Re: COVID-19 Police state
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:48 pm
This reality was brought to you by Monty Python.
This reality was brought to you by Monty Python.
Although police officers can also be fined for not having hair cuts. I have family who used to be in the police and male officers could be fined for having long hair, with female officers fined if their hair wasn't tidy. I don't know if these rules are still in force, but police officers are (or were) supposed to maintain a presentable appearance.
Here's the current rules, AFAICT:Martin_B wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:43 amAlthough police officers can also be fined for not having hair cuts. I have family who used to be in the police and male officers could be fined for having long hair, with female officers fined if their hair wasn't tidy. I don't know if these rules are still in force, but police officers are (or were) supposed to maintain a presentable appearance.
From https://recruit.college.police.uk/Offic ... ument.docx (nb - word doc)Hair
Uniformed staff
Wear your hair so that it is cut or secured above the collar and ears and is neat and tidy. It should not present a health and safety hazard. Any hair accessory must be plain in design and black or navy blue in colour. Extreme and vivid hair colouring is not permitted. Do not dye it in conspicuously unnatural colours.
For police officers and other operational uniformed staff, pigtails and ponytails are unacceptable due to officer safety implications.
Non-uniformed staff
Ensure your appearance reflects the same high standard required of all other members of the force, dependent on working environment (if the role is not one which requires face-to-face contact with the public, there is room for discretion).
Facial hair
Facial hair should be neat and tidy. Do not dye it in conspicuously unnatural colours.
An unshaven/stubbly appearance is unacceptable unless you are growing a beard or moustache. This does not apply where there is a genuine medical reason not to shave.
I can't go to the park anymore because everyone else also goes to the park, there needs to be new rules to stop me* going to the parkshpalman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 3:13 pmThey're now going for walks nearer where they live, and that's allowed, and in the photo it looks pleasant enough and there's nobody else there.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:37 pmOTOH if some people really really really can't not meet their friends it's much better that they do so walking around in the countryside than sneakily in each another's houses.
The actual risk of transmission from a countryside stroll is still pretty close to 0 unless you're holding hands and snogging while you do it, so it depends on whether cracking down on walkers would result in (a) closer obedience to the spirit of the law or (b) riskier forms of rule-breaking.
They weren't originally stopped when they were walking around, they were stopped when they'd got out of their cars having driven to a place.
One thing to ask yourself is always "what if everyone else also did this?" i.e. you can't drive to a place which is quiet because everyone else knows they're not allowed to drive to it.
You don't want that the law ends up having to be increasingly specific and cock-sh.tty because the public and the police are in a race to see who can arrive at zero common sense first.
Makes you wonder if some people turn to crime in order to get away from their family in the first place.
but they didn't know that at the time !!shpalman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:01 amturns out that everyone going to the beach wasn't such an issue after all
and we wouldn't know it know, had the British public not decided to conduct a mass experiment.Lew Dolby wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:43 ambut they didn't know that at the time !!shpalman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:01 amturns out that everyone going to the beach wasn't such an issue after all
Er, but they did.Lew Dolby wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:43 ambut they didn't know that at the time !!shpalman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:01 amturns out that everyone going to the beach wasn't such an issue after all
We had a lot of existing knowledge even when the pandemic began about respiratory viruses and how they transmit in general, and everything directs us to the conditions in people’s homes and workplaces.” [said Dr Müge Çevik, a lecturer in infectious diseases and medical virology at the University of St Andrews]...
“This is not a subtle picture,” he said. “The published studies were already quite clear at the time … but after the reaction to my comment I am now concerned that this is not fully understood and maybe this is something the politicians do need to factor more into their thinking. As they make their plans to get us out of this, maybe they do need to be reappraised of where the risks really lie.” [my emphasis]
Maybe, but the government had every opportunity to know their advice was unnecessarily draconian in outdoor situations. So either they hadn't bothered to listen to the experts and read the evidence, or they had but decided that they would ignore it. Neither option paints them in a particularly good light.
And eventually it's not just the police who can do it. Yesterday's rather chilling episode of The Digital Human https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000tml8 interleaved and contrasted a fun story about a 14-year internet puzzle to identify a man from a single photo captioned "My name is Satoshi" (eventually solved out of the blue with a reverse image search) and the re-voiced story of a woman in witness protection whose family have to plan their lives around never being photographed, not even by accident in the background of someone else's social media snaps, otherwise they might be tracked down.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:56 am... Similarly, people go around with a radio device that can be used to track them. Currently, this is used reactively to check up on individuals, but there is no technical reason why it shouldn't provide law enforcement with a continuous, real-time feed of the current location of nearly everyone in the country. Then, for example, if you attend a protest that turns nasty there will be no need for police to publish video stills and appeal for information about people - they can check who was there and compare the stills with their passport or driving licence photos. The few not covered can be manually checked.
Pressured rather than pressurised, surely? Maybe this is an English usage stylistic issue, but as an engineer I mean something quite different by pressurised.
[derail]