action.
ALL THAT HAPPENED WAS I FELL OFF MY BIKE.
edit - Main lesson from this experience was to respect the police but have as little involvement as possible with them; they don't seem to help very much and create a whole load of stress.
Exactly. If you see them get as far away from them as you can.
They're normally pretty lazy though and predictable in what they do (waiting in the same lay-bys and driving around the same town centres, and going on the prowlnon Friday and Saturday nights for drivers).
It is complicated but important, because sweet bay (Laurus nobilis, bay laurel) is a cooking herb whereas laurel (Prunus laurocerasus) is poisonous.
Cooking bay is a much darker green. This is not cooking bay.
It is either laurel or pittosporum or possibly a euonymus. I will do a bit of research and come back to you.
Oh. I have a bay tree in my garden and always assumed I could one day use its leaves to save replacing the packet of supermarket bay leaves that I need to buy once every decade or so. Now you’re saying I might poison myself?
No - if you have proper cooking bay which looks like this - https://www.thompson-morgan.com/p/laurus-nobilis-standard/t44505TM - then by all means use. You can tell because if you pick a leaf and crush it between your fingers it will smell delicious. If it doesn’t, don’t use.
The US intelligence community is famous for its 'conclusions'. Envy of the world.
Who in their right mind believes the Chinese statistics?
I'm not sure whether anyone believes the entire body of Chinese statistics, but at the height of the outbreak in Wuhan the WHO sent fact finding missions who monitored what the Chinese were doing and they came to the conclusion that their reporting was adequate. Make of that what you will.
I think you're placing too much trust in the WHO.
I am not convinced by the WHO in regard to China
I think the Chinese figures are probably no further out than other countries.
My wife works on medical journals which include Chinese senior doctors.... She said that the Chinese have been particularly transparent in sharing data about all things Covid 19...but heh...why let the truth get in the way of a good old racist anti-Chinese conspiracy theory.....
Your moronic thinking is what infects so much of the West these days.
China is essentially like a privately owned corporation which is not subject to any laws or rules; it does whatever it thinks is in its interest.
It's a nasty authoritarian state, is what it is.
I don't think anyone denies that, do they?
It is however, the economic colossus of our age, as dominant as the British Empire in mid Victorian times in terms of trade, manufacturing and influence. We rely on it not just for manufactures but also for investment, in our gilts and our industries. They have surplus capital and we do not.
I am more inclined to forge economic links with our neighbours, who are democratic, and freedom loving, but that was ruled out in 2016.
They're not even the world's biggest single economy. And they won't get there unless we enable them, and the key lesson of 2020 is not to do that until we get a whole lot more comfortable that they're not going to abuse their position once we do. Which right now looks a very long way off.
I don't think this is the case, any more than others enable the USA to be the current single biggest economy. if we put sanctions on China it might hurt that country a bit but it would hurt us more. For that reason alone, China would still get ahead in relative tems
What would be the likely consequences for a member of the public who happened to be well informed legally , and who declined to follow a police officer's instructions on the basis that he had no authority to order him to behave in that way - ie that he was exceeding his powers in that he was relying on guidance rather than the law of the land? Would he face arrest or a fine - or should be advised to comply and then bring an action against the officer concerned?
Under the legislation, refusing to follow the police instruction is sufficient justification for a fixed penalty, which if not paid lands you in court. For that penalty to stick, refusal to follow the instruction is sufficient, regardless of any argument you might have to justify your excursion from home.
The question is whether you could later seek redress because the police acted unreasonably.
But you can make the argument before the courts that the police had no lawful basis for issuing the summons, that therefore you cannot have committed the offence and that it is entirely unreasonable of the court to impose a penalty for you for not complying with an order which should never have been made and that, in addition, you will seek an order ruling the police’s guidance on this unlawful etc etc.
A well written letter to the police which will make their legal advisers sigh should do the trick. The last thing the police need is some smart-arsed lawyer taking them to court and then finding themselves restricted in what they can do with all the attendant bad publicity and costs.
They rely on people paying the fine just to get rid of it rather than being bolshy and arguing back.
However, if anyone does need a bolshy smart-arsed lawyer with time on her hands ......
I usually agree with your posts but am parting the ways on this one. Now is not the time to be nit-picking about whether the police can technically do this or that.
