My guess would also be that if the video linked to on the last thread gains currency sympathy for these women is going to fall off a cliff.
I don't think that what the police did here was right or necessary but boy, do they have a lot to put up with.
To mind mind the point is rather would any of that have happened had the organised vigil been allowed to go ahead ? I suspect not.
Lots of crime wouldn't happen if the police just didn't bother.
On this issue, you seem completely to miss the point. it was within police discretion to allow the original organised vigil to go ahead. Had it done so, it is likely there would have been minimal risk of resulting infections, and there would have been no crime.
Oh, that makes it all okay then? No. It would (should) have effectively resulted in the end of lockdown in this respect. You cannot allow certain gatherings to happen but not others. This is a really simple point that you and many on here just do not get.
Why? We allow all sorts of gatherings in much more confined conditions than existed on Clapham Common on Saturday. Supermarkets, transport, remembrance day gatherings. Why is it that this particular outdoors vigil is not allowed when they are? Have you actually been in a Supermarket recently and seen how crowded it is and how few people are following the basic rules?
FFS. Change the law then. I don't think these laws should ever have come in. But don't take it out on the police who are doing their job.
"Only doing my job" or "I was following orders" isn't always good enough.
The Police have to determine HOW they do their job, just as others do with their own too.
You can be good or bad at your job depending upon how you do it.
If any of the women feel that they were treated badly by the individual officers then they are free to make a complaint. But it will have to be about how they were policed rather than that they were policed.
Well yes isn't that exactly what has been complained about from Saturday night onwards? How it was dealt with?
How many homes that are burgled don't even get visited by the cops, but some grieving women are peacefully holding an outdoor vigil? Send in the goonsquad.
Nope. the police have ruthlessly been rounding up illegal gatherings for the last few months. It's your fault if you've only just noticed that that's been going on.
My guess would also be that if the video linked to on the last thread gains currency sympathy for these women is going to fall off a cliff.
I don't think that what the police did here was right or necessary but boy, do they have a lot to put up with.
To mind mind the point is rather would any of that have happened had the organised vigil been allowed to go ahead ? I suspect not.
Lots of crime wouldn't happen if the police just didn't bother.
On this issue, you seem completely to miss the point. it was within police discretion to allow the original organised vigil to go ahead. Had it done so, it is likely there would have been minimal risk of resulting infections, and there would have been no crime.
I'm not sure. These situations often attract expremeists looking to provoke a fight - as in the video. It's all very well saying the Police are paid to take verbal abuse - they are. However, when those kind of videos are viewed by the general public their sympathies tend to go in one direction.
Until they realise that, if you are of that opinion, shouting at the patriarchy, and particularly at the arm of the patriarchy that very particularly in this instance was also the perpetrator of the crime you are protesting about and is now in your mind being confrontational, is wholly understandable.
Totally off-topic, but are there any broadband experts on here? My office (former bank) has a fibre cable. BT couldn't find it, Openreach confirmed it is there, BT local business have had a rummage around and believe its a disconnected leased line.
A quick Google suggests that instead of £normal costs for a fibre connection (say 100Mbps), a leased line can cost £lotsandlots with the cheapest I can spot offering s l o w (10Mbps) for multiple the cost for FTTP. Have I got this right?
I do think we have perhaps reached the point at which there needs to be a reappraisal of ALL punishments from top to bottom.
I do think there should be some punishment for vandalism and criminal damage although 10 years is clearly ludicrous.
But as a basic principle I would start from the point that no act of vandalism or criminal damage that does not involve endangering someone's life (so excluding things like damaging life saving or medical equipment perhaps) should carry a potential sentence more severe than the lightest sentence for doing actual harm to someone.
I am sure that there would need to be refinement but it seems to send entirely the wrong signal that damaging property is considered more serious than damaging people.
Punishment is a tough subject. On this analysis a person who with blunt instruments destroyed beyond repair every Rembrandt and Titian in the National Gallery would have a lighter sentence than a drunk bloke in a pub who had a scuffle with a drunk mate and managed to give him a nosebleed and a grazed knee.
Yep I see that which is why I said it would ned refinement. But it seems clear that, perhaps as a historic hangover, you are more likely to get a heavy sentence for a property crime than for a sexual crime even nowadays. That cannot be right.
My guess would also be that if the video linked to on the last thread gains currency sympathy for these women is going to fall off a cliff.
I don't think that what the police did here was right or necessary but boy, do they have a lot to put up with.
To mind mind the point is rather would any of that have happened had the organised vigil been allowed to go ahead ? I suspect not.
Lots of crime wouldn't happen if the police just didn't bother.
On this issue, you seem completely to miss the point. it was within police discretion to allow the original organised vigil to go ahead. Had it done so, it is likely there would have been minimal risk of resulting infections, and there would have been no crime.
Oh, that makes it all okay then? No. It would (should) have effectively resulted in the end of lockdown in this respect. You cannot allow certain gatherings to happen but not others. This is a really simple point that you and many on here just do not get.
Why? We allow all sorts of gatherings in much more confined conditions than existed on Clapham Common on Saturday. Supermarkets, transport, remembrance day gatherings. Why is it that this particular outdoors vigil is not allowed when they are? Have you actually been in a Supermarket recently and seen how crowded it is and how few people are following the basic rules?
FFS. Change the law then. I don't think these laws should ever have come in. But don't take it out on the police who are doing their job.
You are conflating arguments. You keep going on about how the law should be applied equally across the board and when people come up with many examples of how it is not you shoot off on another tangent.
The issue here is not the law primarily. It is how it is applied by the police at the time in question. There was no need for them to act in the way they did both before hand where they decided to simply ban any gathering, then ignored the gathering through the day including the visit by a member of the royal family and then managed to get into a situation where they are caught manhandling women at a vigil about violence towards women. There is simply no way the police come out of that looking good.
What they could have done is negotiated with the organisers and had a small symbolic vigil with a very limited number of people at Clapham Common and with the organisers asking that no one else attend. That would have been within the scope of the law and the court ruling. But instead they decided to go all heavy handed because they could. Utter stupidity.
It sounds like you think they should have piled in earlier. That's an odd argument. From what I've seen of pictures from earlier in the day, social distancing was being observed. Perhaps the police should have put a stop to it before it changed in nature after dark, but it very much did change.
And if they negotiate with one group, they'll have to negotiate with all groups.
Totally off-topic, but are there any broadband experts on here? My office (former bank) has a fibre cable. BT couldn't find it, Openreach confirmed it is there, BT local business have had a rummage around and believe its a disconnected leased line.
A quick Google suggests that instead of £normal costs for a fibre connection (say 100Mbps), a leased line can cost £lotsandlots with the cheapest I can spot offering s l o w (10Mbps) for multiple the cost for FTTP. Have I got this right?
See if City Fiber or Hyper Optic are in your area. Openreach for FTTP is probably the worst option.
My guess would also be that if the video linked to on the last thread gains currency sympathy for these women is going to fall off a cliff.
I don't think that what the police did here was right or necessary but boy, do they have a lot to put up with.
To mind mind the point is rather would any of that have happened had the organised vigil been allowed to go ahead ? I suspect not.
Lots of crime wouldn't happen if the police just didn't bother.
On this issue, you seem completely to miss the point. it was within police discretion to allow the original organised vigil to go ahead. Had it done so, it is likely there would have been minimal risk of resulting infections, and there would have been no crime.
Oh, that makes it all okay then? No. It would (should) have effectively resulted in the end of lockdown in this respect. You cannot allow certain gatherings to happen but not others. This is a really simple point that you and many on here just do not get.
Why? We allow all sorts of gatherings in much more confined conditions than existed on Clapham Common on Saturday. Supermarkets, transport, remembrance day gatherings. Why is it that this particular outdoors vigil is not allowed when they are? Have you actually been in a Supermarket recently and seen how crowded it is and how few people are following the basic rules?
FFS. Change the law then. I don't think these laws should ever have come in. But don't take it out on the police who are doing their job.
"Only doing my job" or "I was following orders" isn't always good enough.
The Police have to determine HOW they do their job, just as others do with their own too.
You can be good or bad at your job depending upon how you do it.
If any of the women feel that they were treated badly by the individual officers then they are free to make a complaint. But it will have to be about how they were policed rather than that they were policed.
Well yes isn't that exactly what has been complained about from Saturday night onwards? How it was dealt with?
How many homes that are burgled don't even get visited by the cops, but some grieving women are peacefully holding an outdoor vigil? Send in the goonsquad.
Nope. the police have ruthlessly been rounding up illegal gatherings for the last few months. It's your fault if you've only just noticed that that's been going on.
They haven't though.
The police have overwhelmingly been focusing on high-risk activities, correctly in my opinion. Things like house parties, raves, pub lock-ins. They've taken a very relaxed approach to people "illegally gathering" outside, where risk of transmission is much lower.
Walk around any city centre right now and you'll see big groups of young adults and the police don't care.
Totally off-topic, but are there any broadband experts on here? My office (former bank) has a fibre cable. BT couldn't find it, Openreach confirmed it is there, BT local business have had a rummage around and believe its a disconnected leased line.
A quick Google suggests that instead of £normal costs for a fibre connection (say 100Mbps), a leased line can cost £lotsandlots with the cheapest I can spot offering s l o w (10Mbps) for multiple the cost for FTTP. Have I got this right?
See if City Fiber or Hyper Optic are in your area. Openreach for FTTP is probably the worst option.
My guess would also be that if the video linked to on the last thread gains currency sympathy for these women is going to fall off a cliff.
I don't think that what the police did here was right or necessary but boy, do they have a lot to put up with.
