Generic Virus Thread

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, LakotaDakota said:

Think i am obviously one of the few but i have no issues at all with stuff like that, Chip me, track me, listen to my phone calls/alexa. Have 8k cameras & drones covering every single street i really don't care & not just as a response to anything virus related. Go back 6 months & would gladly say the same about general every day life.

Just checking, you’re not being serious there are you?

 

Is the argument that the innocent have nothing to fear? Or that it would make everyone concentrate on improving their general compliance with council bye laws and credit ratings?

Personally, I’d rather go for the maximum degree of personal freedom that does not result in my being alone when a vigilante / mad max gang rides in to town.

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by chrisp65

[Mjvilla]

5 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

We should not fear the police.

They are there to protect us and help us.

If we fear the police, it’s all a bit self defeating isn’t it.

There needs to be mutual respect. 

Exactly this. The police aren't there to be feared, and nor would the majority want to be. 

I try to teach my kids that police are there to protect us, who knows when they may need them. It pisses me off when I hear parents say 'that policeman is going to get you' to their kids. Completely defeats the object. 

I have a huge respect for the police and the work they do, I think I'm in a minority though. The policeman I know are all good guys. As in every case, in every walk of life there will be an arsehole. I don't think they are the norm though. 

[snowychap]

12 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Fair enough but I don’t think they should be. The more people that can get away with it the more they will.

In my opinion Engage, Explain, Encourage before enforce will just mean I’ve only been caught a few times so I should be ok for a while. 

Im not saying they’re aren’t over zealous police officers, far from it. Unfortunately I think there a lot more people that will take the piss out of the reasonable laws in place. 

I vehemently disagree with your stance and it perhaps goes to show why you confuse policing by consent with 'soft' policing.

Yes, there will be people who try things on and try to get away with more than they can and there may be more than a few who take no notice when the police try to engage, explain and encourage.

The constituency you ignore completely here, though, are those for whom 'engaging, explaining and encouraging' will work and also those for whom none of this ought to be applicable (because they are not breaking the regulations) but who are caught up in any 'enforce first and enforce only' idea who will lose respect for this law and the police because of that.

Also, the law has all of the other options (sending people home, breaking up gatherings, actually taking people home - there's a problem that it doesn't require people to say where their home is but hey, ho) in it. It's not really for the police to merely ignore all of the options that the Secretary of State for Health has put in the regulations as a range of tactics tro implement the necessary measures.

[Awol]

No democracy is also a police state, no police state is also a democracy. 

The two ideas are mutually exclusive. 

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, Mjvilla said:

Exactly this. The police aren't there to be feared, and nor would the majority want to be. 

I try to teach my kids that police are there to protect us, who knows when they may need them. It pisses me off when I hear parents say 'that policeman is going to get you' to their kids. Completely defeats the object. 

I have a huge respect for the police and the work they do, I think I'm in a minority though. The policeman I know are all good guys. As in every case, in every walk of life there will be an arsehole. I don't think they are the norm though. 

That’s interesting you say that. I did the same, when my kids were small every time we saw the police I’d repeat the same mantra, that they could help you if you were lost or someone was being horrible to you. I’d even deliberately have a short pleasant chat with police so the kids could see they were human.

But I also know, that when I was a kid, the police were a little unruly. If my kids got in to trouble, I’d take their version of events with at least as much credence as I’d give the police version. I’ve seen friends badly treated and fitted up back in the day. Doesn’t happen in my circles now. Probably a combination of posher circles and I look less of a threat / push over.

[snowychap]

24 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

I can't think why people would not want authorities to have access to this for anything other than dodgy reasons.

There will be issues about who can access the information, what qualifies as being a reasonable reason to access it and to what depth data is collected (for example, who you contact but not what is said?). Obviously it wouldn't be reasonable for any ex-partner for have access to your location etc!

You've given, in your second sentence, just a couple of reasons why data collection and retention on that kind of level is, or really should be, an issue for everyone.

You cannot know who is going to even reasonably access that data or for what purpose (e.g. the mission creep of snooping laws) and you certainly can't know who is going to unreasonably (or illegally) access it.

 

[Enda]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

I think that anyone proposing 'unorthodox' methods (without explicitly naming them) and claiming that we should be in fear of the police would get a hard time - and rightly so.

Ah yeah, I would strongly disagree with @Vive_La_Villa but he’s not doing anything wrong. Think people were being dismissive to him personally rather than debating the posts.

