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.
Apologies tlg, I just noticed your last sentence and wanted to reply.
What is wrong with negotiation? As I have been saying, the police are not our masters. They are not there to keep us in order. They are there to facilitate us in what we want to do as long as it is safe and within the law as set out by the elected government. It is not the case in this country that anything that is not explicitly legal is illegal. It is not the case that the police can simply order us about as they see fit. They are public servants whose job is to try and maintain peace and security within the law.
They could have negotiated within the law and avoided all of this. The court made that clear. But they chose not to and in doing so they failed in their duty.
Mr. Malmesbury, in a spirit of support I've loaded the reinforced trebuchet on the south coast with vaccines which will be applied at astonishing speed to coastal Frenchmen, who will find themselves protected from the pandemic whether they will it or not.
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.
We don't hire robocops.
Sure the Police could have given the vigil organiser a fine and moved on?
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.
NB if Zen say no then in your position, with a nice piece of fibre already in place, I would send a quiet email to Andrews & Arnold and ask them if they can do anything for you, or know anyone who can.
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.
My guess is it won't be watertight, and you could probably go for years without paying it with little chance of any consequences.
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.
Apologies tlg, I just noticed your last sentence and wanted to reply.
What is wrong with negotiation? As I have been saying, the police are not our masters. They are not there to keep us in order. They are there to facilitate us in what we want to do as long as it is safe and within the law as set out by the elected government. It is not the case in this country that anything that is not explicitly legal is illegal. It is not the case that the police can simply order us about as they see fit. They are public servants whose job is to try and maintain peace and security within the law.
They could have negotiated within the law and avoided all of this. The court made that clear. But they chose not to and in doing so they failed in their duty.
Resources? Why should a high profile demonstration get priority over a demonstration about a proposed by-pass?
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.
Thank you Richard for that lengthy and characteristically thoughtful response.
I've nothing to add so I'll just record that my own personal experience of the police has been entirely positive. Such concerns as I have would be similar to your own.
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.
We don't hire robocops.
You do realise that they are policing laws that very much result in robocop style policing? That's what the politicians voted for.
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.
I do get the impression that most crimes that are solved are solved because most criminals are idiots and not criminal masterminds. Personally I have had 4 encounters with the Police. 3 times I have been stopped because I did something idiotic on the roads. I found the officers involved very sensible, maybe because each time I was let off, but genuinely I think because they could see I simply had had a moment and that it served no practical purpose to impose a penalty.
The other time I was witness to a fraud. It was cut and dry. After 2 years the CPS dropped it for lack of evidence. It was difficult to see what other evidence they could have wanted.
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.
The whole point of the court ruling on Friday is that is exactly what you do. There is neither a hard and fast rule that this sort of gathering falls within the "reasonable excuse" exemption nor that it doesn't - you carry out a balancing exercise based on the circumstances of the case.
And that actually isn't new - how you manage a proposed large gathering has always depended on not only the size but nature of the gathering.
As to whether we should use Kent or UK variant, it doesn't matter. The only country that has two VOCs - Manaus variant for P1 and Brazil variant for the other ?
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.
Does NHS Scotland not have a website you can book through ? Anyone over 55 in England can book now.
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.
My guess is it won't be watertight, and you could probably go for years without paying it with little chance of any consequences.
I agree. I, on the other hand, would not be able to stand having that hanging over me so I would be amongst the odd 5% who cough up.
As to whether we should use Kent or UK variant, it doesn't matter. The only country that has two VOCs - Manaus variant for P1 and Brazil variant for the other ?
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.
Does NHS Scotland not have a website you can book through ? Anyone over 55 in England can book now.
No. We have been specifically told not to contact our doctors or the NHS generally but await a letter. My wife, 60, got one last week for this Thursday so hopefully it is not too far off but I can't help suspecting that this slightly officious wait your turn approach is why Scotland tends to be last amongst the 4 nations.
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.
The principles on which they can allow some but not all gatherings - the likelihood that the demonstration will be well controlled, and the likely risk to public health - are pretty clear. it's ridiculous to pretend that such decisions are easy, but equally ridiculous to pretend that they can't be taken. In this case it's pretty clear that it was the wrong decision.
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.
Angela Rayner.
Doubtful. She would be brilliant at consolidating the Labour vote but less effective at persuading Tory voters to switch. Background is public sector and trade union activism; Labour needs someone who can speak from within the Tory voter world views - as Blair did. They have to be persuaded that they understand all sorts of business and wealth creation, international competitiveness and the like.
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.
Apologies tlg, I just noticed your last sentence and wanted to reply.
What is wrong with negotiation? As I have been saying, the police are not our masters. They are not there to keep us in order. They are there to facilitate us in what we want to do as long as it is safe and within the law as set out by the elected government. It is not the case in this country that anything that is not explicitly legal is illegal. It is not the case that the police can simply order us about as they see fit. They are public servants whose job is to try and maintain peace and security within the law.
