Wednesday, 15 April 2020

"Give Us More Laws To Abuse And Get Wrong!"

The police want powers to be able to enter homes and shut down parties and BBQs they deem unnecessary under lockdown laws.
Well, of course they do. Except for mosques and traveller encampments, of course..!
The Police Federation, who represent rank and file officers, believe there is a technicality in the current measures that mean they cannot enter a private property to break up a house party, unless they are allowed in by the householders.
Are they sure? Because they do seem to have problems interpreting the powers they've been given...
The Met’s mistake relates to a case involving a man arrested outside Tooting leisure centre in south-west London on 28 March. The defendant was charged with breaching the Coronavirus Act 2020 as well as with possession of class B drugs and “going equipped to steal”. He pleaded guilty to all the charges at Wimbledon magistrates court.
A force spokesman said: “It was identified this legislation had been applied incorrectly. The [coronavirus] charge and fine were subsequently set aside. The charges for possession of class B drugs and going equipped to steal were not overturned and the £200 fine stands.
“However, [he] was incorrectly charged with an offence under the Coronavirus Act 2020. This legislation only relates to ‘potentially infectious persons’, which was not applicable in these circumstances.”
 And that's the second incorrect application of the new law. That they've admitted to so far, anyway.
Despite the clamour for new lockdown powers, they are very unlikely to be green-lit by Home Secretary Priti Patel.
A Home Office source told the newspaper: 'It would be a really big step for policing in this country that is not needed at this point.
'Also police can issue the fixed penalty notice as they travel to or from the party.'
You wonder why the so-called 'professional' police farce didn't think of that, don't you?


Anonymous said...

Panic legislation makes bad law. Remember the dangerous dogs act? Knee jerk reaction. Same as this one.
However the poor man persecuted by police in this story was still in possession of illegal drugs and tools to commit theft so let's not pretend he's innocent and being picked on by the police shall we?

MTG 1 said...

Where has your faith and trust gone, Julia?

In their never-ending search for ideal civil obedience, plod logic has dictated the necessity too streamline tyranny by transferring present enactment powers too themselves. Plod points the way forward too a new era when they pass convenient statute on the trotter, so too speak,...and just for good measure, the federation becomes the sole body for interpreting what new statute means.

What could possibly go wrong?

Anonymous said...

Still waiting on this post as well Melvin. Don't want people on here to think you make things up now do we ?

MTG 1 said...

Far be it from me to discourage your persistent demands, WC Jaded. Indeed, I can already feel myself buckling under the pressure of mounting expostulation. Be patient...nay encourage me with or without Penise persevere in summoning up more than a Tinker's fart for what the pair of you think.

Anonymous said...

I'm calling you a liar Melvin. Prove me wrong.

MTG 1 said...

Hmmm...traduced and persistently smeared by out-of-control police.

Like Doreen, I could force myself to settle for a peerage, Jaded. Which Farce do you work for?

Anonymous said...

Question not answered yet again. I work for the Met. Where do you " work" ?

JuliaM said...

"Panic legislation makes bad law. Remember the dangerous dogs act?"

I remember that that too was initially badly implemented by those tasked with implementing it, yes.

" let's not pretend he's innocent and being picked on by the police shall we?"

No-one's pretending he's innocent in toto - merely of the charge those tasked with implementing the law used. See the difference?