It’s a football discussion forum. Not unreasonable for someone to think society has lost respect for the cops.

[Davkaus]

34 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

 

There will be issues about who can access the information, what qualifies as being a reasonable reason to access it and to what depth data is collected (for example, who you contact but not what is said?). Obviously it wouldn't be reasonable for any ex-partner for have access to your location etc!

 

It certainly would need reasonable reasons. It'd certainly be unreasonable to use it to check out your ex. And then the rules would be flagrantly ignored, because there's a significant chunk of the police, presumably a minority, but there's enough of them, who think the law is a weapon for them to use, not something they need to follow themselves.

We don't need to hypothesise what would happen if the police had access to sensitive data. They already have, and they abuse it. And you'd like to give them more. They should be given the absolute minimum viable data required to do the job. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/07/police-officers-illicitly-access-police-computers-including/

Quote

 

Hundreds of police officers and staff have illicitly accessed police databases for their own ends including checking the criminal records of partners.

Freedom of Information requests show 237 officers and staff have been disciplined for accessing the highly-sensitive police national computer or other IT systems in the past two years.

Just half of the 45 forces responded to the requests, which suggests as many as 500 officers have misused databases that contain confidential personal information on millions of people, their property and the movements of vehicles across the country.

They have included a case of a police officer accessing his force’s crime management system to check on the criminal record of a woman with whom he had a four-year relationship. 

He also checked up on her credit record and financial history using the Experian data site to “reassure” himself about her background.

 

 

[jackbauer24]

7 minutes ago, snowychap said:

You've given, in your second sentence, just a couple of reasons why data collection and retention on that kind of level is, or really should be, an issue for everyone.

You cannot know who is going to even reasonably access that data or for what purpose (e.g. the mission creep of snooping laws) and you certainly can't know who is going to unreasonably (or illegally) access it.

 

There will always be a line in the sand that is arbitrary. Nothing is perfect. But, if privacy is all important, then police should not be allowed to search a paedophiles computer, you shouldn't need to prove your identity for anything and all cameras should be removed. Or, you think that everything should be open and public and even your own home is not private. The line will always be somewhere in the middle.

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, jackbauer24 said:

There will always be a line in the sand that is arbitrary. Nothing is perfect. But, if privacy is all important, then police should not be allowed to search a paedophiles computer, you shouldn't need to prove your identity for anything and all cameras should be removed. Or, you think that everything should be open and public and even your own home is not private. The line will always be somewhere in the middle.

No, the police should absolutely be allowed to search a paedo’s computer.

What they mustn’t be allowed to do, search mine, to see if there’s an off chance I might be a paedophile.

They must check the bank accounts of known criminals for ill gotten money. They must not check my accounts in the hope of finding a £120 vat scam from my 2015 accounts.

 

[Davkaus]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

They must not check my accounts in the hope of finding a £120 vat scam from my 2015 accounts.

 

This is unusually specific  

[pas5898]

Personally, 

I'd be happy for police officers to fine people £1,000 immediately, with a court summons for a future date for being outside without reason.

Today we was supposed to go on holiday, I've had this holiday, my wedding, stag do, partners hen do and our honeymoon cancelled. My step daughter is upset because there's pictures of people on Brighton beach queuing for ice creams, but she's not allowed to play with her friends out the front. 

Go outside, extend this further, risk families, you deserve to have the book thrown at you. I'd rather this ends sooner than offend some people with an authority problem. 

Not aimed at anyone here, it's just my frustration at this not being enforced enough. 

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, pas5898 said:

Personally, 

I'd be happy for police officers to fine people £1,000 immediately, with a court summons for a future date for being outside without reason.

Today we was supposed to go on holiday, I've had this holiday, my wedding, stag do, partners hen do and our honeymoon cancelled. My step daughter is upset because there's pictures of people on Brighton beach queuing for ice creams, but she's not allowed to play with her friends out the front. 

Go outside, extend this further, risk families, you deserve to have the book thrown at you. I'd rather this ends sooner than offend some people with an authority problem. 

Not aimed at anyone here, it's just my frustration at this not being enforced enough. 

We’re told we have to stay home and not use the beach I can see from the upstairs window.

Meanwhile, the sky is full of vapour trails of aircraft coming and going from the U.S..

[jackbauer24]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

No, the police should absolutely be allowed to search a paedo’s computer.