They could have negotiated within the law and avoided all of this. The court made that clear. But they chose not to and in doing so they failed in their duty.
I'd add that the original organisers offered to negotiate terms for the vigil.
As to whether we should use Kent or UK variant, it doesn't matter. The only country that has two VOCs - Manaus variant for P1 and Brazil variant for the other ?
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.
Does NHS Scotland not have a website you can book through ? Anyone over 55 in England can book now.
Another fine piece from John Harris. You feel he has the finger on the pulse far more than other commentators.
"To understand the present and future of politics, you need to grasp one thing above all others: that if the Tories have indeed become the party of England, it will take an enormous political effort to dislodge them."
Italy, in terms of a UK type COVID map and assessment would look something like.
- Purple (400-800) for around half a dozen provinces (bit higher than LTLA), to the east of the Appenines from Rimini via Bologna to Brescia, sitting East of last year's hot zone. Plus Udine in the far North East. - A lot of the North of Italy, particularly inland, in dark blue (200-400), plus a zig zag from South of Rome through Naples and across to the top of the heel in Puglia. - Most of the remaining mainland would be light blue (>100), with some dark green (>50) on the toe and through Sicily and some light green (>10) across Sardinia.
(England for comparison, light blue around the northern core east of the hills, dark green around that, light green in much of the South. Basically a very similar distribution map to Italy but 2 shades lighter, indicating about a 4x lower infection rate).
On a national scale you'd likely quote Italy's R around 1.0-1.2 (weekly care rise about 10% nationally). It's not 1.6 on a macro scale.
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.
I do get the impression that most crimes that are solved are solved because most criminals are idiots and not criminal masterminds. Personally I have had 4 encounters with the Police. 3 times I have been stopped because I did something idiotic on the roads. I found the officers involved very sensible, maybe because each time I was let off, but genuinely I think because they could see I simply had had a moment and that it served no practical purpose to impose a penalty.
The other time I was witness to a fraud. It was cut and dry. After 2 years the CPS dropped it for lack of evidence. It was difficult to see what other evidence they could have wanted.
The lack of action on fraud cases is an enduring scandal. if the biggest deterrent to crime is the likelihood of getting caught, then it's little wonder fraud figures continue to rise.
If Cressida commissioned these polls it was an excellent investment for her. It has probably earned her another year's very generous salary. It was all looking a bit ominous until Ed Davey stuck his oar in but the Lib Dems are fairly reliable contraindicators these days.
But surely her contract will not be renewed next year, surely?
I think Patel should take the opportunity to get rid, still. In my opinion, she's a rotten apple. Appoint someone with a successful back story in making the streets safe. Clean of any Common Purpose entanglements would be a bonus.
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.
Apologies tlg, I just noticed your last sentence and wanted to reply.
What is wrong with negotiation? As I have been saying, the police are not our masters. They are not there to keep us in order. They are there to facilitate us in what we want to do as long as it is safe and within the law as set out by the elected government. It is not the case in this country that anything that is not explicitly legal is illegal. It is not the case that the police can simply order us about as they see fit. They are public servants whose job is to try and maintain peace and security within the law.
They could have negotiated within the law and avoided all of this. The court made that clear. But they chose not to and in doing so they failed in their duty.
Resources? Why should a high profile demonstration get priority over a demonstration about a proposed by-pass?
Well given that under normal circumstances that is exactly what happens with every single demonstration and march in this country I can assure you it is not the issue you believe it to be. The police meet with the organisers of any and all demonstrations and marches to discuss policing levels, routes, timings and any number of other issues. This is why something like the Countryside March or the Anti-Iraq war march in 2003 were far more lightly policed - in spite of their huge sizes - than some smaller marches by right wing loons. The police continually adapt their responses to the event concerned. Very often they have not permitted a large scale event but instead have negotiated a smaller symbolic event with a few people and with plenty of press coverage. They could have done the same here but chose not to.
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.
SKS's appeal is mainly to the LibDems.
And most of those -- like OGH -- always vote Labour in the Generals anyhow. Especially in the marginals.
So, there are very, very few extra seats in this approach.
SKS is fishing in a very tiny puddle.
That view isn't really borne out by where the Lib Dems have done comparatively okay recently in local elections and General Elections. Overall, they seem a well-off, fairly small-c conservative bunch - people alienated by Brexit and harsh rhetoric, but not wishing to rip up the system.
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.
We don't hire robocops.
You do realise that they are policing laws that very much result in robocop style policing? That's what the politicians voted for.
No they're not, you're projecting again. The law has not stripped the Police of their duty to operate with proportionality, indeed the High Court confirmed that.
We don't operate in a Police State, laws are set and then they need to be interpreted by people. Your desire to act as if this all must be done with an unwavering zeal is not how this country does operate or has ever operated.
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.
We don't hire robocops.