IMO the vast majority accept that the police are trying to enforce the government guidelines for the general good, They are guidelines therefore there will be grey areas and cussed individuals trying to dodge them by driving to North Wales on a jolly will get scant public sympathy.
Only idiots like Hitchens believe that this heralds the start of a police state.
What a relief to see one or 2 sensible posts on here. A pleasant change from the ever popular game of piling in on the Police and barrack room lawyerdom which has really gone on long enough tonight. All hail to the great Cyclefree and her crusade - count me out.
Cycle has missed the point anyway. Refusing to follow the instruction is in itself lawful reason to issue the summons. That is why some see the law as so draconian.
I am aware of that (and as stated below think there are good arguments to challenge such a summons). But I wanted the header to focus on the respective responsibilities of government, people and public officials - not just the question of enforcement by the last.
Interesting that the comments BTL have ignored what I have written about the first two.
If I was going to be kind to the police (that they're of the people) then I'd say they're partly reflecting society more broadly.
There's been no shortage of civilians who've jumped at the chance to reprimand or report neighbours and strangers alike.
At lot of them see to deserve it.. There is a fine line here between doing their job and being busybodies and a lot of them see to be happy to cross it.
Well let’s hope that this is a one off but the tone and invective tonight is off putting. Are people Just letting their shutdown pent up frustrations out ? I hope so but it’s not a pleasant debating forum for some reason at the moment.
The US intelligence community is famous for its 'conclusions'. Envy of the world.
Who in their right mind believes the Chinese statistics?
I'm not sure whether anyone believes the entire body of Chinese statistics, but at the height of the outbreak in Wuhan the WHO sent fact finding missions who monitored what the Chinese were doing and they came to the conclusion that their reporting was adequate. Make of that what you will.
I think you're placing too much trust in the WHO.
I am not convinced by the WHO in regard to China
I think the Chinese figures are probably no further out than other countries.
My wife works on medical journals which include Chinese senior doctors.... She said that the Chinese have been particularly transparent in sharing data about all things Covid 19...but heh...why let the truth get in the way of a good old racist anti-Chinese conspiracy theory.....
Your moronic thinking is what infects so much of the West these days.
China is essentially like a privately owned corporation which is not subject to any laws or rules; it does whatever it thinks is in its interest.
It's a nasty authoritarian state, is what it is.
I don't think anyone denies that, do they?
It is however, the economic colossus of our age, as dominant as the British Empire in mid Victorian times in terms of trade, manufacturing and influence. We rely on it not just for manufactures but also for investment, in our gilts and our industries. They have surplus capital and we do not.
I am more inclined to forge economic links with our neighbours, who are democratic, and freedom loving, but that was ruled out in 2016.
They're not even the world's biggest single economy. And they won't get there unless we enable them, and the key lesson of 2020 is not to do that until we get a whole lot more comfortable that they're not going to abuse their position once we do. Which right now looks a very long way off.
I think they'll probably get there whether we enable them or not. There are rather a lot of them, after all.
Indeed, and they have the manufacturing surplus that allows our consumer economy, the capital that we crave for investment and the students that keep our universities solvent and cutting edge. The world has changed in the last 150 years, and now they are in the driving seat. We chose our path in 2016 to turn away from our neighbours, we cannot be too choosy about our new partners.
Standing up to China is a job for the whole Western world, and India.
You need to think bigger and more strategically.
Oh, I agree, we should work closely with other democratic states nearby, on shared projects to sustain our way of life. Unfortunately that was not the path we chose these last few years.
Late to the party: excellent article by Cyclefree.
Whilst there are exceptional and brave individual officers personally I've never much liked or trusted the police. They're never there or able to do anything when you need them (I think they're often lazy and of questionable competence) and they spend far too much time trying to push politically correct tropes and prosecuting easy targets, usually minor infractions made by otherwise law-abiding middle class people.
It's why I had no issue with police cuts and am a sceptic about the "20,000 extra officers" most of which I suspect will only try to interfere in our lives still further.
It seems like your issue is with the political leadership of the police.
The basic problem is that there are too many laws, too much human activity is subject to legislation.
Leadership is at its heart of course, and also culture of the institution.
