Mooney_Driver wrote:
IMHO these are different times and I suppose what will happen is, that either countries or transport companies will impose restrictions on those not vaccined. While I agree that the EU will probably avoid that, others won’t. So it will be very easy choice: Either get the vaccine or don’t fly / sail / come to us.
I think you are right.
The French situation is indeed potentially worrying.
If there is en mass opening of retail I think it will be difficult for the authorities (any authorities) to deal with this. Fines are all very well, but en masse the Courts will simply be inundated, it will take months to bring them to Court, and the fine is probably irrelevant in the financial context of the business anyway.
In the UK we have had a couple of recent cases where people have been fined for excercising (going for a walk). In one case this would seem to be because they stopped to have a sandwich (or some such) which was deemed a picnic, and in another they had travelled 10 minutes in a car. Neither are against the law, both might (at a stretch) be against the rules – the rules being the politcal and medical guidance as to what we should and shouldnt do.
Totally aside from the debate about what is and isnt sensible, I find the whole legal context interesting.
In the UK we have a whole bunch of so called rules – they are in fact no more than recommendations, along the lines you shouldnt do this and this. All very sensible. The politicians love giving the impression they are law (for obvious reasons), but they are not. The law is very thin. The Act of Parliament essentially is limited by the over arching clause of the test of what is and isnt reasonable to do, which is a test that only a Court of Law can ulitmately decide. In a democracy when the police start interpreting the Law, we have reached a dangerous impasse, this is not their job. They can by all means vocalise sensible action and refer to the rules, but issueing fines that can be disputed in Court is a very dangerous line to take, given the prosecution will almost certainly fail, the Courts have better things to be doing, and the action discriminates between those who will, and wont take the matter to Court.
I am not for one moment suggesting the rules should not be followed. This is a different discussion which to some extent we have already had. I am entirely interested in the Legal aspect.
Views?
Fuji_Abound wrote:
In a democracy when the police start interpreting the Law, we have reached a dangerous impasse, this is not their job. They can by all means vocalise sensible action and refer to the rules, but issueing fines that can be disputed in Court is a very dangerous line to take, given the prosecution will almost certainly fail, the Courts have better things to be doing, and the action discriminates between those who will, and wont take the matter to Court.
Indeed.
If they tried to fine me like this, and I believed I was not breaking the law, then I would politely decline their offer of dealing with the alleged offence via a fixed penalty notice (because that’s all it is) and invite them to prosecute me. Not even the CPS are stupid enough to try and prosecute a breach of government guidance.
Unfortunately quite a significant proportion of the population probably believe that if the Police issue you with a fine then that’s that.
Graham – indeed, and the trouble with FPN is that if accepted and paid they are retained on record and may be disclosed on a request for an enhanced criminal record, so it isnt even as simple as accepting the FPN because even though not guilty you cant be bothered to dispute the FPN.
I think they are working on the basis of
1. the fines/threat of will deter the masses
2. Those who contest the fine will plead guilty at the magistrates court on the basis that they risk a far worse possibility if it goes to court.
For the really hard-nut cases and those who are rich enough to take on HMG by pleading not guilty and who do not have jobs to loose and mortgages to pay etc the court cases will be quietly put off until say maybe 2024
(or in many cases mysteriously dropped as they are “not in the public interest”
HMG desperately does not want to loose in court.
but then that is the law in a nutshell – it’s a game and the current situation is no different.
The very rich are avoided by HMG as they will tie up the prosecution in legal knots, the very poor likewise as there is no chance of getting any money off them and jailing them just costs more money wasted.
There was an ex-plod on Radio 4 a while back admitting why women are not more often arrested – well he said, invariably you then have to organise child care so it all starts to cost a lot and become very time consuming – so you give them ‘advise’ – men you can arrest: end of story.
Its also a numbers game – arresting/fining 2 women out walking – not a problem – doing the same to a several hundred beach walkers is an impossibility for the police.
