"The malaria drug hydroxychloroquine helped to speed the recovery of a small number of patients who were mildly ill from the coronavirus, doctors in China reported this week.
Cough, fever and pneumonia went away faster, and the disease seemed less likely to turn severe in people who received hydroxychloroquine than in a comparison group not given the drug. The authors of the report said that the medication was promising, but that more research was needed.."
Off topic (sort of), but I believe gamers are overrepresented on here: for anyone who wants to simultaneously beef up their PC gaming collection, find a way to kill some time during the lockdown and help out some worthwhile causes, this looks like pretty good value: https://www.humblebundle.com/conquer-covid19-bundle
Some books and assorted other bits and pieces included as well.
We're still producing in our workshop with all clerical and CAD staff working from home. Manufacturing shouldn't be affected by the stay at home guidance so to speak, more with the global supply situation that will be biting shortly.
I understand - Services PMI is at 35.7 - the lowest figure ever recorded - down from 53.2 in February. In the GFC the lowest PMI recorded was 40 so we are looking at an 8-10% GDP drop perhaps ?
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”.
Off topic (sort of), but I believe gamers are overrepresented on here: for anyone who wants to simultaneously beef up their PC gaming collection, find a way to kill some time during the lockdown and help out some worthwhile causes, this looks like pretty good value: https://www.humblebundle.com/conquer-covid19-bundle
Some books and assorted other bits and pieces included as well.
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?
As ever, lawyers seek to insert complexity into cases where there should be none. The de facto law of the land today is 'Take the piss during the pandemic, and bad things will happen to you'. That is as it should be, and yes, that position commands widespread public support.
I think this is obvious to everyone but lawyers.
What? Only lawyers care about the law being followed, rather than incorrect interpretations of the law being presented as the law? What a bizarre view, and I say that as not a lawyer.
If people support measures beyond that which the law requires, and they certainly do, then there is no need for the police to incorrectly state or imply that certain things are unlawful when they are not. Public pressure and reminding people of the guidance will do the trick just fine.
It's not inserting complexity into cases where there are none. Inventing interpretations which are not in the law is inserting complexity into things by confusing what is or is not lawful.
What is obvious to most people is that we are now living in a police state; so none of this is of much consequence.
(That is not to say that this is a desirable situation, but it is what it is; it is justified by a public health emergency and has widespread popular support, at least for as long as the police dont mess it up)
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.
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 suspect the WHO have about as much integrity as FIFA.
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
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.
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
I lost a good friend to the Coronavirus tonight. A retired 70+ nurse.
It is all getting a bit closer. 1 degree of separation now.
Really sorry to hear that. My condolences.
My condolences too. These are very difficult times. Ignore Govt advice at your peril and what you might do to someone else and their family and others and so on and so forth.
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.
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.
I do respect you Cyclefree but on enforcement here in North Wales we do not agree
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sadly, the US is no longer doing its job keeping the UN honest. Instead it's chosen to bitch and moan and leave leadership to others.
I'm curious and uninformed about the situation in the US.
What is the position for those who are uninsured? And for those who are undocumented? Will they be getting access to treatment?
Basically if you're a poor/uninsured person in America the only way you're officially finding out if you have Covid-19 is to cough on a rich person and wait for their test results.
Yup. They were more worried about people being perhaps (at heart) a little bit racial than they were public health.
This corrosive form of thinking is at the heart of so many institutions at senior level this days. It's like a cancer.
That was also the policy of our government at the time, and of course many others. That tweet from the WHO is part of a longer thread and needs to be read in context. This is in the same thread for example:
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”.
The medics aren't the problem. The Chinese State is.
Bit like Chernobyl - the Russians on the ground were generally good guys to very high degree... The system, not so much.
There is a very good book about it, Chernobyl: History of a Tragedy by Serhii Plokhy, and that's one thing that comes across in the book. I highly recommend it, it's an excellent account.
The Ukrainian people on the ground, and of course many from other regions of the USSR, were highly skilled, worked incredibly hard, and were in many cases heroic. It was mostly from up the chain back in Moscow that the lies and deceit eminated.
In part because the system can not be seen to be fail
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.
I'm curious and uninformed about the situation in the US.
What is the position for those who are uninsured? And for those who are undocumented? Will they be getting access to treatment?
Basically if you're a poor/uninsured person in America the only way you're officially finding out if you have Covid-19 is to cough on a rich person and wait for their test results.
Mildly amusing, if not original, @TSE but my question was a genuine one.
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.
“ The coronavirus lockdown has not stopped football-related betting fraud with the re-emergence last weekend of so-called ‘ghost’ games in Ukraine.
Ghost games are matches that never took place but are faked with data that is sold on to bookmakers who offer betting markets to their punters. Estimates put the volume of bets that were placed on these ‘games’ as potentially as high as £100,000. It is likely that bookmakers paid out winning bets to match-fixers before they realised the fraud.”