I suspect what's actually the main focus of the police (as it is for so many organisations these days) is to "celebrate diversity".
The British police tradition is of policing by consent, and the ability to remain unarmed hinges on that. British coppers are not an occupying force like they can appear to be in some parts of the world.
Being representative and sensitive to different communities is an important part of building that trust. That does not mean not enforcing the law, it means engaging with them in order to enforce it.
That's not what "celebrating diversity" means, although it's touching you think so.
What do you think it means?
Genuflecting and obsessive political correctness and policing it in others with the goal being to "out" dissenters in the most high-profile and public way possible.
It is a doctrine and a religion where heretics must be punished.
It long ago ceased to be really about ensuring all communities felt the police were on their side, addressing a historic and genuine concern of discrimination in the police that certainly used to be there.
As this thread demonstrates they've gone backwards on that.
It's a Common Purpose thing isn't it? That organisation has a lot to answer for. Having been through their course should be an active disadvantage to getting a job in public service.
There's just a lot of bullshit flying around.
I hate bullshit.
Your anti Chinese nonsense seems to be just that...bullshit....
Well Wor Lass didn’t do too bad a job cutting my hair. However after finishing the cut she didn't ask if I needed 'something for the weekend'. Draw your own conclusions.
On taking the recycling bin out I spied 3 couples having a walk, together with one man and his dog. Someone else was also putting their bin out.
Earlier I spied a Red Kite, and the Mallards keep visiting our garden.
As an aside, if the EU (or the North Korean government for that matter) wants to open an office on the Strand or in Belfast or wherever, then surely that's up to them.
Do you have any source that says that the EU has requested any subsidy?
I'm not claiming they have.
I'm struggling to understand why this is a story, to be honest.
Maybe because it gives us quite a clear indication how far the UK is willing to follow the letter and spirit of the deal it has signed which now needs to be implemented.
Yes. Too the letter and in the spirit of the agreement. Not an inch more than has been negotiated
I'm fairly certain that Hannan, Hitchens, Young et al, now that their robust philisophical approach to the problem has received the appropriate amount of attention, will no longer hesitate to step into the limelight, sign their DNRs in a public ceremony and then get back to work, taking the tube.
Certainly not. They're challenging the boundaries of the lockdown in a free press. Something I'm very grateful for.
I'd be terrified if no-one was doing it. It's not an open and shut case and there's lot of uncertainty about it.
Yes. I am amazed at the amount of vitriol poured on dissenters on the states behalf for daring to question its approach (whilst complying fully with it) not to mention egging on heavy handed policing. It sets a worrying precedent
What kind of country only allows journalists who don’t ask awkward questions?
Agree. The opprobrium piled on Hitchens over this is ridiculous. It’s a valid standpoint, albeit one I don’t (yet!) agree with.
The US intelligence community is famous for its 'conclusions'. Envy of the world.
Who in their right mind believes the Chinese statistics?
I'm not sure whether anyone believes the entire body of Chinese statistics, but at the height of the outbreak in Wuhan the WHO sent fact finding missions who monitored what the Chinese were doing and they came to the conclusion that their reporting was adequate. Make of that what you will.
I think you're placing too much trust in the WHO.
I am not convinced by the WHO in regard to China
I think the Chinese figures are probably no further out than other countries.
My wife works on medical journals which include Chinese senior doctors.... She said that the Chinese have been particularly transparent in sharing data about all things Covid 19...but heh...why let the truth get in the way of a good old racist anti-Chinese conspiracy theory.....
Your moronic thinking is what infects so much of the West these days.
China is essentially like a privately owned corporation which is not subject to any laws or rules; it does whatever it thinks is in its interest.
It's a nasty authoritarian state, is what it is.
I don't think anyone denies that, do they?
It is however, the economic colossus of our age, as dominant as the British Empire in mid Victorian times in terms of trade, manufacturing and influence. We rely on it not just for manufactures but also for investment, in our gilts and our industries. They have surplus capital and we do not.
I am more inclined to forge economic links with our neighbours, who are democratic, and freedom loving, but that was ruled out in 2016.
They're not even the world's biggest single economy. And they won't get there unless we enable them, and the key lesson of 2020 is not to do that until we get a whole lot more comfortable that they're not going to abuse their position once we do. Which right now looks a very long way off.