You do realise that they are policing laws that very much result in robocop style policing? That's what the politicians voted for.
But they are not. Again, the court ruling on Friday was very much that "reasonable excuse" within the context of freedom of expression and COVID was very much a case by case judgment for police working with organisers.
The government is on 45% in the polls - they don't need to give a toss about letters from some nonentities.
An interesting take on civil liberties.
Which may eventually have consequences in the polls, too.
I've yet to see much evidence that most protests are anything more than a waste of time and resources at best, and at worst a free day out for the far left to break and vandalize things. I seriously doubt that the average Briton fetishizes them the way some people imagine they do.
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.
We don't hire robocops.
You do realise that they are policing laws that very much result in robocop style policing? That's what the politicians voted for.
No they're not, you're projecting again. The law has not stripped the Police of their duty to operate with proportionality, indeed the High Court confirmed that.
We don't operate in a Police State, laws are set and then they need to be interpreted by people. Your desire to act as if this all must be done with an unwavering zeal is not how this country does operate or has ever operated.
Well why don't the politicians just scrap the bloody laws then? Why are they leaving it up to plod to decide? I get the police have to make calls around disturbances and the like, but we're talking about a law to stop the spread of a killer virus. That's not normal! None of this is normal.
How about the "emotional value" of someone's home being burgled. Does that get 10 years?
I'm all in favour of defending statues from the Soapdodging Woke-Yoof but ten years is nuts. It is particularly nuts because everyone knows it is nuts so it means the penalty will never be imposed so the law becomes a kind of performative act, a gesture rather than serious legislation. Governing as kabuki.
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.
We don't hire robocops.
You do realise that they are policing laws that very much result in robocop style policing? That's what the politicians voted for.
No they're not, you're projecting again. The law has not stripped the Police of their duty to operate with proportionality, indeed the High Court confirmed that.
We don't operate in a Police State, laws are set and then they need to be interpreted by people. Your desire to act as if this all must be done with an unwavering zeal is not how this country does operate or has ever operated.
For example, the laws about detaining people on suspicion of terrorism could have been used to lock up those arrested at the vigil for an extended period.
The laws exist. They could have been applied. Yes, this would have been ridiculous. The police made a decision not to use them.....
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.
We don't hire robocops.
You do realise that they are policing laws that very much result in robocop style policing? That's what the politicians voted for.
No they're not, you're projecting again. The law has not stripped the Police of their duty to operate with proportionality, indeed the High Court confirmed that.
We don't operate in a Police State, laws are set and then they need to be interpreted by people. Your desire to act as if this all must be done with an unwavering zeal is not how this country does operate or has ever operated.
Well why don't the politicians just scrap the bloody laws then? Why are they leaving it up to plod to decide? I get the police have to make calls around disturbances and the like, but we're talking about a law to stop the spread of a killer virus. That's not normal! None of this is normal.
It should always be for people to decide how the law gets interpreted, implemented and enforced. Politicians can't foresee every situation, people need to think about how grey areas get resolved.
QUESTION. Some people will not get tested when they think that they may have Covid-19. This is normally because they believe that they cannot afford to stop working. Why does the government not spend money to incentivise people to get tested and isolate if positive? Lots of money has been thrown at Track and Trace. So it cannot be cost.
QUESTION. Some people will not get tested when they think that they may have Covid-19. This is normally because they believe that they cannot afford to stop working. Why does the government not spend money to incentivise people to get tested and isolate if positive? Lots of money has been thrown at Track and Trace. So it cannot be cost.
Could be an incentive then to actually get covid-19? Or at least not be bothered about getting it
QUESTION. Some people will not get tested when they think that they may have Covid-19. This is normally because they believe that they cannot afford to stop working. Why does the government not spend money to incentivise people to get tested and isolate if positive? Lots of money has been thrown at Track and Trace. So it cannot be cost.
Paying people money linked to getting Covid will mean many will deliberately try and infect themselves with Covid.
QUESTION. Some people will not get tested when they think that they may have Covid-19. This is normally because they believe that they cannot afford to stop working. Why does the government not spend money to incentivise people to get tested and isolate if positive? Lots of money has been thrown at Track and Trace. So it cannot be cost.
Paying people money linked to getting Covid will mean many will deliberately try and infect themselves with Covid.
QUESTION. Some people will not get tested when they think that they may have Covid-19. This is normally because they believe that they cannot afford to stop working. Why does the government not spend money to incentivise people to get tested and isolate if positive? Lots of money has been thrown at Track and Trace. So it cannot be cost.
Paying people money linked to getting Covid will mean many will deliberately try and infect themselves with Covid.
Moral hazard.
So what? There's barely any virus around at present, and so it won't happen in large enough numbers to matter from a healthcare perspective. Might improve the herd immunity a touch, possibly will help some people's mental health and stimulate the economy (a bit? maybe not) and shouldn't cost too much. Win win win.
