Jump to content

Copperface

Members
  • Posts

    1,802
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Copperface

  1. 46 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

    It's ongoing...they are being investigated by this Gray person, and then we'll see. Starmer can call for Johnson's resignation, but that will just more likely make tory MPs be more supportive of Johnson.

    This is really dry and  boring so apologise in advance but I was mistaken about the six month time bar for such offences.

    It looks as though the original Coronavirus Act 2020 provisions were, and still are, subject to the six month time bar as summary offences, in line with all other summary offences.

    Except one category:

    It looks like the Statutory Instrument Health Regulations, under the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 (which I was banging on about for ages when  people were hoping the CV Act would be lapsed) actually has a specific exemption from the Magistrates Court Act which normally governs all summary offences. So offences like these parties etc.  technically could be prosecuted which is something I was unaware of - happy to say I was mistaken.

    https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/coronavirus-health-protection-coronavirus-restrictions-england-regulations-2020

    Prosecutors are reminded that the issuing of criminal proceedings is likely to have been a matter of last resort.

    Offences under the Coronavirus Regulations are not governed by the 6 month time limit (from the offence date) set out in section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts. The Regulations are made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and section 64A of this Act states that the time limit for proceedings is:

    ·         before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the date on which evidence which the prosecutor thinks is sufficient to justify the proceedings comes to the prosecutor's knowledge; and

    ·         within 3 years of the date of the commission of the offence.

    Since offences under the Coronavirus Regulations are usually charged by the police, in most cases the police officer will be “the prosecutor” for the purposes of this statutory time limit provision. It should be noted that:

    ·         Where an offence is charged 6 months or more after the date of the breach, the police officer who makes the charging decision should produce a certificate to state the date on which evidence which they think is sufficient to justify the proceedings came to their knowledge.

    ·         The relevant date will depend on the review process operated by the particular police force. For instance, in cases where a FPN is issued, the relevant date could be any of the following: the date of breach; the date when the FPN was issued; the date after the expiry of the 28 day period for payment of a FPN; or later, when an evidential review for charging purposes is completed.

    However, the police policy that retrospective breaches won’t be looked at for a variety of reasons is obviously still in place (in my mind quite rightly). That was apparently based on the premise that enforcement of the regs was a last resort and simply designed to as a health control measure to help prevent the spread of covid. Retrospective breaches wouldn’t really help that at all as the risk has already passed. All of the current cases going through the courts for that period are apparently where an FPN was issued at the time of the offence or non payment of fines etc.

    • Like 1
  2. Back in this morning from Kyiv, hopefully for the last time (Putin permitting), bottle of Old Pulteney 12 opened, Cherry Cola gammon with maple glaze nearly done. Christmas starts here. Only five months to Bearded Theory so not long to wait. Have a great Christmas all, and look after yourselves.

  3. On 10/24/2021 at 2:00 PM, Copperface said:

    If a complaint is made, it has to be investigated to determine whether there are any offences being committed and/or take advice from CPS.  

    As far as I can see, there aren't and I'm quite sure that will will soon be made clear. However, it still has to be done formally. There might be local byelaws or club policies that it violates and if so, will be referred to those responsible. 

    it's being looked at, not prosecuted.

     

    On 10/24/2021 at 10:02 AM, pink_triangle said:

    Police are now investigating a Crystal Palace banner highlighting human right abuses in Saudi Arabia. My view is the right to protest should be protected, this is a complete waste of police time.

     

    On 10/24/2021 at 11:40 AM, charlierc said:

     

    Saw the banner and I think it was about more than just that. Perhaps not surprisingly it went down more negatively among Newcastle fans than others. I'm surprised it's needed such a referral tbh.

     

    On 10/24/2021 at 1:49 PM, WS_Jack_III said:

    I don't really understand why it's being investigated, maybe it was a little too full on with it's imagery? 

    Spoke to a mate who is a Leeds fan and he said exactly the same.

    And  there we go......

     

    • Upvote 1
  4. 22 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

    flu doesn't kill 100s of thousands...I mean it did in 1918, but not these days, not yet anyway.

    Flu deaths past five years, including the really bad year of 2017/8.

