Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

The Beginnings of a Police State?

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

The Beginnings of a Police State?

Old 15th Sep 2020, 11:45
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North England
Posts: 452
The Beginnings of a Police State?

Much as I want to see the back of COVID-19, I am becoming increasingly perturbed by the Government policy that we should report people breaking quarantine regulations.

It does seem like the thin end of the wedge.

If this proposal was brought into force then the Police would be running round in ever decreasing circles.

But the practicalities of this suggestion, or the likelihood of people abusing it, are not the key issue here.

What is important is it seems like the beginnings of a Police State in the UK.

People spying on each other, reporting them to the authorities. Sounds very much like the infamous tactics of the Hitler Youth.

Are you expected to report family and friends - your neighbours. Well 'yes' in theory.

It seems in one fell swoop the Government would undermine the stability of the country and turn the population against each other - for reasons more likely seated in areas other than COVID-19.

The Blonde Buffoon really is excelling himself as being a person totally unfit to lead and rule a nation - rather like the other Blonde Buffoon in the US of A.

Ms Patel says it is not 'dobbing in neighbours' well it seems the implications are far greater than the pandemic itself.
SpannerInTheWerks is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 12:08
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 390
I agree wholeheartedly. I'm vehemently opposed to the idea of asking people to act as unpaid police officers, and also opposed to the idea of imposing laws putting restrictions on people, with no attempt to try and explain why those laws have been framed or how people can better understand disease transmission and the ways they can use their own judgement to sensibly assess risk and take appropriate action.
VP959 is online now  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 12:18
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: There and here
Posts: 1,995
I was listening to a radio phone in earlier whilst out walking and these points were being raised. The lovely Priti Patel admitting that she'd dob her neighbours in as her duty brought a good bit of flak, many citing her trip to Israel when a minister and not dobbing herself in due to it's illegality in regards to her then position.

Some callers were concerned that this was the first step towards a DDR 2.0, others said they'd ignore it if they saw it, others said it would depend on how many over the magical '6' it was. One very distressed and angry caller had just driven slowly past a primary school in Redhill where there was 'over 100' parents in a massive group all gassing away after morning drop-off. The caller said that they'd been shielding for the last 6 months and to see such cavalier behaviour from responsible adults (parents of children) was enraging. They were ready to call the police, but called the radio instead!

You'd hope that people wouldn't need to be told how to conduct themselve responsibly for the greater good, but I think that there are just too many of the population who have little or no common sense and can only think of themselves and their needs. In this regard the UK seems to fail miserably against many other countries where a sense of national togetherness pulls people together for the greater good.
SpringHeeledJack is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 12:22
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
I agree wholeheartedly. I'm vehemently opposed to the idea of asking people to act as unpaid police officers, and also opposed to the idea of imposing laws putting restrictions on people, with no attempt to try and explain why those laws have been framed or how people can better understand disease transmission and the ways they can use their own judgement to sensibly assess risk and take appropriate action.
We've had unpaid police officers for years, called specials, but at least they are trained. To call the public whistle blowing blatant breaches of the rules unpaid police is probably stretching the terms "police officers" and since the long arm of the law is hard pressed to turn out if there is a burglary under way, or if a member of the public calls them with regard to people playing with high performance cars and endangering life and limb, can anyone really see the local bobby (or bobbies - they always work in pairs these days) turning out for a small kid's party, or a group of people having a quiet drink with their neighbours in the back garden. I can however see them turning out rather more promptly than might previously have been the case for noisy parties involving large groups. Nobody, not even Priti Useless, appears to be suggesting vaulting over the neighbour's fence and making a citizen's arrest of the party organiser, in fact I think the police would strongly advise against such action.

That said I think the UK government will take the opportunity of Covid to keep the public at large under greater surveillance, for example, by not dropping the declaration that we are all required to complete on returning to the UK once the pandemic is over; and were there ever to be a workable Covid tracking app I would bet a small amount on that quietly continuing beyond the emergency.

The UK population is already one of the most watched (by government) of any in the free world; that was no accident, and when all is said and done, governments like to have as much control over their citizens as possible.
ATNotts is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 12:32
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Oxfordshire
Posts: 617
... the idea of imposing laws putting restrictions on people, with no attempt to try and explain why those laws have been framed or how people can better understand disease transmission and the ways they can use their own judgement to sensibly assess risk and take appropriate action.
If only people were able to use their own judgement to sensibly assess anything.
Quite a few people are objectively unable to do this. It's why laws are required for everything.

