Chit Chat
MPs have JUST approved the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment)
|
By:
|
|
By:
Your beliefs may be wrong, who knows?
|
|
By:
 You'd make a politician you might've missed your call |
|
By:
You clearly have misread what I said shrewd dude.
Or missed who said what... Maybe try reading thread slowly, and look at who said what. That might solve your confusion. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
On the day the law is passed Manchester Police admit they cannot stop illegal raves....
Greater Manchester illegal raves: 'Almost impossible' to stop Two illegal "quarantine raves" at the weekend were "almost impossible" to stop after venues were changed at the last minute, a chief constable said. About 6,000 people went to raves at Daisy Nook Country Park, Failsworth, and Carrington, Greater Manchester. A 20-year-old man died of a suspected drug overdose at the Daisy Nook rave while a woman was raped and three people stabbed in Carrington. Greater Manchester Police's Ian Hopkins said some behaviour was "appalling". Both events late on Saturday were illegal under coronavirus restrictions but Greater Manchester Police restricted its involvement to what they called "careful monitoring". .... under current government guidelines for England, groups of up to six people from different households can gather outside in parks or private gardens. Paul Carroll, who lives near the Failsworth site, said: "Police were passively driving up and down and occasionally moving people on but when you have 4,000 people and 20 to 30 police it was never going to be enforcement. "I was still awake at three o'clock in the morning with people sniffing nitrous oxide gas on the garden wall, urinating and taxis coming and going." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-53047628 ^ So what will the police do now the guidelines have become law? Zero in the media about the new laws so would not surprise me if ravers and protestors do not even know about it. |
|
By:
Most of you people are too busy parading your bigotry and racism to see what is happening to our country. You wan5 to blame the Musso’ or now the blacks while the rich not only taken your money but now seeking to take your freedom.
Electric cars only in London soon enough. How long before Covid Passports linked to your phones? No vaccine no picnic! Divide and conquer was never healthier. Oh and beware as the anger grows the apologists and enablers of the rich will be targeted. |
|
By:
This law changes next to nothing.
If there's another peaceful BLM protest at the weekend, then the police aren't going to wade in and break them up. It's just a licence to further foment distrust, divide and the tories will end up even more disconnected from the general public. If the FLA mob announce another tear up then the police will be there in numbers because history tells them that they're out for a scrap and don't really care against whom. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Who benefits from this divide and conquer policy ?
Well, for starters. Ickle Tommy's got his profile up and got a few more quid, and didn't even bother to turn up. Farage is doing a Brexit Party v2.0. Grifters gonna grift and there's money to be made from telling people that their problems are caused by the poor family over the road rather than complicated deep-rooted problems in the fabric of our society. Then maybe look at which politicians are going on about it. Which leaders are tweeting about Churchill etc etc? The tories are desperate to keep this in the news for obvious reasons. Now they've started another can-kicking exercise to keep the topic live for yet more months when, if they wanted to actual end "this divide and conquer policy" they could simply start enacting any of the hundreds of recommendations from previous commissions that have looked into racial inequality in the last few years. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
One of the problems police have with illegal raves is that they have always been illegal
and the organisers built in anti plod actions to the organisation of them to retain the ability to profit from them. |
|
By:
You clearly have misread what I said shrewd dude.
I read what you said. A contracted protester would be a reasonable excuse. Drivel. |
|
By:
Ah you have re read and realised the knife was brought up by somebody else
Well done |
|
By:
Maybe re read yourself. I brought up the law on knifes to show how ridiculous the point you were trying to make was.
|
|
By:
And I pointed out the difference....
|
|
By:
The exemption I highlighted is in the relevant act
You fabricated a spurious story so you could dismiss that spurious story then attempt to claim equivalence my point Rather than attempt to debate the actual point I made. |
|
By:
I explained the legal concept of reasonable excuse that is in this act and in many acts before including the legislation involving knives.
On realising how stupid your point was that a clearly contrived defence of contracting people to protest would amount to a reasonable excuse in law you then immediately began to waffle about Dominic Cummings for no apparent reason. |
|
By:
You explaining the concept of reasonable excuse is fine...
But not same as the spurious argument you introduced so you could claim equivalence You didn't guote the clause in the law you were using, My daft excuse still exists in law, your spurious story is just A spurious story |
|
By:
Maybe you can explain why my legal defence would fail, when you seem to also
argue I don't even need that legal defence? |
|
By:
It's not spurious to compare the legal concept of reasonable excuse across different acts prior to this legislation when a person doesn't understand what the new act means. The law relative to other acts with reasonable excuse defences will be very relevant to the definition of reasonable excuse in this new act. That's how the law works.
|
|
By:
Maybe you can explain why my legal defence would fail, when you seem to also
argue I don't even need that legal defence? Are you thick? I've clearly explained that to you. A clearly contrived defence of I have a contract to be here would not be considered reasonable excuse. |
|
By:
Had you constructed a story based on the act instead of a spurious
story you might have a point, but you didn't you have a spurious story. The wording of the act agrees with me, not you. I have put the clause on the thread. |
|
By:
I give up is it not about time you start bringing up Dominic Cummings again?
|
|
By:
I think you just did
|