    Take out that year and the average is well under 10k per year.

    Source https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895233/Surveillance_Influenza_and_other_respiratory_viruses_in_the_UK_2019_to_2020_FINAL.pdf#page=54

    flu.jpg

  5. 1 hour ago, efcfanwirral said:

     

    IF "something needs to be done" I definitely think they're looking at the wrong things.

    Paton is another HART loon. I'm sure that there are lots of genuine points but sourcing uncited graphs and information from Dave off Twitter really undermines any arguments either way. He's clearly using selective cropped data to make one narrow point ignoring wider issues and context. 

    Someone even posted Adam someone (@essexPR? ) the other day, a TOWIE pub landlord, dispensing Covid wisdom whoever will listen. Community radio presenters with a degree in philosophy, mathematicians, GBNews....etc.people need to give their head a wobble and not take every word these grifters say without sourcing and verifying the facts. Some of them have been found out out and deleted accounts but the same stuff still pops upon here. Use cited and verifiable information such as ONS and Gov.uk otherwise you're basically doing the Covid tango on the fringe.

    Some of these loon Twitter dumps underline why some people still need cooking instructions on tins of soup.

     

     

     

  6. 2 minutes ago, WS_Jack_III said:

    I don't really understand why it's being investigated, maybe it was a little too full on with it's imagery? 

     

    If a complaint is made, it has to be investigated to determine whether there are any offences being committed and/or take advice from CPS.  

    As far as I can see, there aren't and I'm quite sure that will will soon be made clear. However, it still has to be done formally. There might be local byelaws or club policies that it violates and if so, will be referred to those responsible. 

    it's being looked at, not prosecuted.

    As an aside, as a local and one who was at SJP last week, the atmosphere around the toon is great. The general opinion on the furore around the Saudi involvement is that very few of the other PL clubs have any moral high ground in this, it's simply the way things are......owners with questionable track records are rife in the PL (even at Palace see Blitzer and Blackstone) and the only reason NUFC are being targetted is that several other clubs are now cacking themselves about the arrival of more competition. Water off a ducks back.

  7. How long has it been since I last heard of Pepe Deluxe?

    This new album Phantom Cabinet Vol. 1 is great, although they do seem to go to the far end of a fart to get the "right" sound according to the story behind it.

     

  8. 15 hours ago, steviewevie said:

    yeah, and bring back smoking indoors.

    Ha!

    The thing with that and retweeting donkeys like Snowdon and his dodgy lobbying 'charity', is that the IEA has long been known to be part sponsored by BAT and Philip Morris among others, so you may not be far off the mark.

    It is slightly worrying that some of the featured tweets on here come from loons like Snowdon, Spivey-Green, even Tom Harwood, and some seem to take them as gospel without understanding any context of why they are promoted.

  9. 2 hours ago, Losing my hair said:

    Much as I love Green Man and Glastonbury, if I was only allowed to do 1 festival a year it would be EOTR.

    Yup. Spot on. I've already got a couple rolled over to next year and have just bought tix for EotR but I'm seriously thinking of binning Glastonbury as I just can't be arsed any more with lots of aspects of it. EotR is my idea of the perfect festival.

  10. 12 minutes ago, Mardy said:

    Don’t think so. There was a group of more senior attendees (at a guess late 50s/early 69s?) who had flashing lights attached to their hair/hats/waistcoats/rings. Wandered in about half way through Anna Meredith, pushed past some people on the left hand side and then stood there distracting the fuck out of everybody nearby and basically fucking up the show. Attention seeking arseholes. Didn’t seem to understand that it wasn’t all about them. 

    That group (two couples) are there every year (and at Glastonbury).

    Almost fixtures now. Been going all the years that I have.

  11. 3 hours ago, xxialac said:

    I don't think people are "properly upset"

    Just pointing out that with less than 3 days to go, they obviously have the programme in place and set times drawn up...so why not take a picture of the times that they can describe as provisional, post it on twitter and keep punters happy?

    Didn't Green Man do the same though?

    One mate was a bit grumpy that they had to buy a program to get any stage times.

     

×
×
  • Create New...