I don't think this is the case, any more than others enable the USA to be the current single biggest economy. if we put sanctions on China it might hurt that country a bit but it would hurt us more. For that reason alone, China would still get ahead in relative tems
A friend of my son has a ZHC for a well known cinema chain that hasn't covered itself in glory recently. There is some confusion about him being on furlough... the cinema say if he takes a temporary job at a supermarket, they can't pay him the government subsidy. Anyone point me in the direction of sound advice?
I’m afraid their advice is correct. Furlough is an alternative to seeking alternative employment.
There was a suggestion from HMRC this morning that you could work for *someone else* while on furlough
As an aside, if the EU (or the North Korean government for that matter) wants to open an office on the Strand or in Belfast or wherever, then surely that's up to them.
What we cannot do is subsidise this in any way.
The issue is this was heavily negotiated last year and the EU is seeking to open it by the back door
They have the right to be present when checks are carried out. They are not joint checks. So fly in rights are entirely reasonable.
If they have the right to be present, why is a permanent office objectionable?
Because in the original draft agreement they demanded joint checks. This was negotiated down to the right to be present.
If they have a permanent presence it rapidly become effectively joint checks.
It’s a small thing, but once again the EU trying to push the edges of the agreement and their useful idiots criticising the U.K. for standing g firm
A friend of my son has a ZHC for a well known cinema chain that hasn't covered itself in glory recently. There is some confusion about him being on furlough... the cinema say if he takes a temporary job at a supermarket, they can't pay him the government subsidy. Anyone point me in the direction of sound advice?
Depends on his contract. If his contract allows him to have two jobs it should not affect the first job being furloughed.
The US intelligence community is famous for its 'conclusions'. Envy of the world.
Who in their right mind believes the Chinese statistics?
I'm not sure whether anyone believes the entire body of Chinese statistics, but at the height of the outbreak in Wuhan the WHO sent fact finding missions who monitored what the Chinese were doing and they came to the conclusion that their reporting was adequate. Make of that what you will.
I think you're placing too much trust in the WHO.
I am not convinced by the WHO in regard to China
I think the Chinese figures are probably no further out than other countries.
My wife works on medical journals which include Chinese senior doctors.... She said that the Chinese have been particularly transparent in sharing data about all things Covid 19...but heh...why let the truth get in the way of a good old racist anti-Chinese conspiracy theory.....
Your moronic thinking is what infects so much of the West these days.
China is essentially like a privately owned corporation which is not subject to any laws or rules; it does whatever it thinks is in its interest.
It's a nasty authoritarian state, is what it is.
I don't think anyone denies that, do they?
It is however, the economic colossus of our age, as dominant as the British Empire in mid Victorian times in terms of trade, manufacturing and influence. We rely on it not just for manufactures but also for investment, in our gilts and our industries. They have surplus capital and we do not.
I am more inclined to forge economic links with our neighbours, who are democratic, and freedom loving, but that was ruled out in 2016.
They're not even the world's biggest single economy. And they won't get there unless we enable them, and the key lesson of 2020 is not to do that until we get a whole lot more comfortable that they're not going to abuse their position once we do. Which right now looks a very long way off.
I don't think this is the case, any more than others enable the USA to be the current single biggest economy. if we put sanctions on China it might hurt that country a bit but it would hurt us more. For that reason alone, China would still get ahead in relative tems
Not if all major economies put sanctions on China
Why sanctions? A global reparations tax on Chinese products,China continues to trade but pays for the damage caused?
As an aside, if the EU (or the North Korean government for that matter) wants to open an office on the Strand or in Belfast or wherever, then surely that's up to them.
What we cannot do is subsidise this in any way.
The issue is this was heavily negotiated last year and the EU is seeking to open it by the back door
They have the right to be present when checks are carried out. They are not joint checks. So fly in rights are entirely reasonable.
If they have the right to be present, why is a permanent office objectionable?
Because in the original draft agreement they demanded joint checks. This was negotiated down to the right to be present.
If they have a permanent presence it rapidly become effectively joint checks.
It’s a small thing, but once again the EU trying to push the edges of the agreement and their useful idiots criticising the U.K. for standing g firm
Having a physical presence in Northern Ireland doesn't have any direct relationship to being present for checks.
