Boating officially open says DEFRA

[canvey]

I agree. We face two idiocies.

Being able to stay overnight is not permitted but driving back and forward, stopping at numerous petrol stations, dragging possibile viruses back and forward each time. But staying put is not.

Then they've cut access time to between 9.30 and 4.30 at the weekends, meaning literally half the potential time to do the work.

Half the time to do the work means double the number of trips being required, means numerous times more risk of spread and infection.

Which is why I wonder if the RYA is out "voice" as they claim, who is our brain?

Seems to me they are going further than the government is, while the Angling Trust is fighting back on the side of reason.

 

[jordanbasset]

There is no chance in hell they will do this. Some friends of ours went down to their second home in Cornwall, which in my view is their absolute right as they bought it and pay tax etc on it. they are not harming anyone, acted sensibly, did not flout themselves. Of course someone reported them so the Police came around. They very apologetically issued a fine - £100 I think - and said that they would not bother them again. If the Police start arresting people and doing DNA etc etc then there is effective anarchy and we live in a Police state so the least of all our problems is spending a night at your second home or boat. As has been said by others, it is time to be sensible and pragmatic and staying in your second home or on your boat falls into both.

ps i didnt hear of any arrests for flouting social distance rules at the rallies this weekend.

Yes they would not need to do that because the vast majority of people would give their name and address, I was responding to Assasin's post that you could just refuse the details and they could do nothing about it, they can but 99.9% of the time they don't need to

As to arrests at the demonstration, I don't think many if any they were made, neither at the over crowded beaches and other beauty spots. Some people have decided which laws they will obey and which they wont, (maybe taking their lead from Government people) okay as long as they don't take the moral high ground with criticising others for breaking the law while breaking the law themselves

 

[Blue Sunray]

There is no chance in hell they will do this. Some friends of ours went down to their second home in Cornwall, which in my view is their absolute right as they bought it and pay tax etc on it. they are not harming anyone, acted sensibly, did not flout themselves. Of course someone reported them so the Police came around. They very apologetically issued a fine - £100 I think - and said that they would not bother them again. If the Police start arresting people and doing DNA etc etc then there is effective anarchy and we live in a Police state so the least of all our problems is spending a night at your second home or boat. As has been said by others, it is time to be sensible and pragmatic and staying in your second home or on your boat falls into both.

ps i didnt hear of any arrests for flouting social distance rules at the rallies this weekend.

You should perhaps do some research into the meaning of the words that you are using.

 

[canvey]

Yes they would not need to do that because the vast majority of people would give their name and address,

Oh, yes, let me guess ... the police have a choice of fining a few people, which one are they going to choose;

a) a dozen angry hoodie Black Life Matters protesters doing criminal damage to a Grade II listed statute surrounded by 100 masked Antifa demonstrators on the dole, or​

​

b) an elderly white couple, standing in the door of a second home they already who they are because their computer tells them?​

Ha ha ha. I know which ... the ones they think they are more likely to get their £100 petrol money out of the easiest.

I think the point of an "effective anarchy" is that it would be the opposite of a police state.

 

[Greg2]

Oh, yes, let me guess ... the police have a choice of arresting a few people, which one are they going to choose;

a) a dozen angry hoodie Black Life Matters protesters doing criminal damage to a Grade II listed statute surrounded by 100 masked Antifa demonstrators on the dole, or​

​

b) an elderly white couple, standing in the door of a second home they already who they are because their computer tells them?​

Ha ha ha. I know which ... the ones they think they are more likely to get their £100 petrol money out of the easiest.

I think the point of an "effective anarchy" is that it would be the opposite of a police state.

Not really a great comparison - the white elderly couple would never be candidates for arrest and many cops on those demonstrations will have wanted to make some arrests and get a grip of the situation. There was a strategy that sought to avoid confrontation - not one many would subscribe to but easy to be critical when not charged with the responsibility of policing such a politically charged demonstration.

Perhaps this sort of stuff is best left for the Lounge and we get back to chatting about boating ?
.

 

[canvey]

Sorry, edited in order to avoid semantic pedantry to "fining". In the story above, the couple were fined. No one was in Bristol.

 

[Assassin]

If they cannot ascertain your name and address and suspect you have committed an offence they can arrest you and if you continue to refuse and they have sufficient evidence to charge they can put you before the next available magistrates court
They also have the power to take fingerprints and DNA without your permission when you are under arrest

No they cant, this is an absolute right and they even tell you this when they caution you, they tell you that you "have the right to remain silent" so they arrest you for upholding your right to remain silent; then as you claim, they put you in a magistrates court, AKA a star chamber, they who are they charging??? without a name they cannot bring a charge against someone as they need the name to bring a charge against. They have NO right to take your intellectual property as this is YOUR intellectual property and they are then committing a criminal offence themselves; this is little more than fear mongering to try to force you to comply with their requests, and considerable LAWFUL Precedents exist regarding this.