It all comes down to various levels of risk of covid-19 when demos are concerned . The more woke the demo is the less risk of getting covid-19 obviously.
Personally i think any demo should be allowed (certainly now) but the police were only doing what they have done to Piers Corbyn etc .The luvvies on social media cannot be so arrogant to think that if a demo is woke enough covid-19 restrictions dont apply
QUESTION. Some people will not get tested when they think that they may have Covid-19. This is normally because they believe that they cannot afford to stop working. Why does the government not spend money to incentivise people to get tested and isolate if positive? Lots of money has been thrown at Track and Trace. So it cannot be cost.
Moral hazard.
Some people hear £1000 for isolation and think "that's a great idea, people who are infected will stay at home and not infect others".
Others hear it and think "I'm low risk and want £1000, who cares if I get infected and if I do I get paid for it".
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.
I've had a letter, and a text, AND an email, telling me to go and book my jab (tho I've already had it, thanks to NigelB's early flag operation).
It is impressively efficient. Indeed, the vaccination drive, in all aspects, is probably the single most effective thing a UK government has done in my adult lifetime. Bigger than the Falklands armada, and more important. Hence the polls.
Another fine piece from John Harris. You feel he has the finger on the pulse far more than other commentators.
"To understand the present and future of politics, you need to grasp one thing above all others: that if the Tories have indeed become the party of England, it will take an enormous political effort to dislodge them."
Agree. it's an excellent article, though a little hard on the morals of the only party the voters will entrust the country with. He asks the question: Why after all these disasters are the Tories in such a commanding position etc...
Well, he misses, in his excellent analysis, an important truth. The Tories are not is a contest for votes with abstract nouns: Truth, Facts, Morals, Effectiveness, Competence, Guardian Opinion, Polly Toynbee or even Who Can Stop the Home Office Being a National Scandal. They are in competition with one force only: The Labour Party. They are in competition only with the party of Laura Pidcock, Jezza, Richard Burgon and the party that won't mention the only person who won for them since 1974 and half of whose supporters are republicans. If they beat Labour, they win however terrible they are.
How do I notify the police of my intention to hold a small, invitation-only protest in my parent's garden this weekend? Or is it a vigil that I need to ask about?
The idea that large scale public protests should be exempt from pandemic restrictions seems absurd. The right to protest is far less of a natural part of life than being able to go to work on public transport, for example.
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.
I do get the impression that most crimes that are solved are solved because most criminals are idiots and not criminal masterminds. Personally I have had 4 encounters with the Police. 3 times I have been stopped because I did something idiotic on the roads. I found the officers involved very sensible, maybe because each time I was let off, but genuinely I think because they could see I simply had had a moment and that it served no practical purpose to impose a penalty.
The other time I was witness to a fraud. It was cut and dry. After 2 years the CPS dropped it for lack of evidence. It was difficult to see what other evidence they could have wanted.
I had a case of stupid criminals compounded by stupid prosecutors.
I was sharing a house in south-east London with the current Governor of the Bank of England. We were woken in the middle of the night by a copper pounding on the front door. They asked us - "do you recognise this television?". A patrol car had come round a corner and seen two guys in the middle of the road, one each end of our telly. They were in the process of taking it over the road to their house.
Banged to rights, you might have thought. Except....the prosecution only charged them with burglary. Not conspiracy, not receiving stolen goods. To prove burglary, you have to show they were in the premises where the item was stolen. They each said the other had gone in and passed it through the window to the other. So they both got off.
We had to live opposite them for a couple of years, glaring at them if we met in the street.
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.
I do get the impression that most crimes that are solved are solved because most criminals are idiots and not criminal masterminds. Personally I have had 4 encounters with the Police. 3 times I have been stopped because I did something idiotic on the roads. I found the officers involved very sensible, maybe because each time I was let off, but genuinely I think because they could see I simply had had a moment and that it served no practical purpose to impose a penalty.
The other time I was witness to a fraud. It was cut and dry. After 2 years the CPS dropped it for lack of evidence. It was difficult to see what other evidence they could have wanted.
The lack of action on fraud cases is an enduring scandal. if the biggest deterrent to crime is the likelihood of getting caught, then it's little wonder fraud figures continue to rise.
I so agree. If not busy I tend to play along with telephone/internet scammers so as to waste their time. I've had them listening to music on hold, call back, etc, etc. On 2 occasions I have managed to catch them out and get identifying information. On reporting to Action Fraud they were not interested. Just fill out the online forms please. The fact that I had information that may have caught them was ignored. They treated it like the thousands and thousands of calls made each day which can't be traced and are just added to a huge list. I have stopped reporting them now. Just a waste of my time. I do enjoy the scam calls though and try to think of new themes to take them down each time.
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.
I've had a letter, and a text, AND an email, telling me to go and book my jab (tho I've already had it, thanks to NigelB's early flag operation).