To mind mind the point is rather would any of that have happened had the organised vigil been allowed to go ahead ? I suspect not.
Lots of crime wouldn't happen if the police just didn't bother.
On this issue, you seem completely to miss the point. it was within police discretion to allow the original organised vigil to go ahead. Had it done so, it is likely there would have been minimal risk of resulting infections, and there would have been no crime.
Oh, that makes it all okay then? No. It would (should) have effectively resulted in the end of lockdown in this respect. You cannot allow certain gatherings to happen but not others. This is a really simple point that you and many on here just do not get.
Why? We allow all sorts of gatherings in much more confined conditions than existed on Clapham Common on Saturday. Supermarkets, transport, remembrance day gatherings. Why is it that this particular outdoors vigil is not allowed when they are? Have you actually been in a Supermarket recently and seen how crowded it is and how few people are following the basic rules?
FFS. Change the law then. I don't think these laws should ever have come in. But don't take it out on the police who are doing their job.
"Only doing my job" or "I was following orders" isn't always good enough.
The Police have to determine HOW they do their job, just as others do with their own too.
You can be good or bad at your job depending upon how you do it.
If any of the women feel that they were treated badly by the individual officers then they are free to make a complaint. But it will have to be about how they were policed rather than that they were policed.
Well yes isn't that exactly what has been complained about from Saturday night onwards? How it was dealt with?
How many homes that are burgled don't even get visited by the cops, but some grieving women are peacefully holding an outdoor vigil? Send in the goonsquad.
Nope. the police have ruthlessly been rounding up illegal gatherings for the last few months. It's your fault if you've only just noticed that that's been going on.
My guess would also be that if the video linked to on the last thread gains currency sympathy for these women is going to fall off a cliff.
I don't think that what the police did here was right or necessary but boy, do they have a lot to put up with.
To mind mind the point is rather would any of that have happened had the organised vigil been allowed to go ahead ? I suspect not.
Lots of crime wouldn't happen if the police just didn't bother.
On this issue, you seem completely to miss the point. it was within police discretion to allow the original organised vigil to go ahead. Had it done so, it is likely there would have been minimal risk of resulting infections, and there would have been no crime.
I'm not sure. These situations often attract expremeists looking to provoke a fight - as in the video. It's all very well saying the Police are paid to take verbal abuse - they are. However, when those kind of videos are viewed by the general public their sympathies tend to go in one direction.
Until they realise that, if you are of that opinion, shouting at the patriarchy, and particularly at the arm of the patriarchy that very particularly in this instance was also the perpetrator of the crime you are protesting about and is now in your mind being confrontational, is wholly understandable.
Until seems to be a long time coming for that particular group of people......
My guess would also be that if the video linked to on the last thread gains currency sympathy for these women is going to fall off a cliff.
I don't think that what the police did here was right or necessary but boy, do they have a lot to put up with.
To mind mind the point is rather would any of that have happened had the organised vigil been allowed to go ahead ? I suspect not.
Lots of crime wouldn't happen if the police just didn't bother.
On this issue, you seem completely to miss the point. it was within police discretion to allow the original organised vigil to go ahead. Had it done so, it is likely there would have been minimal risk of resulting infections, and there would have been no crime.
Oh, that makes it all okay then? No. It would (should) have effectively resulted in the end of lockdown in this respect. You cannot allow certain gatherings to happen but not others. This is a really simple point that you and many on here just do not get.
Why? We allow all sorts of gatherings in much more confined conditions than existed on Clapham Common on Saturday. Supermarkets, transport, remembrance day gatherings. Why is it that this particular outdoors vigil is not allowed when they are? Have you actually been in a Supermarket recently and seen how crowded it is and how few people are following the basic rules?
FFS. Change the law then. I don't think these laws should ever have come in. But don't take it out on the police who are doing their job.
"Only doing my job" or "I was following orders" isn't always good enough.
The Police have to determine HOW they do their job, just as others do with their own too.
You can be good or bad at your job depending upon how you do it.
If any of the women feel that they were treated badly by the individual officers then they are free to make a complaint. But it will have to be about how they were policed rather than that they were policed.
Well yes isn't that exactly what has been complained about from Saturday night onwards? How it was dealt with?
How many homes that are burgled don't even get visited by the cops, but some grieving women are peacefully holding an outdoor vigil? Send in the goonsquad.
Nope. the police have ruthlessly been rounding up illegal gatherings for the last few months. It's your fault if you've only just noticed that that's been going on.
They haven't though.
The police have overwhelmingly been focusing on high-risk activities, correctly in my opinion. Things like house parties, raves, pub lock-ins. They've taken a very relaxed approach to people "illegally gathering" outside, where risk of transmission is much lower.
Walk around any city centre right now and you'll see big groups of young adults and the police don't care.
My guess would also be that if the video linked to on the last thread gains currency sympathy for these women is going to fall off a cliff.
I don't think that what the police did here was right or necessary but boy, do they have a lot to put up with.
To mind mind the point is rather would any of that have happened had the organised vigil been allowed to go ahead ? I suspect not.
Lots of crime wouldn't happen if the police just didn't bother.
On this issue, you seem completely to miss the point. it was within police discretion to allow the original organised vigil to go ahead. Had it done so, it is likely there would have been minimal risk of resulting infections, and there would have been no crime.
I'm not sure. These situations often attract expremeists looking to provoke a fight - as in the video. It's all very well saying the Police are paid to take verbal abuse - they are. However, when those kind of videos are viewed by the general public their sympathies tend to go in one direction.
Until they realise that, if you are of that opinion, shouting at the patriarchy, and particularly at the arm of the patriarchy that very particularly in this instance was also the perpetrator of the crime you are protesting about and is now in your mind being confrontational, is wholly understandable.
It would be understandable if it was the particular policeman accused of the crime that they were shouting at. But this slips quite easily into the implication is that ALL policemen are guilty, or that all men are guilty. Many people bridle at such thinking.
Totally off-topic, but are there any broadband experts on here? My office (former bank) has a fibre cable. BT couldn't find it, Openreach confirmed it is there, BT local business have had a rummage around and believe its a disconnected leased line.
A quick Google suggests that instead of £normal costs for a fibre connection (say 100Mbps), a leased line can cost £lotsandlots with the cheapest I can spot offering s l o w (10Mbps) for multiple the cost for FTTP. Have I got this right?
See if City Fiber or Hyper Optic are in your area. Openreach for FTTP is probably the worst option.
I have Openreach FTTP.
Don't get me wrong, it's better than no FTTP, just that the other two major providers are best in class on speed and customer service.
I do think we have perhaps reached the point at which there needs to be a reappraisal of ALL punishments from top to bottom.
I do think there should be some punishment for vandalism and criminal damage although 10 years is clearly ludicrous.
But as a basic principle I would start from the point that no act of vandalism or criminal damage that does not involve endangering someone's life (so excluding things like damaging life saving or medical equipment perhaps) should carry a potential sentence more severe than the lightest sentence for doing actual harm to someone.
I am sure that there would need to be refinement but it seems to send entirely the wrong signal that damaging property is considered more serious than damaging people.
Punishment is a tough subject. On this analysis a person who with blunt instruments destroyed beyond repair every Rembrandt and Titian in the National Gallery would have a lighter sentence than a drunk bloke in a pub who had a scuffle with a drunk mate and managed to give him a nosebleed and a grazed knee.
Someone who destroyed the 25 Rembrandts and 20 Titians in the NG beyond repair before anyone could apprehend him would have to be quite remarkable in strength, single-mindedness and perseverance.
Totally off-topic, but are there any broadband experts on here? My office (former bank) has a fibre cable. BT couldn't find it, Openreach confirmed it is there, BT local business have had a rummage around and believe its a disconnected leased line.
A quick Google suggests that instead of £normal costs for a fibre connection (say 100Mbps), a leased line can cost £lotsandlots with the cheapest I can spot offering s l o w (10Mbps) for multiple the cost for FTTP. Have I got this right?
See if City Fiber or Hyper Optic are in your area. Openreach for FTTP is probably the worst option.
Imagine if Corbyn had got in and we would all be stuck with the Commie Cable Co...
How about the "emotional value" of someone's home being burgled. Does that get 10 years?
This is symptomatic of something that has been happening for 20 years at least in various guises.
People behave badly, in a way that is against the law but which for various reasons tends not to be prosecuted. So tougher laws/punishments are brought in. When all we need is the will/resources to enforce the existing laws.
What do people expect? The entire justice system has been cut and let to rot since c. 2010, on all accounts.
To demonstrate - I'm a keen law student looking for my first legal job, I would be open to working in criminal law, and yet there's very few, if any, job vacancies in that area. You'd think with the huge backlog there would be a big demand for criminal lawyers. Clearly not.
Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?
It's not supposed to work, it's supposed to allow politicians to "do" something. So we have the completely ludicrous Hate Speech bill in Scotland and the equally ludicrous Police bill in England.
If they still have politicians, as opposed to some (hopefully benevolent) AI, they will understand.
Late to the party on this one so please let me know if anyone else has jumped to the same conclusion I did - someone, somewhere, wants to get rid of Cressida Dick.
Totally off-topic, but are there any broadband experts on here? My office (former bank) has a fibre cable. BT couldn't find it, Openreach confirmed it is there, BT local business have had a rummage around and believe its a disconnected leased line.
A quick Google suggests that instead of £normal costs for a fibre connection (say 100Mbps), a leased line can cost £lotsandlots with the cheapest I can spot offering s l o w (10Mbps) for multiple the cost for FTTP. Have I got this right?
See if City Fiber or Hyper Optic are in your area. Openreach for FTTP is probably the worst option.
