Police checking travel

[DB]

It is still an opinion.

So your opinion is that we should all be good little subjects and follow the rules set by our masters even if they are completely illogical and there is no scientific reason to assume that they will make any difference. Fine, go ahead - but don't expect us all to agree that you are 'saving lives' by doing so.

 

[yorkie]

The authoritarians are absolutely loving this pandemic

https://twitter.com/BakerBoySOG/status/1355086908372738049

https://twitter.com/rothiemoon/status/1355076644789231616

Well done Sky News, running this feature [on bird watching/listening] this morning amongst the doom and gloom.

https://twitter.com/BakerBoySOG/status/1355086908372738049

https://twitter.com/rothiemoon/status/1355076644789231616/photo/1
But birdwatching is not a reason to leave the home according to @EssexPoliceUKas it is recreation and not exercise.

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1355106873540833285

Essex Police cite a law (Health Protection Act) which doesn't exist. They are right birdwatching not a listed reasonable excuse, though would often be caught under exercise. More generally I question why enforcement of a solitary, isolated activity would be proportionate to risk

How can anyone justify these actions?

@RT4038 do you condone these actions by the police?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2021 ==

This video was posted yesterday and makes my blood boil - basically the police pulling up a guy apparently walking to work. The man who gets arrested is well within his rights not to give details. This reminds me of some of the shadier police forces I've come across in some of my dicier travels; it's absolutely horrible to see what is happening here in the UK.

Obviously the attitude test was failed, but to be honest I think I would have made the same point, and I've always maintained a high degree of respect for the police. We do not live in a "papers please" state.

https://twitter.com/C1Haywood/status/1354417928007987205?s=19

The police did apologise but there are still insufficient safeguards to ensure there is no repeat; many police forces are acting in a totalitarian manner

Police apology after man bundled into cop car for refusing to give his name

West Midlands Police said an 'officer’s conduct fell far below what we would expect' after the incident outside Dorridge train station

www.birminghammail.co.uk

In a series of tweets, West Midlands Police posted: " #SORRY | We’ve reviewed video footage of one of our officers challenging a man near #Dorridge train station, #Solihull yesterday morning. It’s clear that the officer’s conduct fell far below what we would expect.

"His manner was not acceptable, not the face of @wmpolice, and we will deal with the situation. The officer has accepted his behaviour was not up to our high standards and we will address this as part of an action plan for his learning and development.

 

[brick60000]

The authoritarians are absolutely loving this pandemic

https://twitter.com/BakerBoySOG/status/1355086908372738049

https://twitter.com/rothiemoon/status/1355076644789231616

https://twitter.com/BakerBoySOG/status/1355086908372738049

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1355106873540833285

How can anyone justify these actions?

@RT4038 do you condone these actions by the police?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2021 ==



The police did apologise but there are still insufficient safeguards to ensure there is no repeat; many police forces are acting in a totalitarian manner

Police apology after man bundled into cop car for refusing to give his name

West Midlands Police said an 'officer’s conduct fell far below what we would expect' after the incident outside Dorridge train station

www.birminghammail.co.uk

Oh dear.

There seems to be a lot more reporting of this now. Is it a sign of the police going too far suddenly, or that public patience is starting to snap? Or both?

 

[Bikeman78]

The authoritarians are absolutely loving this pandemic

https://twitter.com/BakerBoySOG/status/1355086908372738049

https://twitter.com/rothiemoon/status/1355076644789231616

https://twitter.com/BakerBoySOG/status/1355086908372738049

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1355106873540833285

How can anyone justify these actions?

@RT4038 do you condone these actions by the police?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2021 ==



The police did apologise but there are still insufficient safeguards to ensure there is no repeat; many police forces are acting in a totalitarian manner

Police apology after man bundled into cop car for refusing to give his name

West Midlands Police said an 'officer’s conduct fell far below what we would expect' after the incident outside Dorridge train station

www.birminghammail.co.uk

So stopping to watch birds whilst holding a fishing rod would be okay? One of the tweets suggests contacting your MP. Total waste of time in my experience. Mine has never replied. Might as well contact the Penylan Fish Bar for all the good it would be. At least I'd get some nice fish & chips.

 

[birchesgreen]

Watching animals no, killing animals yes.

How very British!

 

[bramling]

Oh dear.