It is impressively efficient. Indeed, the vaccination drive, in all aspects, is probably the single most effective thing a UK government has done in my adult lifetime. Bigger than the Falklands armada, and more important. Hence the polls.
Yep - its been very impressive so far. The only other thing I can think of that was as good, was the Olympics. Incredibly smoothly organised. We only attended a couple of things, but the ease of the park and ride to the rowing was amazing, and showed what can be done if you hose enough money at something...
I hate to break it to you but we've got much worse powers on the books.
The UK is about to become one of the world’s foremost surveillance states, allowing its police and intelligence agencies to spy on its own people to a degree that is unprecedented for a democracy. The UN’s privacy chief has called the situation "worse than scary." Edward Snowden says it’s simply "the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy."
The legislation in question is called the Investigatory Powers Bill. It’s been cleared by politicians and granted royal assent on November 29th — officially becoming law. The bill will legalize the UK’s global surveillance program, which scoops up communications data from around the world, but it will also introduce new domestic powers, including a government database that stores the web history of every citizen in the country. UK spies will be empowered to hack individuals, internet infrastructure, and even whole towns — if the government deems it necessary.
Ah Jon Worth, usually found right at home in Comedy Dave's Twitter replies.
Do people genuinely think another boring ECJ case that will take years to resolve (long after a practical solution is found) is going to turn us into an international pariah? I don't think so. Half of the EU's member states just ignore most of the ECJ rulings against them already, we did when we were members.
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.
I've had a letter, and a text, AND an email, telling me to go and book my jab (tho I've already had it, thanks to NigelB's early flag operation).
It is impressively efficient. Indeed, the vaccination drive, in all aspects, is probably the single most effective thing a UK government has done in my adult lifetime. Bigger than the Falklands armada, and more important. Hence the polls.
Yep - its been very impressive so far. The only other thing I can think of that was as good, was the Olympics. Incredibly smoothly organised. We only attended a couple of things, but the ease of the park and ride to the rowing was amazing, and showed what can be done if you hose enough money at something...
The London Olympics were brilliant, especially the doping of the UK cyclists - superb - however even the Olympics are dwarfed by a terrifying pandemic.
We only have to gaze at the chaos across the Channel, to see what a botched vaccination drive looks like. Shameful.
On the downside, we must not forget how Bojo and friends made a total horlicks of everything from early lockdown, to test and trace, to foreign quarantine. And yet they might get away with it, because people remember endings, and they forget beginnings.
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.
NB if Zen say no then in your position, with a nice piece of fibre already in place, I would send a quiet email to Andrews & Arnold and ask them if they can do anything for you, or know anyone who can.
My understanding of a "leased line" is that it goes direct to the exchange as opposed to via the local cabinet with FTTP. The cable is already here, sat unconnected to anything in one of the rooms in this former bank. I don't need any physical installation, only a connection via the existing cable.
Its the leased line element I don't understand. In England I had 100Mbps fibre. Yes it would slow below that, but was regularly up at 100. Here, a leased line talks about 10Mb/s speeds - at that kind of speed stuff slows down! I don't get it, why is 10Mbps even a stable constant 10Mbps speed any good and why bother with a vastly expensive fibre just to be that slow?
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.
SKS's appeal is mainly to the LibDems.
And most of those -- like OGH -- always vote Labour in the Generals anyhow. Especially in the marginals.
So, there are very, very few extra seats in this approach.
SKS is fishing in a very tiny puddle.
That view isn't really borne out by where the Lib Dems have done comparatively okay recently in local elections and General Elections. Overall, they seem a well-off, fairly small-c conservative bunch - people alienated by Brexit and harsh rhetoric, but not wishing to rip up the system.
I think there are a lot of Tories who distrust Johnson and the approach of this government. Starmer gives them cover to vote LibDem in Tory/LibDem marginals. Corbyn put them off.
What is worrying to me, is that the vaccine in Italy is being finished there, not manufactured. So once companies start routing round countries seizing vaccines....
I hate to break it to you but we've got much worse powers on the books.
The UK is about to become one of the world’s foremost surveillance states, allowing its police and intelligence agencies to spy on its own people to a degree that is unprecedented for a democracy. The UN’s privacy chief has called the situation "worse than scary." Edward Snowden says it’s simply "the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy."
The legislation in question is called the Investigatory Powers Bill. It’s been cleared by politicians and granted royal assent on November 29th — officially becoming law. The bill will legalize the UK’s global surveillance program, which scoops up communications data from around the world, but it will also introduce new domestic powers, including a government database that stores the web history of every citizen in the country. UK spies will be empowered to hack individuals, internet infrastructure, and even whole towns — if the government deems it necessary.
Of course. The ongoing growth of the surveillance state is a worldwide phenomenon. I dislike most of it.
But the difference is I know how to get a horrible UK law repealed. I vote for a party that promises to repeal it, they get into power, it is repealed. Or I make my voice heard on UK media, and the present govt responds, if the clamour is loud enough.