​​​​​​The reasons for imposing COVID restrictions has been explained over and over for months, ad nauseam. If it's not obvious to anyone by now, they really do need to use enforcement.
Blues&twos is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 12:40
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ilmington, Warwickshire
Posts: 1
Totally, totally agree with VP and SITW.

I’ve always been a very boring, law abiding citizen. I’ve chuntered about rules in the past but am generally very compliant and I’m usually of the view that laws are for the benefit of society as a whole - not just the individual. But I’m getting very annoyed with the constant insidious chipping away of our liberties. So what if people are idiots, it’s a free society for them to be idiots in. We can’t and shouldn’t be legislating against stupidity.

My adult daughter drew my attention yesterday to the fact that history has often asked how did people not see the rise of Nazism/Fascism and why did they turn a blind eye to it. I’m starting to see that very disturbing trend amongst neighbours I thought I knew. During the lockdown, a friends son went shopping. When he came home, someone from the house opposite actually came out and asked him where he had been and was it essential! Another acquaintance casually told me that, again during lockdown, two cars pulled up on the grass area in front of his house. A woman got out of one of the vehicles and climbed in the second one.- presumably an assignation, but nobody’s business but theirs - however, the man relating the event actually smugly told me he photographed the cars and the drivers and made a note of the registrations - just in case.

As you well know, I’m the same with masks. I wear reluctantly wear one because I’m told it’s for everyone’s benefit. I don’t agree at all with it all and do wonder if those that see them as the panacea to Covid spread were actually wearing them right from the start even though the official advice then was that they were of little value, or are the public wearing them because Boris told them to?
BehindBlueEyes is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 12:40
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Originally Posted by Blues&twos View Post
If only people were able to use their own judgement to sensibly assess anything.
Quite a few people are objectively unable to do this. It's why laws are required for everything.

​​​​​​The reasons for imposing COVID restrictions has been explained over and over for months, ad nauseam. If it's not obvious to anyone by now, they really do need use enforcement.
Some members of the public appear to either have buried their heads, ostrich like, in the sand or are just plain stupid, perhaps both. Illustrating this was a GP interviewed on BBC at the weekend who said he had a patient, who had taken a Covid test which proved positive, asking if they could go in to work!!! For heavens sake, where have they been for the last 6 months????

That said, if it comes to it, and our area gets West Midlands style local lockdown measures, we will probably have to break the law, in a "measured and limited way" by looking after the grand children for one or two days per week, to allow their parents to continue working and thus keep a roof over their heads, and I know others who will fell they have little choice but to do likewise. Unless of course, Rishi is going to shake the magic money tree to keep them housed, which despite his generosity so far, I very much doubt he would.
ATNotts is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 12:46
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 390
I'm not in favour of encouraging people to dob in others for things like this, as, apart from anything else, it will probably just exacerbate neighbour disputes. I'm also not convinced that there has been any adequate explanation as to why the "rule of six" has been formulated as it has.

The basis for restricting large groups from meeting, under conditions that may make disease transmission more likely, seems sound, but the seemingly arbitrary choice of no more than 6 people in total seems not to be supported by any evidence I can easily find. This rule seemingly allows some potentially risky gatherings to take place, say three separate couples meeting up for an evening out, yet precludes some clearly far less risky gatherings, such as a family of six being visited by one other person. In this context, the risk factor is the number of different households meeting, rather than the number of individuals meeting. Six people from different households meeting up is a significantly greater risk than six people from the same household meeting up, for example.
VP959 is online now  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 12:47
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Coasting South
Age: 65
Posts: 62
This government asking people to abide by the rules? Oh the..... what's the word.....?
hiflymk3 is online now  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 13:16
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 390
Priti Patel seems intent on enforcing this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54165362

Families stopping to talk in the street would be in breach of the 'rule of six' restrictions, the home secretary has said.

Priti Patel told the BBC that two families of four stopping for a chat on the way to the park was "absolutely mingling".