There seems to be a lot more reporting of this now. Is it a sign of the police going too far suddenly, or that public patience is starting to snap? Or both?

It’s inevitable patience will start to snap. Up until this point the chances of getting pulled up let alone fined have been minuscule, unless taking the pee with a mass gathering. This has enabled some of the hypocritical lockdown types to say one thing and do another.

The moment Karen from the Home Counties starts getting hassled for her trip to Bournemouth beach then this will be the point when the mood properly changes.

In the meantime, I’m not seeing much evidence of mass compliance with “stay at home”. My recent journeys to work by car have been busier than on a normal weekday, and these are clearly not all work journeys. Likewise there continues to be the conspicuous traffic in the late evening. Actions speak louder than words, I just wish these people wouldn’t claim to support lockdown when asked.

 

[leytongabriel]

Watching animals no, killing animals yes.

How very British!

Same 'merde' in France too.

 

[RT4038]

So your opinion is that we should all be good little subjects and follow the rules set by our masters even if they are completely illogical and there is no scientific reason to assume that they will make any difference. Fine, go ahead - but don't expect us all to agree that you are 'saving lives' by doing so.

I am not expecting everyone to agree with my or anyone else's opinion. Opinions are any individuals right.

It is the norm of society that the rules set by Government are adhered to, and if we don't like the rules (perhaps not agreeing with the reasoning and efficacy behind them) use the democratic processes to change them. The purpose of the Police, inter alia, is to enforce those rules, to challenge those who are not complying and for the Courts to, inter alia, apply the punishment rules.

Under your thought process, you had better hope that others agree with the reasoning and efficacy of the punishment rules, and don't mete out something rougher if you are not complying.

 

[DB]

if we don't like the rules (perhaps not agreeing with the reasoning and efficacy behind them) use the democratic processes to change them.

So far as this situation is concerned, we don't have a democratic process any more - the supposed 'opposition' just go along with it all and any attempt to contact most MPs (of any party) about it will just lead to regurgitated soundbites about 'keeping people safe'.

 

[_toommm_]

I understand you can drive a reasonable distance, say 10 miles (very arbitrary) to exercise. Does this extend to using a bus too? I live about that distance from open moorland and hills and would really like to spend a day there rather than walking on concrete pavements....

 

[jumble]

Watching animals no, killing animals yes.

How very British!

This was the case previously
A group of 30 were allowed to shoot ducks but only 6 children were allowed to feed the same ducks
I believe It doesn't apply now

 

[DB]

This was the case previously
A group of 30 were allowed to shoot ducks but only 6 children were allowed to feed the same ducks
I believe It doesn't apply now

Isn't fishing allowed? I think that was the point being made.

 

[bramling]

I am not expecting everyone to agree with my or anyone else's opinion. Opinions are any individuals right.

It is the norm of society that the rules set by Government are adhered to, and if we don't like the rules (perhaps not agreeing with the reasoning and efficacy behind them) use the democratic processes to change them. The purpose of the Police, inter alia, is to enforce those rules, to challenge those who are not complying and for the Courts to, inter alia, apply the punishment rules.

Under your thought process, you had better hope that others agree with the reasoning and efficacy of the punishment rules, and don't mete out something rougher if you are not complying.

I might be inclined to have a little more respect for things if the normal democratic process was being followed, for example all planned measures properly debated and scrutinised in parliament. Thus far this simply hasn’t been happening.

Likewise some of the behaviour from the police has been outrageous, for example the Welsh man walking his dog in the park being goaded and belittled by the police officer. It’s not the only example, and every single such incident devalues respect for the police.

 

[Bantamzen]

I am not expecting everyone to agree with my or anyone else's opinion. Opinions are any individuals right.

It is the norm of society that the rules set by Government are adhered to, and if we don't like the rules (perhaps not agreeing with the reasoning and efficacy behind them) use the democratic processes to change them. The purpose of the Police, inter alia, is to enforce those rules, to challenge those who are not complying and for the Courts to, inter alia, apply the punishment rules.

I'm not sure if you missed my response to a previous post of yours, but I am curious how you feel about being challenged by the authorities challenging you for not breaking the rules. For example someone just on their walking along a street on their way to work?

 

[RT4038]

So far as this situation is concerned, we don't have a democratic process any more - the supposed 'opposition' just go along with it all and any attempt to contact most MPs (of any party) about it will just lead to regurgitated soundbites about 'keeping people safe'.