See the pressure on the cops and politicians over the Everard vigil. The levers of British democracy are working fine.
But if this was an EU law, how does a voter get it repealed? Which commissioner can he throw out of office? Ah, he can't. What EU-wide media can bring pressure on the MEPs and commissioners? Ah, there isn't one.
I hate to break it to you but we've got much worse powers on the books.
The UK is about to become one of the world’s foremost surveillance states, allowing its police and intelligence agencies to spy on its own people to a degree that is unprecedented for a democracy. The UN’s privacy chief has called the situation "worse than scary." Edward Snowden says it’s simply "the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy."
The legislation in question is called the Investigatory Powers Bill. It’s been cleared by politicians and granted royal assent on November 29th — officially becoming law. The bill will legalize the UK’s global surveillance program, which scoops up communications data from around the world, but it will also introduce new domestic powers, including a government database that stores the web history of every citizen in the country. UK spies will be empowered to hack individuals, internet infrastructure, and even whole towns — if the government deems it necessary.
What is worrying to me, is that the vaccine in Italy is being finished there, not manufactured. So once companies start routing round countries seizing vaccines....
The UK which isn't doing so will be a safer place to do business.
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.
I've had a letter, and a text, AND an email, telling me to go and book my jab (tho I've already had it, thanks to NigelB's early flag operation).
It is impressively efficient. Indeed, the vaccination drive, in all aspects, is probably the single most effective thing a UK government has done in my adult lifetime. Bigger than the Falklands armada, and more important. Hence the polls.
Yep - its been very impressive so far. The only other thing I can think of that was as good, was the Olympics. Incredibly smoothly organised. We only attended a couple of things, but the ease of the park and ride to the rowing was amazing, and showed what can be done if you hose enough money at something...
I always liked the way that Eton made a profit on building the rowing lake....
Good for a Monday, especially considering last Monday's numbers. Wednesday should be when we get the bumper numbers as that'll reflect today's vaccinations.
I hate to break it to you but we've got much worse powers on the books.
The UK is about to become one of the world’s foremost surveillance states, allowing its police and intelligence agencies to spy on its own people to a degree that is unprecedented for a democracy. The UN’s privacy chief has called the situation "worse than scary." Edward Snowden says it’s simply "the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy."
The legislation in question is called the Investigatory Powers Bill. It’s been cleared by politicians and granted royal assent on November 29th — officially becoming law. The bill will legalize the UK’s global surveillance program, which scoops up communications data from around the world, but it will also introduce new domestic powers, including a government database that stores the web history of every citizen in the country. UK spies will be empowered to hack individuals, internet infrastructure, and even whole towns — if the government deems it necessary.
Of course. The ongoing growth of the surveillance state is a worldwide phenomenon. I dislike most of it.
But the difference is I know how to get a horrible UK law repealed. I vote for a party that promises to repeal it, they get into power, it is repealed. Or I make my voice heard on UK media, and the present govt responds, if the clamour is loud enough.
See the pressure on the cops and politicians over the Everard vigil. The levers of British democracy are working fine.
But if this was an EU law, how does a voter get it repealed? Which commissioner can he throw out of office? Ah, he can't. What EU-wide media can bring pressure on the MEPs and commissioners? Ah, there isn't one.
Hence Brexit. Democracy and sovereignty.
LOL, that's a lot of words to say your initial premise was so wrong.
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.
NB if Zen say no then in your position, with a nice piece of fibre already in place, I would send a quiet email to Andrews & Arnold and ask them if they can do anything for you, or know anyone who can.
My understanding of a "leased line" is that it goes direct to the exchange as opposed to via the local cabinet with FTTP. The cable is already here, sat unconnected to anything in one of the rooms in this former bank. I don't need any physical installation, only a connection via the existing cable.
Its the leased line element I don't understand. In England I had 100Mbps fibre. Yes it would slow below that, but was regularly up at 100. Here, a leased line talks about 10Mb/s speeds - at that kind of speed stuff slows down! I don't get it, why is 10Mbps even a stable constant 10Mbps speed any good and why bother with a vastly expensive fibre just to be that slow?
I would do as Phil suggests and speak to Andews & Arnold and see what they suggest.
I deleted Twitter off my iPhone this weekend, prompted by my family asking why I allowed myself to get so worked up by it. I'm going cold turkey now, but I think it's working. 10 minutes on that app is a fast track to exasperation and depression. It's also made me realise a lot of my apparent political fellow travellers are as prone to anti-science and conspiracy theorising as the rest of them.
It's just a shame I'm now missing what it's really good at: rapid dissemination of news and data, particularly on the science of Covid, before the rest of the media has caught up.
That's exactly my experience. I delayed a family trip (angering my wife) for 15 minutes because I got caught up in a pointless argument which then angered me all day.