I doubt either are options in a small village in rural Aberdeenshire.
My best advice would be to take whatever you can get and signup for starlink at the first opportunity.
In the UK 39% of Twitter users back Labour compared to only 32% of the UK population and only 34% of Twitter users back the Tories compared to 41% of the UK population
If those figures are correct, Twitter is actually much more in line with the UK population than I expected.
Well, yes, but twitter users is not exactly the same as the twittersphere. The majority of 'twitter users' rarely, if ever tweet. As in real life, the loudest voices are not necessarily representative.
Wow. This is getting close to Corbyn levels it seems.
It would be interesting to have a betting market on who would be first out: Starmer or Johnson (or Davey).
Im increasingly convinced he will face a leadership challenge after the May elections. It will be hard for him to gain any polling traction in the next few weeks with the vaccine rollout going well.
I also believe he would win said leadership challenge and it might actually do him some good to have the spotlight shone on him.
Totally off-topic, but are there any broadband experts on here? My office (former bank) has a fibre cable. BT couldn't find it, Openreach confirmed it is there, BT local business have had a rummage around and believe its a disconnected leased line.
A quick Google suggests that instead of £normal costs for a fibre connection (say 100Mbps), a leased line can cost £lotsandlots with the cheapest I can spot offering s l o w (10Mbps) for multiple the cost for FTTP. Have I got this right?
See if City Fiber or Hyper Optic are in your area. Openreach for FTTP is probably the worst option.
I have Openreach FTTP.
Don't get me wrong, it's better than no FTTP, just that the other two major providers are best in class on speed and customer service.
There are other alternatives.Companies supply broadband bia an aerial yo a mast , usually on a hill.. Leith Hill in Dorking is one.. Kijoma supplies via there
How about the "emotional value" of someone's home being burgled. Does that get 10 years?
This is symptomatic of something that has been happening for 20 years at least in various guises.
People behave badly, in a way that is against the law but which for various reasons tends not to be prosecuted. So tougher laws/punishments are brought in. When all we need is the will/resources to enforce the existing laws.
What do people expect? The entire justice system has been cut and let to rot since c. 2010, on all accounts.
To demonstrate - I'm a keen law student looking for my first legal job, I would be open to working in criminal law, and yet there's very few, if any, job vacancies in that area. You'd think with the huge backlog there would be a big demand for criminal lawyers. Clearly not.
Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?
It's that lack of seriousness earnest young Rory Stewart would talk about.
Late to the party on this one so please let me know if anyone else has jumped to the same conclusion I did - someone, somewhere, wants to get rid of Cressida Dick.
It will be interesting to see if the person in the chain of command who apparently over-ruled the local police is found.....
Late to the party on this one so please let me know if anyone else has jumped to the same conclusion I did - someone, somewhere, wants to get rid of Cressida Dick.
It will be interesting to see if the person in the chain of command who apparently over-ruled the local police is found.....
Its also amusing to see some on here claim that the Police had no choice but to enforce the law this way, when apparently the local Police wanted it Policed differently (quite rightly).
My guess would also be that if the video linked to on the last thread gains currency sympathy for these women is going to fall off a cliff.
I don't think that what the police did here was right or necessary but boy, do they have a lot to put up with.
To mind mind the point is rather would any of that have happened had the organised vigil been allowed to go ahead ? I suspect not.
Lots of crime wouldn't happen if the police just didn't bother.
On this issue, you seem completely to miss the point. it was within police discretion to allow the original organised vigil to go ahead. Had it done so, it is likely there would have been minimal risk of resulting infections, and there would have been no crime.
I'm not sure. These situations often attract expremeists looking to provoke a fight - as in the video. It's all very well saying the Police are paid to take verbal abuse - they are. However, when those kind of videos are viewed by the general public their sympathies tend to go in one direction.
Until they realise that, if you are of that opinion, shouting at the patriarchy, and particularly at the arm of the patriarchy that very particularly in this instance was also the perpetrator of the crime you are protesting about and is now in your mind being confrontational, is wholly understandable.
It would be understandable if it was the particular policeman accused of the crime that they were shouting at. But this slips quite easily into the implication is that ALL policemen are guilty, or that all men are guilty. Many people bridle at such thinking.
Well who knows if the police are institutionally this or institutionally that. I'm pretty sure they are not institutionally abductors and murderers but you have a situation where a serving policeman is responsible for this abduction and murder and hence I can see why the need for a lighter touch might have been required.
Wow. This is getting close to Corbyn levels it seems.
It would be interesting to have a betting market on who would be first out: Starmer or Johnson (or Davey).
Im increasingly convinced he will face a leadership challenge after the May elections. It will be hard for him to gain any polling traction in the next few weeks with the vaccine rollout going well.
I also believe he would win said leadership challenge and it might actually do him some good to have the spotlight shone on him.
It would probably depend on who challenged him. If it's RLB or someone he'd probably win again.
My guess would also be that if the video linked to on the last thread gains currency sympathy for these women is going to fall off a cliff.
I don't think that what the police did here was right or necessary but boy, do they have a lot to put up with.
To mind mind the point is rather would any of that have happened had the organised vigil been allowed to go ahead ? I suspect not.
Lots of crime wouldn't happen if the police just didn't bother.
On this issue, you seem completely to miss the point. it was within police discretion to allow the original organised vigil to go ahead. Had it done so, it is likely there would have been minimal risk of resulting infections, and there would have been no crime.
Oh, that makes it all okay then? No. It would (should) have effectively resulted in the end of lockdown in this respect. You cannot allow certain gatherings to happen but not others. This is a really simple point that you and many on here just do not get.
I do think we have perhaps reached the point at which there needs to be a reappraisal of ALL punishments from top to bottom.
I do think there should be some punishment for vandalism and criminal damage although 10 years is clearly ludicrous.
But as a basic principle I would start from the point that no act of vandalism or criminal damage that does not involve endangering someone's life (so excluding things like damaging life saving or medical equipment perhaps) should carry a potential sentence more severe than the lightest sentence for doing actual harm to someone.
I am sure that there would need to be refinement but it seems to send entirely the wrong signal that damaging property is considered more serious than damaging people.
Punishment is a tough subject. On this analysis a person who with blunt instruments destroyed beyond repair every Rembrandt and Titian in the National Gallery would have a lighter sentence than a drunk bloke in a pub who had a scuffle with a drunk mate and managed to give him a nosebleed and a grazed knee.
Yep I see that which is why I said it would ned refinement. But it seems clear that, perhaps as a historic hangover, you are more likely to get a heavy sentence for a property crime than for a sexual crime even nowadays. That cannot be right.
The sensible way to do it would be not to have any sentences set for crime but instead a points system which the judge graded the crime on.
Then depending on how many points you got determines your sentence
So for example
Causing death 20 points Premeditation 10 points Emotional trauma 5 points Severe injury requiring hospitalisation 10 points etc
Points for mitigation as well such as provacation -5points
Then look up the maximum and minimum tariffs on the chart
Russia recorded more than 55,000 excess deaths in January, data from the country’s official statistics agency (Rosstat) published Friday showed.
Since the start of the pandemic until the end of January — the latest such data is available — Russia has now recorded 394,000 more deaths than in the previous period. That represents a 24% increase in fatality and one of the highest excess death tolls in the world, even after adjusting for population.
10 cases of side effects seems like a very, very small number considering it will be many hundreds of thousands that will have had it by now.
The reporting of this in Europe has become a complete joke.
Meanwhile, PA reports:
"Two doses of either the Pfizer/BioNTech or Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine offer similar protection against coronavirus as natural immunity after infection, new research suggests.
None of the 1,456 healthcare workers at Oxford University Hospitals (OUH) NHS Foundation Trust who had received two vaccines had a symptomatic infection when followed up more than 14 days after their second vaccination."
My guess would also be that if the video linked to on the last thread gains currency sympathy for these women is going to fall off a cliff.
I don't think that what the police did here was right or necessary but boy, do they have a lot to put up with.
To mind mind the point is rather would any of that have happened had the organised vigil been allowed to go ahead ? I suspect not.
Lots of crime wouldn't happen if the police just didn't bother.
On this issue, you seem completely to miss the point. it was within police discretion to allow the original organised vigil to go ahead. Had it done so, it is likely there would have been minimal risk of resulting infections, and there would have been no crime.
Oh, that makes it all okay then? No. It would (should) have effectively resulted in the end of lockdown in this respect. You cannot allow certain gatherings to happen but not others. This is a really simple point that you and many on here just do not get.
Why? We allow all sorts of gatherings in much more confined conditions than existed on Clapham Common on Saturday. Supermarkets, transport, remembrance day gatherings. Why is it that this particular outdoors vigil is not allowed when they are? Have you actually been in a Supermarket recently and seen how crowded it is and how few people are following the basic rules?
FFS. Change the law then. I don't think these laws should ever have come in. But don't take it out on the police who are doing their job.
You are conflating arguments. You keep going on about how the law should be applied equally across the board and when people come up with many examples of how it is not you shoot off on another tangent.
The issue here is not the law primarily. It is how it is applied by the police at the time in question. There was no need for them to act in the way they did both before hand where they decided to simply ban any gathering, then ignored the gathering through the day including the visit by a member of the royal family and then managed to get into a situation where they are caught manhandling women at a vigil about violence towards women. There is simply no way the police come out of that looking good.
What they could have done is negotiated with the organisers and had a small symbolic vigil with a very limited number of people at Clapham Common and with the organisers asking that no one else attend. That would have been within the scope of the law and the court ruling. But instead they decided to go all heavy handed because they could. Utter stupidity.