In our democratic process we elect MPs for their views and to represent us. We are not going to agree with everything they think and do, either individually or collectively. Very broad brush, if they aren't somewhere close to the mainstream view of the population that elected them, they will be unseated. However that is usually taken over a wide range of subjects, not a single issue.

From your declared response from most MPs, I would think that they generally do not judge your opinion on this subject as the mainstream view of their electors.

Join the club. Many have opinions on a subject or another that few or no MPs would support. They could go into politics and try to change the world, or just accept that some non-mainstream views are probably not going to see practical application, and just try to influence other people's views so the subject becomes mainstream. Got to be careful how you do that though.

 

[DB]

Join the club. Many have opinions on a subject or another that few or no MPs would support.

It is one thing where the issue in question is something relatively minor, but this is a whole different situation. I can think of no other issue of anything approaching this magnitude where there has been virtually no political opposition.

It is particularly concerning that we have a prime minister who has repeatedly made dubious use of emergency powers to avoid scrutiny, and been allowed to get away with it. Much of the "emergency" legislation enacted is based on supposed evidence which falls far below the standard which is normally (and rightly) required as the basis of law.

 

[RT4038]

I'm not sure if you missed my response to a previous post of yours, but I am curious how you feel about being challenged by the authorities challenging you for not breaking the rules. For example someone just on their walking along a street on their way to work?

In normal circumstances, when there are reasonable grounds for the Police to be suspicious, then I am perfectly happy to be challenged. i.e. out and about whilst everyone else is not.
In the current circumstances, when there is a presumption that I should be at home unless there is a reason to be out, then I feel it is reasonable for the Police to challenge me at any time.

 

[Romsey]

Amongst all the gloom and doom on this thread, my wife an I were stopped en route by car to Southampton ferry terminal to visit my recently bereaved father in law on the Isle of Wight.
As soon as we explained the circumstances, they backed off, expressed sorrow over the recent loss and apologised for stopping us.

Also in the first lock down Hampshire Police didn't query cycling around at 2200 at night because the roads were empty.

 

[DB]

In normal circumstances, when there are reasonable grounds for the Police to be suspicious, then I am perfectly happy to be challenged. i.e. out and about whilst everyone else is not.
In the current circumstances, when there is a presumption that I should be at home unless there is a reason to be out, then I feel it is reasonable for the Police to challenge me at any time.

It is not reasonable for someone walking down the road on their own to be challenged - there are plenty of reasons for them to be out, and not all of them can be proved or disproved - e.g. if someone says they are out for exercise.

If it's a group of a dozen blokes then it might well be reasonable for the police to ask them, but someone on their own just walking down the road - no, it is not.

 

[RT4038]

It is one thing where the issue in question is something relatively minor, but this is a whole different situation. I can think of no other issue of anything approaching this magnitude where there has been virtually no political opposition.

It is particularly concerning that we have a prime minister who has repeatedly made dubious use of emergency powers to avoid scrutiny, and been allowed to get away with it. Much of the "emergency" legislation enacted is based on supposed evidence which falls far below the standard which is normally (and rightly) required as the basis of law.

I think there was effectively similar circumstances during the Second World War ?

 

[DB]

I think there was effectively similar circumstances during the Second World War ?

That's an entirely different situation. There was a tangible opponent and specific action to take for clear reasons. Not at all like here, where humanity is trying to wage war on something which cannot be seen without a powerful microscope.

 

[RT4038]

It is not reasonable for someone walking down the road on their own to be challenged - there are plenty of reasons for them to be out, and not all of them can be proved or disproved - e.g. if someone says they are out for exercise.

If it's a group of a dozen blokes then it might well be reasonable for the police to ask them, but someone on their own just walking down the road - no, it is not.

That is you opinion. I respect it, but it is not mine.

They may be out for a good reason, or not. Nothing wrong with being challenged - if they are out with good reason then nothing to fear.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2021 ==

That's an entirely different situation.

There are others that would not concur with your view.

 

[DB]

There are others that would not concur with your view.

Seriously? You honestly think that a fascist regime with clear intentions to invade nearby countries is comparable to a respiratory virus (which has so far proved impervious to nearly all measures taken against it)?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2021 ==

if they are out with good reason then nothing to fear.