Here is a pikey funeral in complete breach of the rules – police basically give up
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18918682.abingdon-traveller-funeral-police-tried-stop-hundreds-attending/
and the aftermath of local fury
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18928210.abingdon-locals-revolt-wake-traveller-funeral/
Fuji_Abound wrote:
In the UK we have a whole bunch of so called rules – they are in fact no more than recommendations, along the lines you shouldn’t do this and this. All very sensible. The politicians love giving the impression they are law (for obvious reasons), but they are not. The law is very thin. The Act of Parliament essentially is limited by the over arching clause of the test of what is and isnt reasonable to do, which is a test that only a Court of Law can ultimately decide. In a democracy when the police start interpreting the Law, we have reached a dangerous impasse, this is not their job.
We have the same situation in my area except that (very sensibly as you might say) the impasse is where it should be, between the rule makers and the police who with very few exceptions refuse to enforce non-law. What worries me is that while rule of law is thereby protected, we are relying on the police to make it so!
In the UK I see the fines have now been dropped with an apology.
The BBC say "At the time Derbyshire Police insisted driving to exercise was “not in the spirit” of the most recent lockdown." It would seem the police were therefore content to determine “what was in the spirit of the law”, which is very worrying, especially as it would seem they are now hiding behind the argument the fines were dropped as a consequence of fresh ministerial guidance.
It might have been better if they had simply conceeded it is not the job of the police to fine people for acting outside the spirit of the law.
Unfortunately this is the sort of thing that results in a breach of trust between the police and the public and really doesnt go down well – and it is not the first time with the Derbyshire Boys in Blue. A question mark over the line of command me thinks.
Some huge fines reported in the press seem unlikely to be payable.
£1000 by a teenager??
The England police guidance (I have a copy) states under 18 cannot be fixed-penalty fined.
As Graham says, refuse any ticket, and they have to take you to court, which they can’t do for Guidance.
Unfortunately half the country is taking the p1ss, meeting up everywhere, and what can the police do in a very liberal country with a centuries-old tradition of basic rights, unarmed police, etc?
The news is more grim each day. The average age in ICU is moving down. Nobody is saying why (the news is ultra-PC, dumbed-down for the ultra-thick, and everything is massaged to not upset the sensitive) but it must be because the oldies are in hiding (and many have died), in ICU they die fast anyway, they don’t get offered ventilation (it would be pointless for ~90%), so the average age will come down. The numbers getting ill are bigger than last time, so with better treatment options (which tends to imply longer stays!) and fewer old people the average must come down, for a hypothetical hospital at capacity in April 2020 and at capacity today. Some are running out of oxygen, not because the big tanks are running low but because the pipework was not designed for the flow rate. One hospital showed a huge basement with perhaps 100-200 of the full size o2 cylinders and they had a full time team swapping them over as fast as they could.
But what can one do? I think the population is in three groups
and it is probably the same in every “free” country.
What can one do? I reckon, nothing. Next time this happens, close off travel fast, and get onto a vaccine pronto. And get the military to distribute it.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
In a democracy when the police start interpreting the Law, we have reached a dangerous impasse, this is not their job.
Obviously the police always has to do this. There are only very few laws that are so hardly “measurable” that no interpretation is required. In the first place it is always the police that makes the judgement (even if it’s only the judgment wether to prosecute a case or not). It is, however, a necessity in a democracy that these initial decisions by the police can be effectively controlled by courts/judges. That is exactly the reason why most countries have strict limits on what the police can do within their “preliminary evaluation”: In most countries, you do not have to actually pay fines issued by the police before you had the opportunity to have them checked by the courts. For measures which can not be reversed (like putting you in custody), there are typically very narrow time limits (e.g. 24h) within wich the police needs to obtain a court order even if they took you in custody for an urgent reason.
What would be (and seemingly in some countries is) a major system fault is, if the hurdles to get a preliminary police action checked by courts are so high (either perceived or real) that this is only perceived as a theoretic right and rarely actually used.
