Jump to content
×
×
  • Create New...

MPs demand review of tens of thousands of 'muddled, discriminatory and unfair' Covid fines


Recommended Posts

Dave SYP

The words drunkenness, breweries and organisations spring to mind.  The measures expected to control and manage the selfish, lawless elements were not thought through properly and seem to have been a knee jerk reaction. However, these same selfish and lawless individuals will be jumping with joy if they get their cases dropped. The law in this country is indeed an ass! I feel for the police officers who have strived to keep law and order and everyone safe during this pandemic .

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • TooTall

    7

  • Equin0x

    5

  • Zulu 22

    5

  • BizzieBee

    4

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If you were fined for doing nothing wrong I suspect you'd be jumping for joy as well if/when it was overturned.

What is in black and white in this copy and paste of the old Regulations are some (not a definitive list) of the reasonable excuses to leave the place where a person lives. It does not prohibit people

Good to see the MPs supporting the Police enforcing a law parliament they put in place......oh wait..

TooTall

Search Legislation

 

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020

 

Restrictions on movement

6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;

(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;

(c)to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2;

(d)to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(1), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance;

(e)to donate blood;

(f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;

(g)to attend a funeral of—

(i)a member of the person’s household,

(ii)a close family member, or

(iii)if no-one within sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) are attending, a friend;

(h)to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to participate in legal proceedings;

(i)to access critical public services, including—

(i)childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child);

(ii)social services;

(iii)services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions;

(iv)services provided to victims (such as victims of crime);

(j)in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care of, the child;

(k)in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship;

(l)to move house where reasonably necessary;

(m)to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises.

(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any person who is homeless.

 

It's in black and white. 

 

So meeting up with your mates or sitting in a car ect ect would be in breach of this. 

Edited by TooTall
Link to post
Share on other sites
Equin0x
10 minutes ago, Dave SYP said:

The words drunkenness, breweries and organisations spring to mind.  The measures expected to control and manage the selfish, lawless elements were not thought through properly and seem to have been a knee jerk reaction. However, these same selfish and lawless individuals will be jumping with joy if they get their cases dropped. The law in this country is indeed an ass! I feel for the police officers who have strived to keep law and order and everyone safe during this pandemic .

If you were fined for doing nothing wrong I suspect you'd be jumping for joy as well if/when it was overturned.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Zulu 22

Some people on here are disregarding the safety of others, apparently because they do not believe in complying with the set rules. This was a deadly Pandemic which could be spread easily. Sad there were some who do not believe in the medical science or safety advice. I wonder how many people they have helped to infect. I know victims who have died when the only place they had been was to shop for essential shopping.

Those who received fines deserve to be named and shamed so that their own community and neighbours can see how irresponsible they are. Ther are people who have volunteered in the pandemic and they deserve better for their toils.

A Police Officer's duty is to obey and enforce the law, without fear or favour.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Zulu 22
3 hours ago, Equin0x said:

I disagree, I think it would be a good idea. People are being fined for doing things that should be considered perfectly normal and acceptable. Once the emergency is over, in my view there can be no public interest in chasing those fines or pursuing people. We should be looking to the future and moving on, not prolonging thesuffering.

There is nothing perfectly normal and acceptable about this behaviour. The are not normal times but a time of emergency to protect the lives of everyone, including those too selfish to consider the welfare of others. "Prolonging the suffering" pity those who were fined could not realise tell danger they were causing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Equin0x
14 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

Some people on here are disregarding the safety of others, apparently because they do not believe in complying with the set rules. This was a deadly Pandemic which could be spread easily. Sad there were some who do not believe in the medical science or safety advice. I wonder how many people they have helped to infect. I know victims who have died when the only place they had been was to shop for essential shopping.

Those who received fines deserve to be named and shamed so that their own community and neighbours can see how irresponsible they are. Ther are people who have volunteered in the pandemic and they deserve better for their toils.

A Police Officer's duty is to obey and enforce the law, without fear or favour.

Sometimes I worry about you :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave SYP
1 hour ago, Equin0x said:

If you were fined for doing nothing wrong I suspect you'd be jumping for joy as well if/when it was overturned.

I certainly would! However, I suspect the vast majority of the ones that were correctly and justly issued FPN’s were the selfish, lawless minority.  I have (and still do) come across such misguided, deluded and anti-establishment individuals and it is just unfortunate that, for we and the majority of society who are law abiding, they share the same oxygen supply.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Reasonable Man
3 hours ago, BizzieBee said:

Umm, oppressive Policing, without regard to the law?

Right. And the Legislation states ... ? 