It sounds like you think they should have piled in earlier. That's an odd argument. From what I've seen of pictures from earlier in the day, social distancing was being observed. Perhaps the police should have put a stop to it before it changed in nature after dark, but it very much did change.
And if they negotiate with one group, they'll have to negotiate with all groups.
No I don't think they should have 'piled in' at all. It really wasn't necessary.
From all the accounts I have seen the nature of the vigil only changed after the police decided to get involved.
Wow. This is getting close to Corbyn levels it seems.
It would be interesting to have a betting market on who would be first out: Starmer or Johnson (or Davey).
Im increasingly convinced he will face a leadership challenge after the May elections. It will be hard for him to gain any polling traction in the next few weeks with the vaccine rollout going well.
I also believe he would win said leadership challenge and it might actually do him some good to have the spotlight shone on him.
It would probably depend on who challenged him. If it's RLB or someone he'd probably win again.
Have you any thoughts on who might be able to beat him? I was thinking possibly John McDonnell or Clive Lewis would have an outside chance of rallying the troops on the left. Realistically there's no obvious replacement.
Labour need a gritty northern or midlander type with no obvious virtue-signalling "woke" history but with a "pure" enough background that middle-class woke types would consider them an embodiment of Labour values.
Someone with a background in business in the North of England would fit the bill, a northern Andy Street.
The problem with UK political parties is that you primarily have to suck-up for decades to be considered for selection rather than picking people who'd actually be good.
And someone who hasn't been bogged down in the self-indulgent political sub-culture would be good.
Given the general backing for incredibly strict lockdown measures these figures are no real surprise, are they? The issue is surely more about how the vigil was policed once it did go ahead. Did YouGov ask about that?
I am a bit surprised and disappointed that Dick has such strong backing from the public. It suggests that they saw nothing wrong with the police response to the protest.
I don't yet have a full account of what the police response *was*, so I don't see how that can be judged.
My guess would also be that if the video linked to on the last thread gains currency sympathy for these women is going to fall off a cliff.
I don't think that what the police did here was right or necessary but boy, do they have a lot to put up with.
To mind mind the point is rather would any of that have happened had the organised vigil been allowed to go ahead ? I suspect not.
Lots of crime wouldn't happen if the police just didn't bother.
On this issue, you seem completely to miss the point. it was within police discretion to allow the original organised vigil to go ahead. Had it done so, it is likely there would have been minimal risk of resulting infections, and there would have been no crime.
Oh, that makes it all okay then? No. It would (should) have effectively resulted in the end of lockdown in this respect. You cannot allow certain gatherings to happen but not others. This is a really simple point that you and many on here just do not get.
Why? We allow all sorts of gatherings in much more confined conditions than existed on Clapham Common on Saturday. Supermarkets, transport, remembrance day gatherings. Why is it that this particular outdoors vigil is not allowed when they are? Have you actually been in a Supermarket recently and seen how crowded it is and how few people are following the basic rules?
FFS. Change the law then. I don't think these laws should ever have come in. But don't take it out on the police who are doing their job.
The point is that they would also have been doing their job, entirely within the law, had they allowed the carefully organised vigil to go ahead. It's not certain that the outcome would have been better, but it is extremely likely.
The senior leadership of the Met is not fit for purpose.
Labour need a gritty northern or midlander type with no obvious virtue-signalling "woke" history but with a "pure" enough background that middle-class woke types would consider them an embodiment of Labour values.
Someone with a background in business in the North of England would fit the bill, a northern Andy Street.
The problem with UK political parties is that you primarily have to suck-up for decades to be considered for selection rather than picking people who'd actually be good.
And someone who hasn't been bogged down in the self-indulgent political sub-culture would be good.
And if they've been to university, I think being a member of any political society should be a disqualifying factor.
My guess would also be that if the video linked to on the last thread gains currency sympathy for these women is going to fall off a cliff.
I don't think that what the police did here was right or necessary but boy, do they have a lot to put up with.
To mind mind the point is rather would any of that have happened had the organised vigil been allowed to go ahead ? I suspect not.
Lots of crime wouldn't happen if the police just didn't bother.
On this issue, you seem completely to miss the point. it was within police discretion to allow the original organised vigil to go ahead. Had it done so, it is likely there would have been minimal risk of resulting infections, and there would have been no crime.
Oh, that makes it all okay then? No. It would (should) have effectively resulted in the end of lockdown in this respect. You cannot allow certain gatherings to happen but not others. This is a really simple point that you and many on here just do not get.
Why? We allow all sorts of gatherings in much more confined conditions than existed on Clapham Common on Saturday. Supermarkets, transport, remembrance day gatherings. Why is it that this particular outdoors vigil is not allowed when they are? Have you actually been in a Supermarket recently and seen how crowded it is and how few people are following the basic rules?
FFS. Change the law then. I don't think these laws should ever have come in. But don't take it out on the police who are doing their job.
The point is that they would also have been doing their job, entirely within the law, had they allowed the carefully organised vigil to go ahead. It's not certain that the outcome would have been better, but it is extremely likely.
The senior leadership of the Met is not fit for purpose.
And you are sure the buck should stop with the senior leadership of the Met?
My guess would also be that if the video linked to on the last thread gains currency sympathy for these women is going to fall off a cliff.
I don't think that what the police did here was right or necessary but boy, do they have a lot to put up with.
To mind mind the point is rather would any of that have happened had the organised vigil been allowed to go ahead ? I suspect not.
Lots of crime wouldn't happen if the police just didn't bother.
On this issue, you seem completely to miss the point. it was within police discretion to allow the original organised vigil to go ahead. Had it done so, it is likely there would have been minimal risk of resulting infections, and there would have been no crime.
Oh, that makes it all okay then? No. It would (should) have effectively resulted in the end of lockdown in this respect. You cannot allow certain gatherings to happen but not others. This is a really simple point that you and many on here just do not get.
Why? We allow all sorts of gatherings in much more confined conditions than existed on Clapham Common on Saturday. Supermarkets, transport, remembrance day gatherings. Why is it that this particular outdoors vigil is not allowed when they are? Have you actually been in a Supermarket recently and seen how crowded it is and how few people are following the basic rules?
FFS. Change the law then. I don't think these laws should ever have come in. But don't take it out on the police who are doing their job.
You are conflating arguments. You keep going on about how the law should be applied equally across the board and when people come up with many examples of how it is not you shoot off on another tangent.
The issue here is not the law primarily. It is how it is applied by the police at the time in question. There was no need for them to act in the way they did both before hand where they decided to simply ban any gathering, then ignored the gathering through the day including the visit by a member of the royal family and then managed to get into a situation where they are caught manhandling women at a vigil about violence towards women. There is simply no way the police come out of that looking good.
What they could have done is negotiated with the organisers and had a small symbolic vigil with a very limited number of people at Clapham Common and with the organisers asking that no one else attend. That would have been within the scope of the law and the court ruling. But instead they decided to go all heavy handed because they could. Utter stupidity.
It sounds like you think they should have piled in earlier. That's an odd argument. From what I've seen of pictures from earlier in the day, social distancing was being observed. Perhaps the police should have put a stop to it before it changed in nature after dark, but it very much did change.
And if they negotiate with one group, they'll have to negotiate with all groups.
No I don't think they should have 'piled in' at all. It really wasn't necessary.
From all the accounts I have seen the nature of the vigil only changed after the police decided to get involved.
Richard, you're a sensible old cove, sometimes. Can you enlighten me?
Why on earth did the fuzz go in so heavy-handed? It makes no sense at all.
Totally off-topic, but are there any broadband experts on here? My office (former bank) has a fibre cable. BT couldn't find it, Openreach confirmed it is there, BT local business have had a rummage around and believe its a disconnected leased line.
A quick Google suggests that instead of £normal costs for a fibre connection (say 100Mbps), a leased line can cost £lotsandlots with the cheapest I can spot offering s l o w (10Mbps) for multiple the cost for FTTP. Have I got this right?
A gigabit leased line currently runs at around £300 per month, AFAIK. That bandwidth would be exclusive to whoever leased it, unlike the consumer supplies, where dozens of people are effectively using the same capacity. 50 people would be be able to use such a leased line and get something similar to BT's 100Mb consumer service.
Whatever your views on them a picture of Kate Middleton in handcuffs pinned down by five police officers would have seen the Royal Family's popularity soar by 25%.
On the recent polls - interesting that the Tories on 45% seems to be becoming a thing.
Also seems to back up the view that Starmer is much more attractive to LDs than to soft Tories.
Whether he would hold those LD switchers during an election campaign is another question.
To win SKS needs loads of Tory voters to switch, in the right places. The Labour problem is not about the leadership, and any leader faces the same problem: Labour identity. A recent poll said 50% of Labour supporters were republicans. For the pro monarchy majority that's a huge cultural gulf to cross whatever the leadership says or does.
Their other identity problem is that Labour exists in pockets and clumps without a spectrum of support. Posh white students/urban graduates; fellow travellers of every micro group; most BAMES; the largest urban areas; the champagne socialist radical chic Toynbee/Guardian set; the public sector payroll vote. None of this amounts to a majority, nor is it a coherent set of overlapping groups, and even though it makes lots of noise shows no sign of listening.
Jess Phillips would be my best guess for turning that lot into something good. But even with her stellar qualities I am doubtful.
Because Dick is saying "You TOLD me I had one over-riding priority: protect the lockdown. So I did."
The correct response is "Yeah - but not like THAT."
Did nobody even consider the optics of having male Met coppers piling in to arrest and cuff women on a vigil - a vigil for a woman kidnapped and murdered by a male Met copper?
They should still let go of Dick.
