Yep. Next time, the answer to that question should be "Well officer, that depends on whether you are referring to logical necessity (which entails metaphysical necessity) or nomological, that is, physical, necessity. My journey is necessary in the sense that it is a modal property of a true proposition, whereby it is not possible for the proposition to be false and of a false proposition whereby it is not possible for the proposition to be true. Are you writing this down constable?" Make them wish you'd exercised your right to silence
Interestingly I did some reading up about the genuine enforcement of a lot of this. From what I can see the CPS have stated it’s unlawful. Section 60’s are also being used unlawfully. And the detaining of persons would again be unlawful. I can’t imagine the fines standing up to much.. funnily enough (like a lot of questions that would go against the government at the moment) it’s hard to find anything on it online. I’m sure that I read that in lockdown 1 not a single fine that was issued could be enforced I need to check this, but I’m not actually sure you need to even respond. You only have to respond if they have legitimate suspicion (I know they have some new extraordinary powers to stop someone.. but suspicion is not evidence/proof. And even if you did respond and lied, I’m pretty sure the police don’t have any powers to look in to much unless you’ve blagged big and left yourself wide open for a grilling. The key words seem to be "necessary and proportionate". I can see a good lawyer having a field day with that. The fine is not a criminal conviction but those who do not pay could be taken to court.. With what firm evidence? I can’t see it being that difficult to argue a decent argument providing you’ve not been a mong and left yourself hanging out to dry. I also am aware that there’s such a gigantic backlog of people contesting these that you’re not likely to hear anything for an AGE. there’s too many holes in it including the guidelines and rules’ Unless as mentioned you’ve gone off in the deep and and firmly taken the piss and been caught with your pants down, you’d need to be fairly thick to get caught out in my opinion.
I remember reading something in the summer that IIRC, every single one of the (then) 187 Coronavirus Act and Regs prosecutions had been incorrectly charged and were either thrown out, discontinued or overturned on appeal. Which is a disgrace tbh. Police can't (save for some exceptions - traffic stops, PACE stop and search and, I think, some terrorism related powers) require you to answer their Qs or face arrest, but they will very likely consider a refusal to give your name or account for your presence in an area as grounds to reasonably suspect that you are committing an Covid/lockdown offence and arrest you. That is what happened with two women I read about yesterday: questioned - refused to give details/account for their presence - arrested - taken to police station - relented and gave their details/accounted for their presence - dearrested and issued with Fixed Penalty Notices. All of which kind of renders the opening words of the caution ("You have the right to remain silent.....") a bit meaningless!
Ex-police officer in “not reading what brief wrote properly” shocker. Apart from the fact that there’s no client to advise and no mention of “no comment”, good post I can’t comment on the size of my bollox (which sort of is going “no comment”, I suppose)
Lol. Why so angry all the time? But you’re correct - I was being retro, as these days it starts with “You do not have to say anything....”
That’s true actually. It’s funny how a lifetime of hearing something on tv can displace stuff you actually know. It’s also coming up to 3 years since my last criminal case involving the police (defending someone who had started in Big Fat Gypsy Wedding). I can’t “remember” the old form caution tbh as it was amended long before I started practising in 2009 but now I come to think of it, the first bit was the same but I think the rest of it was different
Always happy to assist You do not have to say anything but anything you do say may be given in evidence Which has now become You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court anything you do say may be given in evidence The first caution is still used if the need to question someone after charge or reported for summons.
42 years man and boy last 7 years investigating Rape and child abuse dont have time to worry about policing covid I know my force have issued the lowest number of fines in the country We believe in talking and educating
You’re made of sterner stuff than me. I didn’t do much sex work but what I did do was pretty grim and I see how it ends up affecting some of my colleagues who do it day in and day out. As @Advikaz said - hat’s off to you
If only. The girlf and I were online window shopping properties there recently and you can get something that looks like Iron Man’s gaff for the price of a damp cupboard in London.