The people I miss most are those that used to be of this parish, but are now only on there (David Herdson, Quincel, Matt Singh, and others like Hurst Llama, Geoff and even Alastair Meeks) so they should all get back on here.
I hate to break it to you but we've got much worse powers on the books.
The UK is about to become one of the world’s foremost surveillance states, allowing its police and intelligence agencies to spy on its own people to a degree that is unprecedented for a democracy. The UN’s privacy chief has called the situation "worse than scary." Edward Snowden says it’s simply "the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy."
The legislation in question is called the Investigatory Powers Bill. It’s been cleared by politicians and granted royal assent on November 29th — officially becoming law. The bill will legalize the UK’s global surveillance program, which scoops up communications data from around the world, but it will also introduce new domestic powers, including a government database that stores the web history of every citizen in the country. UK spies will be empowered to hack individuals, internet infrastructure, and even whole towns — if the government deems it necessary.
Of course. The ongoing growth of the surveillance state is a worldwide phenomenon. I dislike most of it.
But the difference is I know how to get a horrible UK law repealed. I vote for a party that promises to repeal it, they get into power, it is repealed. Or I make my voice heard on UK media, and the present govt responds, if the clamour is loud enough.
See the pressure on the cops and politicians over the Everard vigil. The levers of British democracy are working fine.
But if this was an EU law, how does a voter get it repealed? Which commissioner can he throw out of office? Ah, he can't. What EU-wide media can bring pressure on the MEPs and commissioners? Ah, there isn't one.
Hence Brexit. Democracy and sovereignty.
LOL, that's a lot of words to say your initial premise was so wrong.
I'm right, and you know it. There is, indeed, no argument. This is one of those rare situations where a political debate can be closed.
Comments
What is wrong with negotiation? As I have been saying, the police are not our masters. They are not there to keep us in order. They are there to facilitate us in what we want to do as long as it is safe and within the law as set out by the elected government. It is not the case in this country that anything that is not explicitly legal is illegal. It is not the case that the police can simply order us about as they see fit. They are public servants whose job is to try and maintain peace and security within the law.
They could have negotiated within the law and avoided all of this. The court made that clear. But they chose not to and in doing so they failed in their duty.
I've nothing to add so I'll just record that my own personal experience of the police has been entirely positive. Such concerns as I have would be similar to your own.
And most of those -- like OGH -- always vote Labour in the Generals anyhow. Especially in the marginals.
So, there are very, very few extra seats in this approach.
SKS is fishing in a very tiny puddle.
The other time I was witness to a fraud. It was cut and dry. After 2 years the CPS dropped it for lack of evidence. It was difficult to see what other evidence they could have wanted.
Which may eventually have consequences in the polls, too.
And that actually isn't new - how you manage a proposed large gathering has always depended on not only the size but nature of the gathering.
The only country that has two VOCs - Manaus variant for P1 and Brazil variant for the other ? Does NHS Scotland not have a website you can book through ? Anyone over 55 in England can book now.
it's ridiculous to pretend that such decisions are easy, but equally ridiculous to pretend that they can't be taken.
In this case it's pretty clear that it was the wrong decision.
Filing Systems have not reached Holyrood.
Have booking systems reached NHS Scotland?
"To understand the present and future of politics, you need to grasp one thing above all others: that if the Tories have indeed become the party of England, it will take an enormous political effort to dislodge them."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/14/conservatives-party-england-tories-populists
- Purple (400-800) for around half a dozen provinces (bit higher than LTLA), to the east of the Appenines from Rimini via Bologna to Brescia, sitting East of last year's hot zone. Plus Udine in the far North East.
- A lot of the North of Italy, particularly inland, in dark blue (200-400), plus a zig zag from South of Rome through Naples and across to the top of the heel in Puglia.
- Most of the remaining mainland would be light blue (>100), with some dark green (>50) on the toe and through Sicily and some light green (>10) across Sardinia.
(England for comparison, light blue around the northern core east of the hills, dark green around that, light green in much of the South. Basically a very similar distribution map to Italy but 2 shades lighter, indicating about a 4x lower infection rate).
On a national scale you'd likely quote Italy's R around 1.0-1.2 (weekly care rise about 10% nationally). It's not 1.6 on a macro scale.
if the biggest deterrent to crime is the likelihood of getting caught, then it's little wonder fraud figures continue to rise.
Have I missed it?
Here all week.
We don't operate in a Police State, laws are set and then they need to be interpreted by people. Your desire to act as if this all must be done with an unwavering zeal is not how this country does operate or has ever operated.
Perhaps they should of thought of exempting protests back in the spring?
The laws exist. They could have been applied. Yes, this would have been ridiculous. The police made a decision not to use them.....
Some people will not get tested when they think that they may have Covid-19. This is normally because they believe that they cannot afford to stop working.
Why does the government not spend money to incentivise people to get tested and isolate if positive?
Lots of money has been thrown at Track and Trace. So it cannot be cost.