That Cretin Shaun Bailey is campaigning on Khan's failure with regards to a Commissioner who reports into the Home Secretary. Whilst Dick (and Khan) should resign, they won't. Dick says "I'm doing what you [Patel] told me to. Patel openly thinks more coppers should twat more protesters round the head, and besides which if Dick remains in place unfired by her, the party can campaign against Khan's shameful failure to fire her.
As I understand things the law is very clear that both the Mayor of London and the Home Secretary have no direct control of operational decisions made by the police. There are very strong controls & separation of powers in place, and for good reasons.
Also, (again, as I understand things) legally neither is able to call for the resignation of Cressida Dick - there’s a weird dance of letters between the Mayor & the Home Secretary & the Police that has to happen before either of them is legally able to call for her resignation.
So any criticism of either Khan or Patel over the actions of the MET on Saturday night is simply political opportunism. Neither had the power to control what the police chose to do, so long as it was within their legal powers (and it seems pretty clear that their actions were probably lawful, even if woefully misguided).
They do have Dame Cressida's telephone number though, don't they? It seems fairly clear that a major issue was the fact that the Police refused to have a dialogue with Reclaim These Streets and instead had a court battle then threatened large fines.
But this was a completely unrealistic strategy given emotions were running high, people were going to congregate, and the Police had a goodwill problem, in part because of the circumstances of the case. So they needed to be working with a responsible organising group, offering to provide volunteer marshals and so on, to keep it orderly.
Patel and/or Khan could have had that discussion with Dick. As politicians, they are actually very well placed to judge the public mood and see that the alternative to an organised vigil was not no vigil but a disorganised event. She might have ignored them and said "I'm the professional copper here". But it looks as if they either didn't have concerns over a pretty surprising Police strategy to say the least, or didn't raise them.
On Police strategy while the event was going on, totally agree that Patel and Khan realistically can't contribute. But there was a build up to this over several days, and the danger was fairly clear.
They may have had discussions, but the point is that the Home Office & the Mayor’s Office have no direct control, by statute - it’s illegal for them to interfere with operational police decisions as I understand things. They can’t tell the police what to do.
Wow. This is getting close to Corbyn levels it seems.
It would be interesting to have a betting market on who would be first out: Starmer or Johnson (or Davey).
Im increasingly convinced he will face a leadership challenge after the May elections. It will be hard for him to gain any polling traction in the next few weeks with the vaccine rollout going well.
I also believe he would win said leadership challenge and it might actually do him some good to have the spotlight shone on him.
It would probably depend on who challenged him. If it's RLB or someone he'd probably win again.
Have you any thoughts on who might be able to beat him? I was thinking possibly John McDonnell or Clive Lewis would have an outside chance of rallying the troops on the left. Realistically there's no obvious replacement.
You're right, there's no obvious replacement.
It makes me think the American system of open primaries really helps good people from outside politics get elected to positions of reasonable responsibility — City and State governorships in order to build a profile before running for federal level. We don't really have an equivalent here. Maybe "metro mayors" can be that in the future but they certainly aren't yet.
Late to the party on this one so please let me know if anyone else has jumped to the same conclusion I did - someone, somewhere, wants to get rid of Cressida Dick.
It will be interesting to see if the person in the chain of command who apparently over-ruled the local police is found.....
Its also amusing to see some on here claim that the Police had no choice but to enforce the law this way, when apparently the local Police wanted it Policed differently (quite rightly).
It's beginning to smell like internal politicking played a part.
I recall from the de Menezes case that there was bad blood between Dick and the Surveillance Team. One of the two plainly lied but it was never established which. Her subsequent elevation would suggest she was exonerated. You have to wonder if there is resentment in parts of the force.
10 cases of side effects seems like a very, very small number considering it will be many hundreds of thousands that will have had it by now.
The reporting of this in Europe has become a complete joke.
The Norwegian cases reporting reduced levels of blood platelets are unlike anything seen from vaccine side effects so far. Note that they were in healthcare workers, and the condition is a not uncommon side effect of Covid.
Immune Thrombocytopenia Secondary to COVID-19: a Systematic Review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7501509/ Immune thrombocytopenia, often known as immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), has emerged as an important complication of COVID-19. A systematic review was done to analyze the clinical profile and outcomes in a total of 45 cases of new-onset ITP in COVID-19 patients described in literature until date. A comprehensive approach is essential for diagnosing COVID-19-associated ITP after excluding several concomitant factors that can cause thrombocytopenia in COVID-19. Majority of ITP cases (71%) were found to be elderly (> 50 years) and 75% cases had moderate-to-severe COVID-19. Three patients (7%) were in the pediatric age group. Reports of ITP in asymptomatic COVID-19 patients (7%) underscore the need for COVID-19 testing in newly diagnosed patients with ITP irrespective of COVID-19 symptoms amid this pandemic. ITP onset occurred in 20% cases 3 weeks after onset of COVID-19 symptoms, with many reports after clinical recovery. SARS-CoV-2-mediated immune thrombocytopenia can be attributed to the underlying immune dysregulation, susceptibility mutations in SOCS 1, and other mechanisms, including molecular mimicry, cryptic antigen expression, and epitope spreading. No bleeding manifestations were reported in 31% cases at diagnosis. Severe life-threatening bleeding was uncommon. One case of mortality was attributed to intracranial hemorrhage. Secondary Evans syndrome was diagnosed in one case. Good initial response to short course of glucocorticoids and intravenous immunoglobulin has been found with the exception of delayed lag response in one case. Thrombopoietin receptor agonist usage as a second-line agent has been noted in few cases for short duration with no adverse events. In the relatively short follow-up period, four relapses of ITP were found....
It's unfortunate for our continental neighbours that they don't have a nearby country with millions of people vaccinated with the Oxford/AstraZeneca dose which would provide a huge reservoir of real world data.
How about the "emotional value" of someone's home being burgled. Does that get 10 years?
The maximum sentence for burglary is 14 years. In practice, under the current sentencing guidelines, the maximum an offender will get is 6 years. That, of course, is for the most serious offences.
There is a similar gap between the maximum sentence and the sentencing guidelines for most offences. So setting the maximum at 10 years means the absolute maximum anyone is likely to get is 4 years with community service being the most likely outcome.
German doctors call for immediate lockdown to avoid third wave Intensive care doctors in Germany warned the country would need to make an “immediate return” to partial lockdown if it is to avoid stumbling into a dangerous third Covid wave, AFP reports.
Christian Karagiannidis, director of Germany’s intensive care register, told broadcaster RBB:
From the data we currently have and with the spread of the British mutation, we would argue strongly to return immediately into a lockdown to avoid a strong third wave. We won’t gain much from staying open for the next one or two weeks, because that will quickly bring us to a high level and make it twice as hard to push the numbers down again.
My guess would also be that if the video linked to on the last thread gains currency sympathy for these women is going to fall off a cliff.
I don't think that what the police did here was right or necessary but boy, do they have a lot to put up with.
To mind mind the point is rather would any of that have happened had the organised vigil been allowed to go ahead ? I suspect not.
Lots of crime wouldn't happen if the police just didn't bother.
On this issue, you seem completely to miss the point. it was within police discretion to allow the original organised vigil to go ahead. Had it done so, it is likely there would have been minimal risk of resulting infections, and there would have been no crime.
Oh, that makes it all okay then? No. It would (should) have effectively resulted in the end of lockdown in this respect. You cannot allow certain gatherings to happen but not others. This is a really simple point that you and many on here just do not get.
Why? We allow all sorts of gatherings in much more confined conditions than existed on Clapham Common on Saturday. Supermarkets, transport, remembrance day gatherings. Why is it that this particular outdoors vigil is not allowed when they are? Have you actually been in a Supermarket recently and seen how crowded it is and how few people are following the basic rules?
FFS. Change the law then. I don't think these laws should ever have come in. But don't take it out on the police who are doing their job.
The point is that they would also have been doing their job, entirely within the law, had they allowed the carefully organised vigil to go ahead. It's not certain that the outcome would have been better, but it is extremely likely.
The senior leadership of the Met is not fit for purpose.
And you are sure the buck should stop with the senior leadership of the Met?
Vaccine anecdote, my wife mid 30s, SE England, just got the call for later in the week.
We’re pretty baffled what makes her “high risk”. Have heard the same from several people in their 30s in recent days. My suspicion is that the programme to do the over 50s ahead of schedule is such a slam dunk that they’re stuffing Cat 6 with any marginal past health event they can think of. That way they can make serious headway on Phase 2 without having to declare that Phase 1 is complete, which is no doubt a trigger point that the behavioural scientists are flagging.
Analysis by Netpol, the Network for Police Monitoring, reveals there have been at least nine high-profile instances of police using Covid regulations against demonstrators, including two asylum seekers protesting outside Napier barracks in Folkestone, Kent and a woman fined £500 for organising a protest after the death of a man released from police custody in Cardiff.
A nurse who organised a socially distanced protest against low pay in the NHS was issued with a £10,000 fine last weekend. Karen Reissmann, a mental health nurse, said she had carried out a risk assessment and the 40 or so people attending were standing at least two metres apart divided by cones laid out in St Peter’s Square in Manchester. “We are health workers and we’ve seen what Covid does. I had no intention of being responsible for anybody catching Covid,” she said. “But the police had no interest in whether the protest was safe. They just gave me a fine.”
Now, clearly the Guardian thinks this is all wrong, and I'd agree. But simply leaving it up to the police to make a judgement call is not fair.
Plenty on here wanted plod to go after Dominic Cummings, which would clearly have been over the top even if the PM was wrong to not sack him on the spot.