Well - originally it listed what that would entail. But the list was not exhaustive, and left off some obvious good reasons. And then it was amended and then you could leave your home with no reason. And then you couldn’t, except for some slightly different reasons with different guidance. And then if you lived in some places you could leave your home or you couldn’t depending on which amended regulations applied at that time and in that place. And if you lived in ‘Westshire’ the police interpreted the Regulations so you could travel x miles, but if you lived in ‘Eastshire‘ you could travel y miles. 
It’s simple really. If you’re doing something that the particular officer who stops you thinks is against the Regulations you may get reported. Depending on the interpretation of the guidance that the officer’s force has issued, based on the interpretation of the legislation and College of Policing guidance that the person who has been given the job of issuing guidance has written. 
The only time I defended Alexander de Pfeffel Johnson was when he was criticised for being 7 miles from Downing Street on his bicycle. If a 20-30 mile bike ride is an unreasonable amount of exercise to take then we must be a very unfit nation. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
stewie_griffin

Hopefully the MPs who caused the whole mess will redeem themselves and declare it a huge mistake.

Everyone gets let off, everything goes back to normal and people put it all behind them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Radman

I saw this coming since about June last year. 

The updates coming out of FHQ didn't actually quote the relevant legislation so I ended up trying to read it myself (which took some effort as the parliament site had numerous edits and revisions) anyhow on reading the actual legislation I remember thinking it wasn't workable and was just poorly designed (effectively it was written in such a way that anyone could literally excuse themselves from it.)

I made a decision there and then to be more 'Educate and explain' rather than 'enforcement' as some cops got suckered into...

I've said this numerous times to young in service cops, read the legislation yourself and break it down in your own head rather than what is given to you in a brief or what's on pocketsergeant - understand what you're actually applying. 

 

Edited by Radman
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Zulu 22
19 hours ago, Equin0x said:

Sometimes I worry about you :D

No need to worry as I was following the pertaining rules at the time unlike so many Covidiots who are, it seems, happy to put people's lives at risk. In fact using the word Covidiots is being insulting to Idiots

Edited by Zulu 22
Link to post
Share on other sites
Reasonable Man
20 hours ago, TooTall said:

Search Legislation

 

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020

 

Restrictions on movement

6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;

(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;

(c)to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2;

(d)to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(1), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance;

(e)to donate blood;

(f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;

(g)to attend a funeral of—

(i)a member of the person’s household,

(ii)a close family member, or

(iii)if no-one within sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) are attending, a friend;

(h)to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to participate in legal proceedings;

(i)to access critical public services, including—

(i)childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child);

(ii)social services;

(iii)services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions;

(iv)services provided to victims (such as victims of crime);

(j)in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care of, the child;

(k)in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship;

(l)to move house where reasonably necessary;

(m)to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises.

(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any person who is homeless.

 

It's in black and white. 

 

So meeting up with your mates or sitting in a car ect ect would be in breach of this. 

What is in black and white in this copy and paste of the old Regulations are some (not a definitive list) of the reasonable excuses to leave the place where a person lives. It does not prohibit people meeting their mates or sitting in a car.  
If person A and person B left the place they lived during the emergency period to take exercise alone then neither breached this Regulation. If they happened to meet and sit in a car for a chat after their exercise then they still would not have breached this, as they left the places they lived with a reasonable excuse. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueBob

We could always go radical, and the very MPs why, presumably, voted for the legislation could also vote that it is voided and within parliament set a remedy to those who have been prosecuted under their dire legislation.  Or, they could follow the good old standard method of creating terrible legislation, demanding police enforce it and then decry the police for doing that very thing.  
The only outcome is going to be compensation and quite a lot of it!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
TooTall
1 hour ago, BlueBob said:

We could always go radical, and the very MPs why, presumably, voted for the legislation could also vote that it is voided and within parliament set a remedy to those who have been prosecuted under their dire legislation.  Or, they could follow the good old standard method of creating terrible legislation, demanding police enforce it and then decry the police for doing that very thing.  
The only outcome is going to be compensation and quite a lot of it!!!!!

The reasonable excuse would be void then. 

No different from me leaving my house with my rifle to walk through the village with my rifle to go shooting in the farm (I have a reasonable excuse) if after I leave the house and deviate from my plan and meet a mate in the pub by your standards it's legal 🤣🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueBob
1 hour ago, TooTall said:

The reasonable excuse would be void then. 

No different from me leaving my house with my rifle to walk through the village with my rifle to go shooting in the farm (I have a reasonable excuse) if after I leave the house and deviate from my plan and meet a mate in the pub by your standards it's legal 🤣🤣

What!  No previous comment about reasonable cause and whilst can usually spot it, I’ve no idea what your post means😳

Edited by BlueBob
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Police Community is a forum that is supported financially through advertisements. It is a breach of our standard use policy to use Adblock plugins/software on our site. 

In order to continue using our site you will need to disable Adblock across our site. Alternatively you can purchase a membership package from our online store to remove adverts as part of the membership subscription. 

https://police.community/remove-adverts/

Thank you for your support.

I have disabled Adblock