Clearly that's not true, as is demonstrated by the reports of police arresting a bloke who told them that he was going to work, or fining two women walking round a reservoir, or any of the other similar cases which have been reported.

And for all those which were dropped following media attention (like the two above), how many people have been unjustly harassed and fined by the police and not challenged it? probably quite a few.

 

[Bantamzen]

In normal circumstances, when there are reasonable grounds for the Police to be suspicious, then I am perfectly happy to be challenged. i.e. out and about whilst everyone else is not.
In the current circumstances, when there is a presumption that I should be at home unless there is a reason to be out, then I feel it is reasonable for the Police to challenge me at any time.

OK so let's look at the some of the reasons people may be allowed outside as laid out in legislation:

Living safely with respiratory infections, including COVID-19

Guidance for living safely with respiratory infections, including coronavirus (COVID-19).

www.gov.uk

• shop for basic necessities, for you or a vulnerable person
• go to work, or provide voluntary or charitable services, if you cannot reasonably do so from home
• exercise with your household (or support bubble) or one other person (in which case you should stay 2m apart). Exercise should be limited to once per day, and you should not travel outside your local area.
• meet your support bubble or childcare bubble where necessary, but only if you are legally permitted to form one
• seek medical assistance or avoid injury, illness or risk of harm (including domestic abuse)
• attend education or childcare - for those eligible

So going to work is a legitimate reason for being outside, and given that millions of people will be doing this every day (even with working from home) then there is a good chance that someone walking down a street may well be going to work. So what criteria do you think should be used by the Police to determine that they don't believe that any one individual walking down a street is going to or from work (or for that matter any one of the other legal reasons)?

 

[roversfan2001]

They may be out for a good reason, or not. Nothing wrong with being challenged - if they are out with good reason then nothing to fear.

And if they're out of the house, alone, then what on earth is the problem? The (already low) risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is exactly the same whether someone is sat on their sofa or on a park bench.

As a general rule of thumb, laws are far more likely to be obeyed if they make sense.

 

[DB]

So what criteria do you think should be used by the Police to determine that they don't believe that any one individual walking down a street is going to or from work (or for that matter any one of the other legal reasons)?

In practice, it appears that 'is the person a young bloke' is one of the favourite criteria in deciding who to hassle.

 

[VauxhallandI]

OK so let's look at the some of the reasons people may be allowed outside as laid out in legislation:

Living safely with respiratory infections, including COVID-19

Guidance for living safely with respiratory infections, including coronavirus (COVID-19).

www.gov.uk

• shop for basic necessities, for you or a vulnerable person
• go to work, or provide voluntary or charitable services, if you cannot reasonably do so from home
• exercise with your household (or support bubble) or one other person (in which case you should stay 2m apart). Exercise should be limited to once per day, and you should not travel outside your local area.
• meet your support bubble or childcare bubble where necessary, but only if you are legally permitted to form one
• seek medical assistance or avoid injury, illness or risk of harm (including domestic abuse)
• attend education or childcare - for those eligible

So going to work is a legitimate reason for being outside, and given that millions of people will be doing this every day (even with working from home) then there is a good chance that someone walking down a street may well be going to work. So what criteria do you think should be used by the Police to determine that they don't believe that any one individual walking down a street is going to or from work (or for that matter any one of the other legal reasons)?

I would say they would use their regular bias and stereotyping? If it aint broke why fix it?

 

[Yew]

That is you opinion. I respect it, but it is not mine.

They may be out for a good reason, or not. Nothing wrong with being challenged - if they are out with good reason then nothing to fear.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2021 ==


There are others that would not concur with your view.

I suppose in the war, we were willing to send millions to risk death to ensure our freedoms, this is the other way around.

 

[Darandio]

They may be out for a good reason, or not. Nothing wrong with being challenged - if they are out with good reason then nothing to fear.

That just isn't true though is it, as evidenced by repeated cases all over the country.

I find it staggering that we have got to this point where there are viewpoints such as yours. Happy to be challenged and if you do get arrested because some copper has gone on an unwarranted power trip then it's okay, just challenge it politcally.

 

[Ascotroyal]

So far as this situation is concerned, we don't have a democratic process any more - the supposed 'opposition' just go along with it all and any attempt to contact most MPs (of any party) about it will just lead toregurgitated soundbites about 'keeping people safe'.

Or you don't get any reply from your MP at all. Though mine Adam Afriyie is against lockdown.