Ultimately, the police can never win. The politicians need to grow a pair and take ownership of the mess they've created. Simply draw a distinction between indoors and outdoors and be done with it.
Whatever your views on them a picture of Kate Middleton in handcuffs pinned down by five police officers would have seen the Royal Family's popularity soar by 25%.
The fact that Kate and the arrested/handcuffed were acting at different times in more or less the same place about the same cause shows how politically difficult this is. Particularly as no-one wants to point out that there is no solution whatsoever. It unites the apolitical class across the country with a well organised, urban, campaigning group. It may all get messy. And it will fascinating to see who gets to 'lead' and 'own' the movement.
Time for Mary Berry and Joan Bakewell to join forces.
Totally off-topic, but are there any broadband experts on here? My office (former bank) has a fibre cable. BT couldn't find it, Openreach confirmed it is there, BT local business have had a rummage around and believe its a disconnected leased line.
A quick Google suggests that instead of £normal costs for a fibre connection (say 100Mbps), a leased line can cost £lotsandlots with the cheapest I can spot offering s l o w (10Mbps) for multiple the cost for FTTP. Have I got this right?
Depends on whether your local exchange has the kit installed for ISPs to offer FTTP. Check with Zen - their online checker ought to be able to tell you whether they can offer it in your area. If so, they’ll give you a gigabit connection for ~£60 / month I believe (actual bitrate may vary - the checker claims I would get 270Mbps).
A one off hookup to a piece of dark fibre that happens to go to the exchange is going to cost a lot more, unless you can find someone who has kit in the exchange already.
German doctors call for immediate lockdown to avoid third wave Intensive care doctors in Germany warned the country would need to make an “immediate return” to partial lockdown if it is to avoid stumbling into a dangerous third Covid wave, AFP reports.
Christian Karagiannidis, director of Germany’s intensive care register, told broadcaster RBB:
From the data we currently have and with the spread of the British mutation, we would argue strongly to return immediately into a lockdown to avoid a strong third wave. We won’t gain much from staying open for the next one or two weeks, because that will quickly bring us to a high level and make it twice as hard to push the numbers down again.
Analysis by Netpol, the Network for Police Monitoring, reveals there have been at least nine high-profile instances of police using Covid regulations against demonstrators, including two asylum seekers protesting outside Napier barracks in Folkestone, Kent and a woman fined £500 for organising a protest after the death of a man released from police custody in Cardiff.
A nurse who organised a socially distanced protest against low pay in the NHS was issued with a £10,000 fine last weekend. Karen Reissmann, a mental health nurse, said she had carried out a risk assessment and the 40 or so people attending were standing at least two metres apart divided by cones laid out in St Peter’s Square in Manchester. “We are health workers and we’ve seen what Covid does. I had no intention of being responsible for anybody catching Covid,” she said. “But the police had no interest in whether the protest was safe. They just gave me a fine.”
Now, clearly the Guardian thinks this is all wrong, and I'd agree. But simply leaving it up to the police to make a judgement call is not fair.
Plenty on here wanted plod to go after Dominic Cummings, which would clearly have been over the top even if the PM was wrong to not sack him on the spot.
Ultimately, the police can never win. The politicians need to grow a pair and take ownership of the mess they've created. Simply draw a distinction between indoors and outdoors and be done with it.
Will these £10,000 fines ever be paid? What happens if you refuse to pay them?
Vaccine anecdote, my wife mid 30s, SE England, just got the call for later in the week.
We’re pretty baffled what makes her “high risk”. Have heard the same from several people in their 30s in recent days. My suspicion is that the programme to do the over 50s ahead of schedule is such a slam dunk that they’re stuffing Cat 6 with any marginal past health event they can think of. That way they can make serious headway on Phase 2 without having to declare that Phase 1 is complete, which is no doubt a trigger point that the behavioural scientists are flagging.
I think so. My B-in-L, very mild asthma, had his first jab last week. he is I think early 40's
It's unfortunate for our continental neighbours that they don't have a nearby country with millions of people vaccinated with the Oxford/AstraZeneca dose which would provide a huge reservoir of real world data.
I agree. Tragic.
What setting for the trebuchet, this time? *all* the rocks?
Analysis by Netpol, the Network for Police Monitoring, reveals there have been at least nine high-profile instances of police using Covid regulations against demonstrators, including two asylum seekers protesting outside Napier barracks in Folkestone, Kent and a woman fined £500 for organising a protest after the death of a man released from police custody in Cardiff.
A nurse who organised a socially distanced protest against low pay in the NHS was issued with a £10,000 fine last weekend. Karen Reissmann, a mental health nurse, said she had carried out a risk assessment and the 40 or so people attending were standing at least two metres apart divided by cones laid out in St Peter’s Square in Manchester. “We are health workers and we’ve seen what Covid does. I had no intention of being responsible for anybody catching Covid,” she said. “But the police had no interest in whether the protest was safe. They just gave me a fine.”
Now, clearly the Guardian thinks this is all wrong, and I'd agree. But simply leaving it up to the police to make a judgement call is not fair.
Plenty on here wanted plod to go after Dominic Cummings, which would clearly have been over the top even if the PM was wrong to not sack him on the spot.
Ultimately, the police can never win. The politicians need to grow a pair and take ownership of the mess they've created. Simply draw a distinction between indoors and outdoors and be done with it.
Will these £10,000 fines ever be paid? What happens if you refuse to pay them?
You can challenge any fine in court. If you win, you won't have to pay. If you lose you'll have to pay plus some court costs would be my guess. I know police Scotland have confiscated fines directly from bank accounts when someone refused to pay.
Vaccine anecdote, my wife mid 30s, SE England, just got the call for later in the week.
We’re pretty baffled what makes her “high risk”. Have heard the same from several people in their 30s in recent days. My suspicion is that the programme to do the over 50s ahead of schedule is such a slam dunk that they’re stuffing Cat 6 with any marginal past health event they can think of. That way they can make serious headway on Phase 2 without having to declare that Phase 1 is complete, which is no doubt a trigger point that the behavioural scientists are flagging.
I think so. My B-in-L, very mild asthma, had his first jab last week. he is I think early 40's
My GP is saying that everyone on their list who is over 50 should have had an vaccinations appointment setup by now & to phone them if you’ve been overlooked.
Analysis by Netpol, the Network for Police Monitoring, reveals there have been at least nine high-profile instances of police using Covid regulations against demonstrators, including two asylum seekers protesting outside Napier barracks in Folkestone, Kent and a woman fined £500 for organising a protest after the death of a man released from police custody in Cardiff.
A nurse who organised a socially distanced protest against low pay in the NHS was issued with a £10,000 fine last weekend. Karen Reissmann, a mental health nurse, said she had carried out a risk assessment and the 40 or so people attending were standing at least two metres apart divided by cones laid out in St Peter’s Square in Manchester. “We are health workers and we’ve seen what Covid does. I had no intention of being responsible for anybody catching Covid,” she said. “But the police had no interest in whether the protest was safe. They just gave me a fine.”
Now, clearly the Guardian thinks this is all wrong, and I'd agree. But simply leaving it up to the police to make a judgement call is not fair.
Plenty on here wanted plod to go after Dominic Cummings, which would clearly have been over the top even if the PM was wrong to not sack him on the spot.
Ultimately, the police can never win. The politicians need to grow a pair and take ownership of the mess they've created. Simply draw a distinction between indoors and outdoors and be done with it.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. But in this specific case, the issues were very clear and a matter of public debate before the event. It was also obvious that the protest would happen, despite police attempts to stop it - even a member of the Royal family turned out (though surprisingly was not banged up...). The police had the entirely legal option of allowing it to go ahead in a much more controlled and organised manner; they refused to take that option.
Vaccine anecdote, my wife mid 30s, SE England, just got the call for later in the week.
We’re pretty baffled what makes her “high risk”. Have heard the same from several people in their 30s in recent days. My suspicion is that the programme to do the over 50s ahead of schedule is such a slam dunk that they’re stuffing Cat 6 with any marginal past health event they can think of. That way they can make serious headway on Phase 2 without having to declare that Phase 1 is complete, which is no doubt a trigger point that the behavioural scientists are flagging.
I think so. My B-in-L, very mild asthma, had his first jab last week. he is I think early 40's
I think it is also a case that GPs are being very broad about what constitutes a "risk" - the attitude is probably that since everyone is due to get vaccinated in a few months anyway, what's the harm in using very wide criteria?
My guess would also be that if the video linked to on the last thread gains currency sympathy for these women is going to fall off a cliff.
I don't think that what the police did here was right or necessary but boy, do they have a lot to put up with.
To mind mind the point is rather would any of that have happened had the organised vigil been allowed to go ahead ? I suspect not.
Lots of crime wouldn't happen if the police just didn't bother.
On this issue, you seem completely to miss the point. it was within police discretion to allow the original organised vigil to go ahead. Had it done so, it is likely there would have been minimal risk of resulting infections, and there would have been no crime.
Oh, that makes it all okay then? No. It would (should) have effectively resulted in the end of lockdown in this respect. You cannot allow certain gatherings to happen but not others. This is a really simple point that you and many on here just do not get.
Why? We allow all sorts of gatherings in much more confined conditions than existed on Clapham Common on Saturday. Supermarkets, transport, remembrance day gatherings. Why is it that this particular outdoors vigil is not allowed when they are? Have you actually been in a Supermarket recently and seen how crowded it is and how few people are following the basic rules?
FFS. Change the law then. I don't think these laws should ever have come in. But don't take it out on the police who are doing their job.
You are conflating arguments. You keep going on about how the law should be applied equally across the board and when people come up with many examples of how it is not you shoot off on another tangent.