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:
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?
1. I am a true leaver and certainly wouldn't be glad of things falling apart in this way. 2. I think the whole premise that this will cause the EU to collapse is wishful thinking on the part of a very few maniacs who need their moral compass resetting with a good smack around the head.
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.
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”.
Yes. that is correct.
I have had two contacts with the Police in the last few years. In the first, someone forged my signature on a 'reference' to try to get a job as a pharmacist in the NHS. I was told by the local police that 'it was nothing to do with them'; if I had a complaint (!) it was a civil matter. In the end I went to the professional registrar and before long the chap was struck off. In the second, I pulled out of a pub car park one lunch time, was waved on by a police car, then pulled up and breathalysed. I was clean, and it was very clear from the policeman's aggressive attitude that he was disappointed not to be able to make an arrest.
My son in law's father (87) is living at home on his own despite numerous falls and hospital stays and his wife is in dementia care. His sister who is a teacher has been calling every day to check out their father, as my son in law is in isolation following my granddaughter's recent high fever and flu like symptons.
They have been pleading with the LA for him to go into respite care, as even with his carers calling he is living in an unsafe environment.
Now tonight my son in laws sister has phoned to say she is ill with a high temperature and covid symptons and has gone into immediate isolation
The effect is that their father is in danger with no family support as my son in law cannot visit and even if he could he would be at risk of catching it from his father via his sister.
They are at their wits end tonight as their father is himself confused and just cannot see how to safeguard him. I have told my son in law to contact the LA as they must have a safeguarding policy but there does not seem to be an emergency number for them
This crisis throws up so many problems for so many people
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?
It's definitely not cooking bay - which is a tree not a bush, and does not have the waviness in the leaf as well as being darker. I have a couple of bay trees in pots, but I hardly ever use it.
It looks to me like one mum chose for flower arrangements, which is partly why there is such a variety (I suspect). I wouldn't think euonymous either, but I am less sure about that.
And I think laurel leaves are a different shape, though I am more familiar with aucuba - variegated laurel.
Would a closer in photo help?
It would. I still think it is probably a pittosporum tenuifolium but a close up would definitely help.
Speaking to mum's flower arranging friend, she knew that mum did indeed have a pittosporum, which may be this. But there is also apparently a Portuguese Laurel, which seems to look similar.
Clearly I have to go on a hunt for the other one :-) .
In fact, of course the new claimants will have it a bit better than those claiming pre-Coronavirus... An extra £20 a week, no need for JC interviews, and no sanctions.
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.
Might be worth going to court just to get a change of scenery and social interaction - even if it is a fine and a bollocking.
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.
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.
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 ......
My son in law's father (87) is living at home on his own despite numerous falls and hospital stays and his wife is in dementia care. His sister who is a teacher has been calling every day to check out their father, as my son in law is in isolation following my granddaughter's recent high fever and flu like symptons.
They have been pleading with the LA for him to go into respite care, as even with his carers calling he is living in an unsafe environment.
Now tonight my son in laws sister has phoned to say she is ill with a high temperature and covid symptons and has gone into immediate isolation
The effect is that their father is in danger with no family support as my son in law cannot visit and even if he could he would be at risk of catching it from his father via his sister.
They are at their wits end tonight as their father is himself confused and just cannot see how to safeguard him. I have told my son in law to contact the LA as they must have a safeguarding policy but there does not seem to be an emergency number for them
This crisis throws up so many problems for so many people
To be honest, I would think him safer in isolation at home than in respite care. Care homes that escape this will be lucky indeed, with the number of staff coming in and out and care homes rarely having either the equipment or training for PPE.
He does sound as if he needs checking on, though. The District Nurses based at the GP surgery may be the best contact, if the council is being elusive.
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
The same police who did not understand the basic legality of what people were doing. Those police?
1. I am a true leaver and certainly wouldn't be glad of things falling apart in this way. 2. I think the whole premise that this will cause the EU to collapse is wishful thinking on the part of a very few maniacs who need their moral compass resetting with a good smack around the head.
Fair enough, I couldn't find the 'tongue-in-cheek' emoji when I posted it.
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.
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”.
Yes. that is correct.
I have had two contacts with the Police in the last few years. In the first, someone forged my signature on a 'reference' to try to get a job as a pharmacist in the NHS. I was told by the local police that 'it was nothing to do with them'; if I had a complaint (!) it was a civil matter. In the end I went to the professional registrar and before long the chap was struck off. In the second, I pulled out of a pub car park one lunch time, was waved on by a police car, then pulled up and breathalysed. I was clean, and it was very clear from the policeman's aggressive attitude that he was disappointed not to be able to make an arrest.