She said she would report her neighbours if they broke the rules.
This is barking mad, as frankly two groups of four stopping for a brief chat outdoors present such a low risk of transmission that it's barely worth being concerned about, especially if they stay a metre or so apart.
VP959 is online now  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 13:20
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: France
Posts: 428
6 6 6 .... the A road from Langho to Pendlebury in Lancashire ... and the 'number of the beast' ........ influences on Boris' choice of grouping? (Well as it all seems quite arbitary, what's the harm in a bit of lateral thinking ...)
Alsacienne is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 13:28
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 1,259
Police state? Surprised by how strict the Australian response was in terms of lockdowns and how it was apparently accepted by most. Maybe it's a one shot deal.
Mr Optimistic is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 13:29
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 146
Priti Patel told the BBC that two families of four stopping for a chat on the way to the park was "absolutely mingling".

She said she would report her neighbours if they broke the rules.
I thought she was the Secretary of State for the Home Department, not the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit.

WB627 is online now  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 13:30
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Priti Patel seems intent on enforcing this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54165362



This is barking mad, as frankly two groups of four stopping for a brief chat outdoors present such a low risk of transmission that it's barely worth being concerned about, especially if they stay a metre or so apart.
Totally barking! That sort of clap trap had it's place in Franco's Spain, the Soviet Union or North Korea. In our road, since the start of lock down we have enjoyed weekly social gatherings, standing on opposite sides of the street, at the head of our respective driveways, with a glass of something chewing the fat, and developing a real community spirit in the process. That according to this absolute dim-wit of a Home Secretary looks as though it is now illegal. Well, I can tell her, not that she'll read this, that our socialising will continue until the evenings become too cold! It is one of the upsides of covid.
ATNotts is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 13:37
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 51
Posts: 1,420
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Priti Patel seems intent on enforcing this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54165362



This is barking mad, as frankly two groups of four stopping for a brief chat outdoors present such a low risk of transmission that it's barely worth being concerned about, especially if they stay a metre or so apart.
Possibly but you can't have bespoke regulations for every eventuality can you?
Tashengurt is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 13:45
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Darkest Lincs
Posts: 479
Originally Posted by Tashengurt View Post
Possibly but you can't have bespoke regulations for every eventuality can you?
No, but then you should not impose regulations that are poorly thought through, and with little proven scientific backing.
wowzz is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 13:46
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by Tashengurt View Post
Possibly but you can't have bespoke regulations for every eventuality can you?

No, you can't, but the real risk is, as I think everyone has probably grasped by now, when large groups of people from different households gather together in an enclosed space, without either maintaining a safe distance from each other or wearing masks.

Right from the very start it's been pretty clear that people meeting outdoors, and maintaining a metre of two of separation from each other, weren't at any particular risk. Even at the height of lockdown we had the Thursday night ritual of neighbours coming out on the street next to each other and clapping, cheering, banging pots, etc, and no one suggested this was unsafe.

It's the many contradictions that this rule of six law creates that makes it so controversial, quite apart from the encouragement that everyone should police their neighbours to make sure they aren't flouting the rule.
VP959 is online now  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 13:59
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 707
It seems that there is likely to be a second bubble of Covid and it appears to be due to too many people ignoring sensible advice to take precautions. The government have taken measures to try and prevent this, but it seems that people are not happy. So what exactly are the government to do? In the main, the whole world are doing the same, so the actions being taken do not seem unreasonable.

There is an awful lot of could have / should have from people with the benefit of hindsight, but I think there are far too many people who would be happy to let thousands die as long as they can maintain their so called freedom and rights.

Oh, and it appears to be Boris’s fault, even though similar restrictions are being imposed in Scotland and Wales.

There is no doubt that things have not always gone well. Did anyone really expect it to when so many people are pulling
in different directions?
Saintsman is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 14:00
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 146
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
No, you can't, but the real risk is, as I think everyone has probably grasped by now, when large groups of people from different households gather together in an enclosed space, without either maintaining a safe distance from each other or wearing masks.
Like the local pub that some on here like to frequent and extoll the virtues on here, of not wearing a mask whilst doing so
WB627 is online now  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 14:01
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 1,259
All about trying to influence a crowd without bringing the water cannon out. A slight change in wording and nuance wouldn't have gone amiss....' if you see behaviours which you think might put you at risk' or something. Can't see much harm in low density garden parties compared to nightclubs and bars.
Mr Optimistic is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.