Comments
It does not imply that I necessarily trust either of them overly, and clearly I can trust specific UN bodies a whole lot less than the US. The bit that enables and turns a blind eye to rape by UN "peacekeeping forces", for example.
What kind of country only allows journalists who don’t ask awkward questions?
https://twitter.com/TaylorNameHere/status/1245437673763999745?s=20
If only it wasn’t a tweet about fools in April.
It is however, the economic colossus of our age, as dominant as the British Empire in mid Victorian times in terms of trade, manufacturing and influence. We rely on it not just for manufactures but also for investment, in our gilts and our industries. They have surplus capital and we do not.
I am more inclined to forge economic links with our neighbours, who are democratic, and freedom loving, but that was ruled out in 2016.
Seems everybody & everything in his life is a grievance of one sort or another..
That will be next,everything else has already been covered.
Your views on China are informed by.. Brexit.
Interesting that the comments BTL have ignored what I have written about the first two.
President Xi sends his gratitude.
Example: Several years ago I fell of my bike as I went through a pothole. Ambulance came along with the police.
Police initially realised it was an accident and no one to blame so drove off. Ambulance took me to hospital.
Another police officer then turned up at hospital an hour later wanting to interview me about what happened, and my friend. Took an hour or so.
Police accompanied me to all the medical examinations. They took several statements from me and my friend. They were there for a couple of hours, following us around the hospital.
Eventually I asked them if I was under suspicion for something, in some way. The officer said that the only thing she could do me for is driving without due caution, but she wasn't going to do that.
A month later I got a letter saying that the police were taking no further action.
ALL THAT HAPPENED WAS I FELL OFF MY BIKE.
edit - Main lesson from this experience was to respect the police but have as little involvement as possible with them; they don't seem to help very much and create a whole load of stress.
It is a doctrine and a religion where heretics must be punished.
It long ago ceased to be really about ensuring all communities felt the police were on their side, addressing a historic and genuine concern of discrimination in the police that certainly used to be there.
As this thread demonstrates they've gone backwards on that.
Whether or not we deem the basic prescription to stay at home to be tolerable, I think the government's methodology is the appropriate one: define the base case and a small number of important exceptions, then work out the detail in guidance rather than legislate the detail. This is a crisis and potentially fast moving situation.
Goodnight
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1245450627049836547/photo/1
They have the right to be present when checks are carried out. They are not joint checks. So fly in rights are entirely reasonable.
I hate bullshit.
There was a point of decision put to ministers early on, with pressure on from WHO to test, and lobbying from private enterprise, to throw it open as quickly as possible to as many Laboratories in the private sector as possible, copying the mass testing programmes of other countries. The alternative lobby, such as Profs from the university’s, was control and standardisation. You cede control you lose some degree of reliability and credibility in the results.
The threat to the government now is, that under media pressure, not least today Daily Mail, they seem to be flip flopping away from that original decision, in the direction of what Nigel Farage said they should have been doing from the start, without Nigel actually doing the nuance. I, egg, will do that nuance. Was the original decision or the flip flopped destination but too late the right one? Certainly the act of flip flop is bad politically, such as claiming yesterday the struggle is lack of ingredients and getting laughed out of town. But I sense technically there was a strong argument in favour of keeping standardisation and control. So as to which direction is best, I don’t know if the governments journey on testing has been a mess up or not.
They are of course a bunch of fucking racist idiots...we all always knew that after the Brexit debacle....but heh ho another front has been opened.....
You need to think bigger and more strategically.
I would have started to get coldish feet from around 1988 onwards.
They're normally pretty lazy though and predictable in what they do (waiting in the same lay-bys and driving around the same town centres, and going on the prowlnon Friday and Saturday nights for drivers).
There's been no shortage of civilians who've jumped at the chance to reprimand or report neighbours and strangers alike.
What's wrong with their own garden?
If they have a permanent presence it rapidly become effectively joint checks.
It’s a small thing, but once again the EU trying to push the edges of the agreement and their useful idiots criticising the U.K. for standing g firm
Why sanctions? A global reparations tax on Chinese products,China continues to trade but pays for the damage caused?