The issue here is not the law primarily. It is how it is applied by the police at the time in question. There was no need for them to act in the way they did both before hand where they decided to simply ban any gathering, then ignored the gathering through the day including the visit by a member of the royal family and then managed to get into a situation where they are caught manhandling women at a vigil about violence towards women. There is simply no way the police come out of that looking good.
What they could have done is negotiated with the organisers and had a small symbolic vigil with a very limited number of people at Clapham Common and with the organisers asking that no one else attend. That would have been within the scope of the law and the court ruling. But instead they decided to go all heavy handed because they could. Utter stupidity.
It sounds like you think they should have piled in earlier. That's an odd argument. From what I've seen of pictures from earlier in the day, social distancing was being observed. Perhaps the police should have put a stop to it before it changed in nature after dark, but it very much did change.
And if they negotiate with one group, they'll have to negotiate with all groups.
No I don't think they should have 'piled in' at all. It really wasn't necessary.
From all the accounts I have seen the nature of the vigil only changed after the police decided to get involved.
Richard, you're a sensible old cove, sometimes. Can you enlighten me?
Why on earth did the fuzz go in so heavy-handed? It makes no sense at all.
I don't know. As I said on the evening I am not a great fan of the police in practice although I very much am in principle. I have never experienced an issue with them in this country personally but, like TSE, have seen them abuse their power with some of my friends and colleagues quite outrageously. I have also, like the rest of us, seen the cover ups and abuse of power that have made it into the press. So my instinct is to be critical of the police.
But again as I said the other night I recognise this so continuously try to adjust my thinking on the matter. After all a well functioning police force serving and protecting the public is a force for good.
And then stuff like this happens and I am left back in the position of criticising and attacking them for their idiocy.
Personally I think that they are poorly trained and poorly directed/commanded. I think their decision making is poor and they have moved more and more towards being an explicit arm of the government enforcing government policy rather than serving the public and the law. They have stopped being public servants and see their role now as public controllers.
The root of all this of course is not the average copper on the beat or his/her sergeant behind the desk. It is the politicians who view the police in this manner and are remoulding them in that way. But I still expect each officer to act with integrity, thought and consideration. 'I was only obeying orders' has not been an acceptable excuse for anyone for a very long time.
TSE is again right when he says our police are better than almost every other force in the world. I have been arrested by a few of them in various countries so I know. But it appears from the outside that our police are becoming more and more like those other forces and it is not a good direction of travel.
I will be shocking given my politics and say that to some extent I blame Thatcher for this. The way in which the police were used during the miners strike and stuff like the Battle of the Beanfield showed that they were no longer regarded as a part of the community but a force to be used against sections of the community who fell foul of the Government. The situation has continued to deteriorate ever since.
Analysis by Netpol, the Network for Police Monitoring, reveals there have been at least nine high-profile instances of police using Covid regulations against demonstrators, including two asylum seekers protesting outside Napier barracks in Folkestone, Kent and a woman fined £500 for organising a protest after the death of a man released from police custody in Cardiff.
A nurse who organised a socially distanced protest against low pay in the NHS was issued with a £10,000 fine last weekend. Karen Reissmann, a mental health nurse, said she had carried out a risk assessment and the 40 or so people attending were standing at least two metres apart divided by cones laid out in St Peter’s Square in Manchester. “We are health workers and we’ve seen what Covid does. I had no intention of being responsible for anybody catching Covid,” she said. “But the police had no interest in whether the protest was safe. They just gave me a fine.”
Now, clearly the Guardian thinks this is all wrong, and I'd agree. But simply leaving it up to the police to make a judgement call is not fair.
Plenty on here wanted plod to go after Dominic Cummings, which would clearly have been over the top even if the PM was wrong to not sack him on the spot.
Ultimately, the police can never win. The politicians need to grow a pair and take ownership of the mess they've created. Simply draw a distinction between indoors and outdoors and be done with it.
Will these £10,000 fines ever be paid? What happens if you refuse to pay them?
You can challenge any fine in court. If you win, you won't have to pay. If you lose you'll have to pay plus some court costs would be my guess. I know police Scotland have confiscated fines directly from bank accounts when someone refused to pay.
A R4 programme covered this the other week (sorry can't remember which) and I don't know if they were referring to all the covid fines or just the £10,000 ones, but basically practically none had been paid.
Vaccine anecdote, my wife mid 30s, SE England, just got the call for later in the week.
We’re pretty baffled what makes her “high risk”. Have heard the same from several people in their 30s in recent days. My suspicion is that the programme to do the over 50s ahead of schedule is such a slam dunk that they’re stuffing Cat 6 with any marginal past health event they can think of. That way they can make serious headway on Phase 2 without having to declare that Phase 1 is complete, which is no doubt a trigger point that the behavioural scientists are flagging.
59 year old in Scotland still waiting for an appointment. Disappointing.
Labour need a gritty northern or midlander type with no obvious virtue-signalling "woke" history but with a "pure" enough background that middle-class woke types would consider them an embodiment of Labour values.
Someone with a background in business in the North of England would fit the bill, a northern Andy Street.
The problem with UK political parties is that you primarily have to suck-up for decades to be considered for selection rather than picking people who'd actually be good.
And someone who hasn't been bogged down in the self-indulgent political sub-culture would be good.
Analysis by Netpol, the Network for Police Monitoring, reveals there have been at least nine high-profile instances of police using Covid regulations against demonstrators, including two asylum seekers protesting outside Napier barracks in Folkestone, Kent and a woman fined £500 for organising a protest after the death of a man released from police custody in Cardiff.
A nurse who organised a socially distanced protest against low pay in the NHS was issued with a £10,000 fine last weekend. Karen Reissmann, a mental health nurse, said she had carried out a risk assessment and the 40 or so people attending were standing at least two metres apart divided by cones laid out in St Peter’s Square in Manchester. “We are health workers and we’ve seen what Covid does. I had no intention of being responsible for anybody catching Covid,” she said. “But the police had no interest in whether the protest was safe. They just gave me a fine.”
Now, clearly the Guardian thinks this is all wrong, and I'd agree. But simply leaving it up to the police to make a judgement call is not fair.
Plenty on here wanted plod to go after Dominic Cummings, which would clearly have been over the top even if the PM was wrong to not sack him on the spot.
Ultimately, the police can never win. The politicians need to grow a pair and take ownership of the mess they've created. Simply draw a distinction between indoors and outdoors and be done with it.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. But in this specific case, the issues were very clear and a matter of public debate before the event. It was also obvious that the protest would happen, despite police attempts to stop it - even a member of the Royal family turned out (though surprisingly was not banged up...). The police had the entirely legal option of allowing it to go ahead in a much more controlled and organised manner; they refused to take that option.
Yes, because they get absolutely slaughtered for not applying the law fairly. The likes Piers Corbyn would have every right to kick off if we start allowing some but not all gatherings.
Analysis by Netpol, the Network for Police Monitoring, reveals there have been at least nine high-profile instances of police using Covid regulations against demonstrators, including two asylum seekers protesting outside Napier barracks in Folkestone, Kent and a woman fined £500 for organising a protest after the death of a man released from police custody in Cardiff.
A nurse who organised a socially distanced protest against low pay in the NHS was issued with a £10,000 fine last weekend. Karen Reissmann, a mental health nurse, said she had carried out a risk assessment and the 40 or so people attending were standing at least two metres apart divided by cones laid out in St Peter’s Square in Manchester. “We are health workers and we’ve seen what Covid does. I had no intention of being responsible for anybody catching Covid,” she said. “But the police had no interest in whether the protest was safe. They just gave me a fine.”
Now, clearly the Guardian thinks this is all wrong, and I'd agree. But simply leaving it up to the police to make a judgement call is not fair.
Plenty on here wanted plod to go after Dominic Cummings, which would clearly have been over the top even if the PM was wrong to not sack him on the spot.
Ultimately, the police can never win. The politicians need to grow a pair and take ownership of the mess they've created. Simply draw a distinction between indoors and outdoors and be done with it.
Sorry but no it is the Police's job to make judgement calls.
Vaccine anecdote, my wife mid 30s, SE England, just got the call for later in the week.
We’re pretty baffled what makes her “high risk”. Have heard the same from several people in their 30s in recent days. My suspicion is that the programme to do the over 50s ahead of schedule is such a slam dunk that they’re stuffing Cat 6 with any marginal past health event they can think of. That way they can make serious headway on Phase 2 without having to declare that Phase 1 is complete, which is no doubt a trigger point that the behavioural scientists are flagging.
Comments
A quick Google suggests that instead of £normal costs for a fibre connection (say 100Mbps), a leased line can cost £lotsandlots with the cheapest I can spot offering s l o w (10Mbps) for multiple the cost for FTTP. Have I got this right?
Wow. This is getting close to Corbyn levels it seems.
It would be interesting to have a betting market on who would be first out: Starmer or Johnson (or Davey).
And if they negotiate with one group, they'll have to negotiate with all groups.
The police have overwhelmingly been focusing on high-risk activities, correctly in my opinion. Things like house parties, raves, pub lock-ins. They've taken a very relaxed approach to people "illegally gathering" outside, where risk of transmission is much lower.
Walk around any city centre right now and you'll see big groups of young adults and the police don't care.
It helps that I agree with him, but certainly back to his best in terms of clarity of thinking and presentation of his views.
Absolutely no point in putting him in prison.
If they still have politicians, as opposed to some (hopefully benevolent) AI, they will understand.
My best advice would be to take whatever you can get and signup for starlink at the first opportunity.
As in real life, the loudest voices are not necessarily representative.
