• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Coronavirus

The governments own advice says that you DON'T have to answer police questions, or DONT even have to stop if asked to.. unless you are in a car:
https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights

Stop and question: police powers
A police officer might stop you and ask:

  • what your name is
  • what you’re doing in the area
  • where you’re going
You don’t have to stop or answer any questions. If you don’t and there’s no other reason to suspect you, then this alone can’t be used as a reason to search or arrest you.

-

So what's happening here? The police broke the law on the fly and fined this lady £660 for the privilege?

If it was me I would be on the phone to my lawyer the next day and taking them to court for compensation.
 
DTA said:
What's BwB?

What was scary was being separated from my mates and put in the back of the van and goaded to do something so they would have an excuse to beat the brick out of me.

So I dont have massive sympathy for her being put out that they are asking questions... because you know there is a deadly virus going round... I would have just answered the questions to be honest

I have had good experience with police officers as well.
Click to expand...

bearded with backpack
 
elyid said:
The governments own advice says that you DON'T have to answer police questions, or DONT even have to stop if asked to.. unless you are in a car:
https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights

Stop and question: police powers
A police officer might stop you and ask:

  • what your name is
  • what you’re doing in the area
  • where you’re going
You don’t have to stop or answer any questions. If you don’t and there’s no other reason to suspect you, then this alone can’t be used as a reason to search or arrest you.

-

So what's happening here? The police broke the law on the fly and fined this lady £660 for the privilege?

If it was me I would be on the phone to my lawyer the next day and taking them to court for compensation.
Click to expand...

Has that guidance been updated to take account of the (any?) new powers?
 
Parklaner81 said:
Has that guidance been updated to take account of the (any?) new powers?
Click to expand...

Good question. It hasn't been updated for a long time.

I don't know if the new powers require changes to this...but imo it's not for citizens to question or second guess if official Government communications regarding the law are accurate.

If the rules have changed they should change this website.
 
elyid said:
Good question. It hasn't been updated for a long time.

I don't know if the new powers require changes to this...but imo it's not for citizens to question or second guess if official Government communications regarding the law are accurate.

If the rules have changed they should change this website.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I agree with all of that.

At the same time, we're in a highly unusual and fast moving situation. Everybody should have a duty to act responsibly and employ common sense. In the vast majority of situations, I would expect answering a few basic questions from a police officer about your business during a time of virtual lockdown and national emergency to fall within that criteria.
 
scaramanga said:
The Telegraph ran a piece the other day about the author of the Oxford model (or whichever one scared the government into changing tack).
Click to expand...

The Oxford model is the one being reported as saying nearly everyone might have the virus already. What it actually does is consider alternative ways of explaining the current data: high infection rate, low fatality; or lower infections, high fatality. It's been reported as saying the former is correct.

The one that cause the change in government tack was the Imperial model where Neil Ferguson is the leading figure. What seems lost in the reporting is that this model is what has been guiding the scientific advice the government has been following all along. What changed is new information on the number of infected people needing ventilators caused a reevaluation of the model with new parameter values. This pointed to much higher deaths and the NHS being overrun if the mitigation strategy had continued. This changed the advice to the government and the switch to a suppression strategy. This has been widely been reported as a U-turn, when it was really just continuing to follow scientific advice. It makes me think of the quote Keynes probably didn't make: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir”.
 
This isolation is starting to get to me, I've not been in a pub or restaurant for over 2 weeks, it's not the same drinking indoors and talking absolute bullocks to the missus, I'm even looking forward to going shopping tomorrow morning with all the other elderly and infirmed.
 
jts1882 said:
The Oxford model is the one being reported as saying nearly everyone might have the virus already. What it actually does is consider alternative ways of explaining the current data: high infection rate, low fatality; or lower infections, high fatality. It's been reported as saying the former is correct.

The one that cause the change in government tack was the Imperial model where Neil Ferguson is the leading figure. What seems lost in the reporting is that this model is what has been guiding the scientific advice the government has been following all along. What changed is new information on the number of infected people needing ventilators caused a reevaluation of the model with new parameter values. This pointed to much higher deaths and the NHS being overrun if the mitigation strategy had continued. This changed the advice to the government and the switch to a suppression strategy. This has been widely been reported as a U-turn, when it was really just continuing to follow scientific advice. It makes me think of the quote Keynes probably didn't make: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir”.
Click to expand...
Absolutely - following the current advice is all anyone can do here.

You're right, it was Ferguson - he's the one reported as having previous with making very bold claims about just how dangerous previous viruses were.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
Wouldn't that be regression rather than evolution?
Click to expand...
Nope - look at the proportion of sociopaths in the most successful people around. Once the shackles of wasted time and thoughts such as empathy are shed, one is free to pursue excellence without hinderance.
 
parklane1 said:
All the silly bitch had to do was tell them why she was there.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, we don't live in the kind of country where we are required to inform the police of our movements and intentions.

All the silly prick had to do was get back in his little box and go and look for some criminals.
 
jts1882 said:
The Oxford model is the one being reported as saying nearly everyone might have the virus already. What it actually does is consider alternative ways of explaining the current data: high infection rate, low fatality; or lower infections, high fatality. It's been reported as saying the former is correct.

The one that cause the change in government tack was the Imperial model where Neil Ferguson is the leading figure. What seems lost in the reporting is that this model is what has been guiding the scientific advice the government has been following all along. What changed is new information on the number of infected people needing ventilators caused a reevaluation of the model with new parameter values. This pointed to much higher deaths and the NHS being overrun if the mitigation strategy had continued. This changed the advice to the government and the switch to a suppression strategy. This has been widely been reported as a U-turn, when it was really just continuing to follow scientific advice. It makes me think of the quote Keynes probably didn't make: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir”.
Click to expand...

Nice post, found that extremely interesting
 
scaramanga said:
Fortunately, we don't live in the kind of country where we are required to inform the police of our movements and intentions.

All the silly prick had to do was get back in his little box and go and look for some criminals.
Click to expand...

If these were normal times I'd completely agree. But they aren't.

We also don't live in the kind of country where we'd be asked to confine ourselves to our homes under any normal set of circumstances, but that is the situation we find ourselves in. Most people accept the need for it. By extension, the police have a role to play in monitoring that situation. Again, I'd suggest most people would accept the need for that too - within the extraordinary circumstances we find ourselves.
 
Parklaner81 said:
If these were normal times I'd completely agree. But they aren't.

We also don't live in the kind of country where we'd be asked to confine ourselves to our homes under any normal set of circumstances, but that is the situation we find ourselves in. Most people accept the need for it. By extension, the police have a role to play in monitoring that situation. Again, I'd suggest most people would accept the need for that too - within the extraordinary circumstances we find ourselves.
Click to expand...
Then the elected govt needs to pass a law and have parliament agree on it, giving voters the opportunity to vote them out in 4-5 years if they disagree with their actions.

When this has been brought up in the past, it has proven to be a firm vote loser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back