Moral hazard.
https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1371440048973955074
Personally i think any demo should be allowed (certainly now) but the police were only doing what they have done to Piers Corbyn etc .The luvvies on social media cannot be so arrogant to think that if a demo is woke enough covid-19 restrictions dont apply
Some people hear £1000 for isolation and think "that's a great idea, people who are infected will stay at home and not infect others".
Others hear it and think "I'm low risk and want £1000, who cares if I get infected and if I do I get paid for it".
It is impressively efficient. Indeed, the vaccination drive, in all aspects, is probably the single most effective thing a UK government has done in my adult lifetime. Bigger than the Falklands armada, and more important. Hence the polls.
He asks the question: Why after all these disasters are the Tories in such a commanding position etc...
Well, he misses, in his excellent analysis, an important truth. The Tories are not is a contest for votes with abstract nouns: Truth, Facts, Morals, Effectiveness, Competence, Guardian Opinion, Polly Toynbee or even Who Can Stop the Home Office Being a National Scandal. They are in competition with one force only: The Labour Party. They are in competition only with the party of Laura Pidcock, Jezza, Richard Burgon and the party that won't mention the only person who won for them since 1974 and half of whose supporters are republicans. If they beat Labour, they win however terrible they are.
And that is why they are in a commanding position
The idea that large scale public protests should be exempt from pandemic restrictions seems absurd. The right to protest is far less of a natural part of life than being able to go to work on public transport, for example.
https://twitter.com/YearCovid/status/1371395098232070145
I was sharing a house in south-east London with the current Governor of the Bank of England. We were woken in the middle of the night by a copper pounding on the front door. They asked us - "do you recognise this television?". A patrol car had come round a corner and seen two guys in the middle of the road, one each end of our telly. They were in the process of taking it over the road to their house.
Banged to rights, you might have thought. Except....the prosecution only charged them with burglary. Not conspiracy, not receiving stolen goods. To prove burglary, you have to show they were in the premises where the item was stolen. They each said the other had gone in and passed it through the window to the other. So they both got off.
We had to live opposite them for a couple of years, glaring at them if we met in the street.
Don't post on here again until you've seen the film.
https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/1371365903754002433/photo/1
https://twitter.com/drmatthewhardy/status/1371366733596987392
https://twitter.com/echo_pbreyer/status/1370642492899667968?s=20
The UK is about to become one of the world’s foremost surveillance states, allowing its police and intelligence agencies to spy on its own people to a degree that is unprecedented for a democracy. The UN’s privacy chief has called the situation "worse than scary." Edward Snowden says it’s simply "the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy."
The legislation in question is called the Investigatory Powers Bill. It’s been cleared by politicians and granted royal assent on November 29th — officially becoming law. The bill will legalize the UK’s global surveillance program, which scoops up communications data from around the world, but it will also introduce new domestic powers, including a government database that stores the web history of every citizen in the country. UK spies will be empowered to hack individuals, internet infrastructure, and even whole towns — if the government deems it necessary.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/23/13718768/uk-surveillance-laws-explained-investigatory-powers-bill
Do people genuinely think another boring ECJ case that will take years to resolve (long after a practical solution is found) is going to turn us into an international pariah? I don't think so. Half of the EU's member states just ignore most of the ECJ rulings against them already, we did when we were members.
We only have to gaze at the chaos across the Channel, to see what a botched vaccination drive looks like. Shameful.
On the downside, we must not forget how Bojo and friends made a total horlicks of everything from early lockdown, to test and trace, to foreign quarantine. And yet they might get away with it, because people remember endings, and they forget beginnings.
No market as far as I can see but I'd consider a bet on the EU Parliament not passing the deal.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1371461074453721090?s=20
Its the leased line element I don't understand. In England I had 100Mbps fibre. Yes it would slow below that, but was regularly up at 100. Here, a leased line talks about 10Mb/s speeds - at that kind of speed stuff slows down! I don't get it, why is 10Mbps even a stable constant 10Mbps speed any good and why bother with a vastly expensive fibre just to be that slow?
But the difference is I know how to get a horrible UK law repealed. I vote for a party that promises to repeal it, they get into power, it is repealed. Or I make my voice heard on UK media, and the present govt responds, if the clamour is loud enough.
See the pressure on the cops and politicians over the Everard vigil. The levers of British democracy are working fine.
But if this was an EU law, how does a voter get it repealed? Which commissioner can he throw out of office? Ah, he can't. What EU-wide media can bring pressure on the MEPs and commissioners? Ah, there isn't one.
Hence Brexit. Democracy and sovereignty.
The people I miss most are those that used to be of this parish, but are now only on there (David Herdson, Quincel, Matt Singh, and others like Hurst Llama, Geoff and even Alastair Meeks) so they should all get back on here.
We already had a hint with that huge figure yesterday.
More cases of the mutated virus have been found in Southwark (SE5) Harrow (HA2 and HA3).