What they mustn’t be allowed to do, search mine, to see if there’s an off chance I might be a paedophile.

They must check the bank accounts of known criminals for ill gotten money. They must not check my accounts in the hope of finding a £120 vat scam from my 2015 accounts.

 

You're actual in the realm of what I'm talking about though - if there is due cause then they should have access to that data. I'm saying I have no issue with that data flagging up issues. Only discrepancies would be identified and isn't that a good thing, and fairer than luck of the draw? And that due cause is open to debate - could be that only convicted paedophiles computers get searched...or what about an active complaint...or what if they were seen acting odd around a playground...or what if they simply walked past a school?! There will always be a degree of what is reasonable to request that access.

But it's way off topic so leaving this now.

[Vive_La_Villa]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

I think that anyone proposing 'unorthodox' methods (without explicitly naming them) and claiming that we should be in fear of the police would get a hard time - and rightly so.

So if somebody had a view that the majority disagrees with they deserve a hard time? 

I was just trying to look at things from a different angle but you’re right, I’m chatting s**t.. Being from a state of a certain country with a history of police brutality I appreciate how lucky I am to be living in the Uk and how it’s police force behaves. I also thank people like yourself for ensuring it stays that way. 

I’m just frustrated with people that take the piss out of the rights this country give us.  I’ve  seen the power a little fear can have in keeping people in line but thinking about it clearly, I would never want to see that here .  I wish the ungrateful f**ks would also see how lucky they are. 

Apologies if I’ve offended anyone today.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Vive_La_Villa

[Davkaus]

2 minutes ago, pas5898 said:

 

My step daughter is upset because there's pictures of people on Brighton beach queuing for ice creams, but she's not allowed to play with her friends out the front. 

 

I completely understand your frustration, and I share it, but I think we're coming at it from opposite ends.

You see people taking the piss and want harsher punishment across the board. I see people taking the piss, getting away with it when they're clearly breaking the law, while the police seem more interested in pulling over random drivers and issuing threats about what we can buy in Tesco.

I'd like them to stop **** about trying to enforce non-laws, and direct more of their efforts at places like the beach. Stop worrying about what's in people's baskets and deal with the people actually taking the piss. the police's priority in enforcing this should be focusing on beaches and parks, breaking up gatherings rather than worrying about people's purchase history and the duration of their walks.

[chrisp65]

There is of course, a problem with saying you must not go on the beach or parkland.

[Vive_La_Villa]

12 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

There is of course, a problem with saying you must not go on the beach or parkland.

Where’s that? Looks like a lovely place to live.

[pas5898]

23 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I completely understand your frustration, and I share it, but I think we're coming at it from opposite ends.

You see people taking the piss and want harsher punishment across the board. I see people taking the piss, getting away with it when they're clearly breaking the law, while the police seem more interested in pulling over random drivers and issuing threats about what we can buy in Tesco.

I'd like them to stop **** about trying to enforce non-laws, and direct more of their efforts at places like the beach. Stop worrying about what's in people's baskets and deal with the people actually taking the piss. the police's priority in enforcing this should be focusing on beaches and parks, breaking up gatherings rather than worrying about people's purchase history and the duration of their walks.

I haven't read through the thread. It wasn't aimed at you mate, just a general rant I needed to get off my chest. I just noticed some police posts. 

The police should be on the motorways, roads and housing estates, not checking if people are buying easter eggs with their weekly shopping. 

As @chrisp65 said, the fact I can queue arse to chest in Heathrow, then fly to New York tonight but not let my kids play out the front is something that needs to addressed. As the public become more frustrated there will be some sort of mini mutiny happening. That will only result in another spike and longer restrictions. 

If anyone is outside without good reason, on the spot 1k fines with a future court summons will sort it. 

Edited April 10, 2020 by pas5898

[Genie]

4 hours ago, snowychap said:

Very questionable but by the bye:

My point is (following on from what @Genie posted about the approximate three week lag between catching the virus and death), three weeks ago on Sunday was Mothering Sunday when there will be a lot of people who won't have followed the Gov's advice (i.e. before the regulations cam in to place) and will have visited their mother/family so we might see a bit of a spike next week.

It's only a guess and I hope I'm very wrong but we'll see when the ONS publish the figures for the wk ending 19/04 (I assume they end on Sundays) in a few weeks.

It was actually 3 weeks between getting the virus and needing hospital treatment (not death) of which could also be several weeks.