The first is incorrect. It's a form of fraud called "obtaining a pecuniary advantage". So a crime. Companies have prosecuted people submitting fraudulent job applications.
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 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
The same police who did not understand the basic legality of what people were doing. Those police?
The same police who are protecting those of us here from people who think it is a good idea to picnic in our national parks and ignore the rules we have to keep.
Potentially expect something similar in London/SE, from what I hear. Perhaps in the numbers next week.
I think so too. We have also been significantly under counting victims, probably even more so as it is near impossible to get swabbed in the community.
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”.
Yes. that is correct.
I have had two contacts with the Police in the last few years. In the first, someone forged my signature on a 'reference' to try to get a job as a pharmacist in the NHS. I was told by the local police that 'it was nothing to do with them'; if I had a complaint (!) it was a civil matter. In the end I went to the professional registrar and before long the chap was struck off. In the second, I pulled out of a pub car park one lunch time, was waved on by a police car, then pulled up and breathalysed. I was clean, and it was very clear from the policeman's aggressive attitude that he was disappointed not to be able to make an arrest.
The first is incorrect. It's a form of fraud called "obtaining a pecuniary advantage". So a crime. Companies have prosecuted people submitting fraudulent job applications.
That's what I thought, but the police were not interested, and although the officer to whom I spoke wasn't of high rank he wasn't at all interested in checking further.
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".
(I omitted China on the judgement that the data wasn't reliable, and South Korea because it was way, way out on its own and we already know it's doing far better than anyone else)
It's an excellent chart, thank you. Only suggestions I would make would be to plot the logarithm of the per million rate, and I'd be interested in seeing the US and Belgium (but the chart is already crowded, so difficult).
I can have a crack. US was already on it (but crowded so hard to see). Belgium added, logs taken - and I changed colours to match the original one and added the country names close to the line to aid identification.
Apologies if I'm pointing out the obvious here, but by logging the "death rate per million" you're effectively just adding vertical offsets for each country to the simple log of deaths.
The usefulness of the logged rates chart is you can compare which countries are doing better/worse "per head" in a way you can't do on the logged deaths chart, just pointing out that you don't learn any more from the slopes/curvature (eg if you're looking for signs of levelling out) from the logged rates graph than you would from the logged deaths graph.
True. I do think you get more from it (as you say), and in two ways: - The slope is the same (no extra information) - The vertical position of the slope gives extra information (as you say) - like Belgium now really stands out - The horizontal position of the slope gives other information. The logged death rate graph starts from an arbitrary point of 50 deaths in total. This is very different for different countries - 50 deaths in Belgium is a rather different thing than 50 deaths in the US (and Norway wouldn't yet even appear on the graphs if we waited for 50 deaths). And if the per capita deaths correlates quite well with per capita infections, it should be a more meaningful start point.
Yes, to be clear wasn't making a criticism! I think I missed what you're using using as your horizontal (time) origin now? As you say 50 deaths is very arbitrary...
Incidentally I did a quick negative binomial time-series regressions (ie Poisson time-series regression with overdispersion) of the death counts if anyone's interested in me sharing the results. (Not a million miles away from looking at the trendline on the logplot and trying to spot if there's a change in slope.)
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.
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.
My son in law's father (87) is living at home on his own despite numerous falls and hospital stays and his wife is in dementia care. His sister who is a teacher has been calling every day to check out their father, as my son in law is in isolation following my granddaughter's recent high fever and flu like symptons.
They have been pleading with the LA for him to go into respite care, as even with his carers calling he is living in an unsafe environment.
Now tonight my son in laws sister has phoned to say she is ill with a high temperature and covid symptons and has gone into immediate isolation
The effect is that their father is in danger with no family support as my son in law cannot visit and even if he could he would be at risk of catching it from his father via his sister.
They are at their wits end tonight as their father is himself confused and just cannot see how to safeguard him. I have told my son in law to contact the LA as they must have a safeguarding policy but there does not seem to be an emergency number for them
This crisis throws up so many problems for so many people
To be honest, I would think him safer in isolation at home than in respite care. Care homes that escape this will be lucky indeed, with the number of staff coming in and out and care homes rarely having either the equipment or training for PPE.
He does sound as if he needs checking on, though. The District Nurses based at the GP surgery may be the best contact, if the council is being elusive.
Thanks and I appreciate your comments.
I believe my son in law has got through to the hotline and the LA will need to put him on the priority list and provide for his needs at home as long as he doesnt fall. He fell again this week outside on the pavement after he chased after someone who had rang his doorbell
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”.
Yes. that is correct.