I also believe he would win said leadership challenge and it might actually do him some good to have the spotlight shone on him.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/13/europe/italy-coronavirus-national-lockdown-intl/index.html
Then depending on how many points you got determines your sentence
So for example
Causing death 20 points
Premeditation 10 points
Emotional trauma 5 points
Severe injury requiring hospitalisation 10 points
etc
Points for mitigation as well
such as provacation -5points
Then look up the maximum and minimum tariffs on the chart
The reporting of this in Europe has become a complete joke.
Russia recorded more than 55,000 excess deaths in January, data from the country’s official statistics agency (Rosstat) published Friday showed.
Since the start of the pandemic until the end of January — the latest such data is available — Russia has now recorded 394,000 more deaths than in the previous period. That represents a 24% increase in fatality and one of the highest excess death tolls in the world, even after adjusting for population.
Whether he would hold those LD switchers during an election campaign is another question.
"Two doses of either the Pfizer/BioNTech or Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine offer similar protection against coronavirus as natural immunity after infection, new research suggests.
None of the 1,456 healthcare workers at Oxford University Hospitals (OUH) NHS Foundation Trust who had received two vaccines had a symptomatic infection when followed up more than 14 days after their second vaccination."
From all the accounts I have seen the nature of the vigil only changed after the police decided to get involved.
340k UK equivalent from Drakeford. Not terrible for a sunday
Someone with a background in business in the North of England would fit the bill, a northern Andy Street.
The problem with UK political parties is that you primarily have to suck-up for decades to be considered for selection rather than picking people who'd actually be good.
And someone who hasn't been bogged down in the self-indulgent political sub-culture would be good.
It's not certain that the outcome would have been better, but it is extremely likely.
The senior leadership of the Met is not fit for purpose.
Why on earth did the fuzz go in so heavy-handed? It makes no sense at all.
https://twitter.com/KellyIpsosMORI/status/1371437844556828676?s=19
50 people would be be able to use such a leased line and get something similar to BT's 100Mb consumer service.
Their other identity problem is that Labour exists in pockets and clumps without a spectrum of support. Posh white students/urban graduates; fellow travellers of every micro group; most BAMES; the largest urban areas; the champagne socialist radical chic Toynbee/Guardian set; the public sector payroll vote. None of this amounts to a majority, nor is it a coherent set of overlapping groups, and even though it makes lots of noise shows no sign of listening.
Jess Phillips would be my best guess for turning that lot into something good. But even with her stellar qualities I am doubtful.
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1371439054236086273?s=20
I wonder how that rating compares with EU member states.....
It makes me think the American system of open primaries really helps good people from outside politics get elected to positions of reasonable responsibility — City and State governorships in order to build a profile before running for federal level. We don't really have an equivalent here. Maybe "metro mayors" can be that in the future but they certainly aren't yet.
I recall from the de Menezes case that there was bad blood between Dick and the Surveillance Team. One of the two plainly lied but it was never established which. Her subsequent elevation would suggest she was exonerated. You have to wonder if there is resentment in parts of the force.
Or 5,452 total (Their dashboard) (198k UK Equiv)
Note that they were in healthcare workers, and the condition is a not uncommon side effect of Covid.
Immune Thrombocytopenia Secondary to COVID-19: a Systematic Review
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7501509/
Immune thrombocytopenia, often known as immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), has emerged as an important complication of COVID-19. A systematic review was done to analyze the clinical profile and outcomes in a total of 45 cases of new-onset ITP in COVID-19 patients described in literature until date. A comprehensive approach is essential for diagnosing COVID-19-associated ITP after excluding several concomitant factors that can cause thrombocytopenia in COVID-19. Majority of ITP cases (71%) were found to be elderly (> 50 years) and 75% cases had moderate-to-severe COVID-19. Three patients (7%) were in the pediatric age group. Reports of ITP in asymptomatic COVID-19 patients (7%) underscore the need for COVID-19 testing in newly diagnosed patients with ITP irrespective of COVID-19 symptoms amid this pandemic. ITP onset occurred in 20% cases 3 weeks after onset of COVID-19 symptoms, with many reports after clinical recovery. SARS-CoV-2-mediated immune thrombocytopenia can be attributed to the underlying immune dysregulation, susceptibility mutations in SOCS 1, and other mechanisms, including molecular mimicry, cryptic antigen expression, and epitope spreading. No bleeding manifestations were reported in 31% cases at diagnosis. Severe life-threatening bleeding was uncommon. One case of mortality was attributed to intracranial hemorrhage. Secondary Evans syndrome was diagnosed in one case. Good initial response to short course of glucocorticoids and intravenous immunoglobulin has been found with the exception of delayed lag response in one case. Thrombopoietin receptor agonist usage as a second-line agent has been noted in few cases for short duration with no adverse events. In the relatively short follow-up period, four relapses of ITP were found....
Interestingly, not even the most angry people have suggested that the actual policeman at the demo are in the wrong.
There is a similar gap between the maximum sentence and the sentencing guidelines for most offences. So setting the maximum at 10 years means the absolute maximum anyone is likely to get is 4 years with community service being the most likely outcome.
Intensive care doctors in Germany warned the country would need to make an “immediate return” to partial lockdown if it is to avoid stumbling into a dangerous third Covid wave, AFP reports.
Christian Karagiannidis, director of Germany’s intensive care register, told broadcaster RBB:
From the data we currently have and with the spread of the British mutation, we would argue strongly to return immediately into a lockdown to avoid a strong third wave. We won’t gain much from staying open for the next one or two weeks, because that will quickly bring us to a high level and make it twice as hard to push the numbers down again.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/mar/15/coronavirus-live-news-astrazeneca-finds-no-evidence-of-blood-clot-risk-as-netherlands-suspends-vaccine?CMP=twt_gu&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium#Echobox=1615809952
I'm not sure calling B.117 the "British" mutation will help persuade people to get the Oxford AZ jab.....
We’re pretty baffled what makes her “high risk”. Have heard the same from several people in their 30s in recent days. My suspicion is that the programme to do the over 50s ahead of schedule is such a slam dunk that they’re stuffing Cat 6 with any marginal past health event they can think of. That way they can make serious headway on Phase 2 without having to declare that Phase 1 is complete, which is no doubt a trigger point that the behavioural scientists are flagging.
@Philip_Thompson
@Gallowgate
@Nigelb
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/13/police-in-england-using-covid-lockdown-rules-to-halt-any-protests
Analysis by Netpol, the Network for Police Monitoring, reveals there have been at least nine high-profile instances of police using Covid regulations against demonstrators, including two asylum seekers protesting outside Napier barracks in Folkestone, Kent and a woman fined £500 for organising a protest after the death of a man released from police custody in Cardiff.
A nurse who organised a socially distanced protest against low pay in the NHS was issued with a £10,000 fine last weekend. Karen Reissmann, a mental health nurse, said she had carried out a risk assessment and the 40 or so people attending were standing at least two metres apart divided by cones laid out in St Peter’s Square in Manchester. “We are health workers and we’ve seen what Covid does. I had no intention of being responsible for anybody catching Covid,” she said. “But the police had no interest in whether the protest was safe. They just gave me a fine.”
Now, clearly the Guardian thinks this is all wrong, and I'd agree. But simply leaving it up to the police to make a judgement call is not fair.
Plenty on here wanted plod to go after Dominic Cummings, which would clearly have been over the top even if the PM was wrong to not sack him on the spot.
Ultimately, the police can never win. The politicians need to grow a pair and take ownership of the mess they've created. Simply draw a distinction between indoors and outdoors and be done with it.
Time for Mary Berry and Joan Bakewell to join forces.
A one off hookup to a piece of dark fibre that happens to go to the exchange is going to cost a lot more, unless you can find someone who has kit in the exchange already.
For all the people who were complaining about not being able to retire to an eu country. I came across this
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/19/sun-sea-safety-greece-woos-british-pensioners-with-7-income-tax-rate
What setting for the trebuchet, this time? *all* the rocks?
I know police Scotland have confiscated fines directly from bank accounts when someone refused to pay.
https://twitter.com/LSHTM/status/1371436117292150785?s=20
But in this specific case, the issues were very clear and a matter of public debate before the event. It was also obvious that the protest would happen, despite police attempts to stop it - even a member of the Royal family turned out (though surprisingly was not banged up...).
The police had the entirely legal option of allowing it to go ahead in a much more controlled and organised manner; they refused to take that option.
But again as I said the other night I recognise this so continuously try to adjust my thinking on the matter. After all a well functioning police force serving and protecting the public is a force for good.
And then stuff like this happens and I am left back in the position of criticising and attacking them for their idiocy.
Personally I think that they are poorly trained and poorly directed/commanded. I think their decision making is poor and they have moved more and more towards being an explicit arm of the government enforcing government policy rather than serving the public and the law. They have stopped being public servants and see their role now as public controllers.
The root of all this of course is not the average copper on the beat or his/her sergeant behind the desk. It is the politicians who view the police in this manner and are remoulding them in that way. But I still expect each officer to act with integrity, thought and consideration. 'I was only obeying orders' has not been an acceptable excuse for anyone for a very long time.
TSE is again right when he says our police are better than almost every other force in the world. I have been arrested by a few of them in various countries so I know. But it appears from the outside that our police are becoming more and more like those other forces and it is not a good direction of travel.
I will be shocking given my politics and say that to some extent I blame Thatcher for this. The way in which the police were used during the miners strike and stuff like the Battle of the Beanfield showed that they were no longer regarded as a part of the community but a force to be used against sections of the community who fell foul of the Government. The situation has continued to deteriorate ever since.
We don't hire robocops.