I have had two contacts with the Police in the last few years. In the first, someone forged my signature on a 'reference' to try to get a job as a pharmacist in the NHS. I was told by the local police that 'it was nothing to do with them'; if I had a complaint (!) it was a civil matter. In the end I went to the professional registrar and before long the chap was struck off. In the second, I pulled out of a pub car park one lunch time, was waved on by a police car, then pulled up and breathalysed. I was clean, and it was very clear from the policeman's aggressive attitude that he was disappointed not to be able to make an arrest.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Cough, fever and pneumonia went away faster, and the disease seemed less likely to turn severe in people who received hydroxychloroquine than in a comparison group not given the drug. The authors of the report said that the medication was promising, but that more research was needed.."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/health/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-malaria.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
https://www.humblebundle.com/conquer-covid19-bundle
Some books and assorted other bits and pieces included as well.
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”.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1245422157208879106?s=20
Just don't give Westminster ideas.....
https://twitter.com/robertshrimsley/status/1245419263399264257
(That is not to say that this is a desirable situation, but it is what it is; it is justified by a public health emergency and has widespread popular support, at least for as long as the police dont mess it up)
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1245403758458273792?s=20
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.
At considerably greater length than me, saying the same thing.
It is all getting a bit closer. 1 degree of separation now.
Sadly, I think we will all be suffering similar losses soon.
Some of these global institutions with nice sounding names stink.
This corrosive form of thinking is at the heart of so many institutions at senior level this days. It's like a cancer.
My condolences
What we cannot do is subsidise this in any way.
The basic problem is that there are too many laws, too much human activity is subject to legislation.
That is a classic
What is the position for those who are uninsured? And for those who are undocumented? Will they be getting access to treatment?
https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1224733887596724227?s=19
Until it’s not.
Sounds familiar.....
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1245403780084047874?s=20
Do you have any source that says that the EU has requested any subsidy?
TBH, as a retired pharmacist, albeit over 70 (indeed over 80) I'm a bit aggrieved that I'm not wanted 'to do my bit'.
“ The coronavirus lockdown has not stopped football-related betting fraud with the re-emergence last weekend of so-called ‘ghost’ games in Ukraine.
Ghost games are matches that never took place but are faked with data that is sold on to bookmakers who offer betting markets to their punters. Estimates put the volume of bets that were placed on these ‘games’ as potentially as high as £100,000. It is likely that bookmakers paid out winning bets to match-fixers before they realised the fraud.”
http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2020/03/31/ukraine-ghost-games-fool-bookies-punters-data-firm-criminals-pull-off-perfect-crime/
https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1245423566553743364
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/coronavirus-could-be-final-straw-for-eu-european-experts-warn
https://twitter.com/jdportes/status/1245415542523035650
What a bunch of fuckwits they are.
Look at the countries the UN has sitting on its human rights commission:
https://twitter.com/HillelNeuer/status/1182666483492626432?s=19
2. I think the whole premise that this will cause the EU to collapse is wishful thinking on the part of a very few maniacs who need their moral compass resetting with a good smack around the head.
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.
In the first, someone forged my signature on a 'reference' to try to get a job as a pharmacist in the NHS. I was told by the local police that 'it was nothing to do with them'; if I had a complaint (!) it was a civil matter. In the end I went to the professional registrar and before long the chap was struck off.
In the second, I pulled out of a pub car park one lunch time, was waved on by a police car, then pulled up and breathalysed. I was clean, and it was very clear from the policeman's aggressive attitude that he was disappointed not to be able to make an arrest.
My son in law's father (87) is living at home on his own despite numerous falls and hospital stays and his wife is in dementia care. His sister who is a teacher has been calling every day to check out their father, as my son in law is in isolation following my granddaughter's recent high fever and flu like symptons.
They have been pleading with the LA for him to go into respite care, as even with his carers calling he is living in an unsafe environment.
Now tonight my son in laws sister has phoned to say she is ill with a high temperature and covid symptons and has gone into immediate isolation
The effect is that their father is in danger with no family support as my son in law cannot visit and even if he could he would be at risk of catching it from his father via his sister.
They are at their wits end tonight as their father is himself confused and just cannot see how to safeguard him. I have told my son in law to contact the LA as they must have a safeguarding policy but there does not seem to be an emergency number for them
This crisis throws up so many problems for so many people
Clearly I have to go on a hunt for the other one :-) .
Still sad.
I'm struggling to understand why this is a story, to be honest.
And yes, we are closed to visitors wanting to see our goats
He does sound as if he needs checking on, though. The District Nurses based at the GP surgery may be the best contact, if the council is being elusive.
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.
I suspect what's actually the main focus of the police (as it is for so many organisations these days) is to "celebrate diversity".
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.
I believe my son in law has got through to the hotline and the LA will need to put him on the priority list and provide for his needs at home as long as he doesnt fall. He fell again this week outside on the pavement after he chased after someone who had rang his doorbell
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.