 

[Assassin]

Following FMOTL type advice, no matter how well intentioned, is unlikely to go well for the person concerned.

However on subsequent review, all of the prosecutions under the act turned out to be unsound and 6 percent under the regulations were similarly incorrect.

I suspect a slightly greater amount of FPN would be found to be defective but few will risk a trip to the magistrates for the sake of £30

A very interesting reply and one which is used by many people, FMOTL are simply one of those who apparently use this, the others are the major criminals who get away with so much as they have expensive legal/lawful representation.

 

[Assassin]

If they cannot ascertain your name and address and suspect you have committed an offence they can arrest you and if you continue to refuse and they have sufficient evidence to charge they can put you before the next available magistrates court
They also have the power to take fingerprints and DNA without your permission when you are under arrest

Have you noted the hypocracy here, they arrest you for not giving your name and then caution you and clearly state "you have the right to remain silent" so are telling you that you don't have to give your name.

 

[Bouba]

Have you noted the hypocracy here, they arrest you for not giving your name and then caution you and clearly state "you have the right to remain silent" so are telling you that you don't have to give your name.

You heard of two rights don’t make a wrong? Well they do, you have the right not to give your name and they have the right to arrest you

 

[jordanbasset]

They have NO right to take your intellectual property as this is YOUR intellectual property and they are then committing a criminal offence themselves; this is little more than fear mongering to try to force you to comply with their requests, and considerable LAWFUL Precedents exist regarding this.

You are wrong, but as others have said this is not the place to discuss it

 

[Blue Sunray]

No they cant, this is an absolute right and they even tell you this when they caution you, they tell you that you "have the right to remain silent" so they arrest you for upholding your right to remain silent; then as you claim, they put you in a magistrates court, AKA a star chamber, they who are they charging??? without a name they cannot bring a charge against someone as they need the name to bring a charge against. They have NO right to take your intellectual property as this is YOUR intellectual property and they are then committing a criminal offence themselves; this is little more than fear mongering to try to force you to comply with their requests, and considerable LAWFUL Precedents exist regarding this.

Utter, utter balderdash.

 

[PDF]

Assassin, they don't tell you 'you have the right to remain silent' in the UK, the caution is worded differently. Some of your advice and logic regarding Police powers is way off the mark and I would advise caution to anyone who takes what you say as accurate.

 

[Greg2]

Have you noted the hypocracy here, they arrest you for not giving your name and then caution you and clearly state "you have the right to remain silent" so are telling you that you don't have to give your name.

With apologies for perpetuating this discussion on here, I think some facts might be helpful.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the caution. It must be given where a constable suspects the commission of an offence before questions or further questions are put to a suspect in order to ensure that they are admissible in court. There are exceptions to the need to caution someone, one of which is questions to establish a person’s identity. On the issue of arrest, there are various circumstances where an arrest can be made (e.g. people who are in the act or reasonably suspected to be responsible for an offence) and in all cases an arrest must be ‘necessary’. One of the criterion under ‘necessary’ is ‘to ascertain a suspect’s name or address (ie, if the police officer doesn’t know the person’s name/address; can’t readily find out their name/ address, or reasonably believes that the suspect has given a false name/address)’. In your other post you refer to intellectual property and the Police committing an offence by requiring a name and address - this is simply incorrect.

Once in custody someone who refuses to provide their name and address will be detained for the purpose of investigation and establishing their identity. In the unlikely event that the police are unable to do the latter and have sufficient evidence to support a charge then, in theory, they can be kept in detention to appear before a court, where a minor matter would probably be dealt with on the day. If this was not possible and the idiot (by this stage I think a pejorative description is appropriate) still refused to disclose their identity a remand in custody pending trial would be a possibility.

All academic of course because their aren’t too many who would mistakenly cling on to some perceived right not to disclose who they are for the sake of a minor fine for a relatively minor offence (i.e. breach of Covid restrictions).

Anyway, back to boating......?
.

 

[ari]

No they cant, this is an absolute right and they even tell you this when they caution you, they tell you that you "have the right to remain silent" so they arrest you for upholding your right to remain silent; then as you claim, they put you in a magistrates court, AKA a star chamber, they who are they charging??? without a name they cannot bring a charge against someone as they need the name to bring a charge against. They have NO right to take your intellectual property as this is YOUR intellectual property and they are then committing a criminal offence themselves; this is little more than fear mongering to try to force you to comply with their requests, and considerable LAWFUL Precedents exist regarding this.

So you reckon that every single person in jail right now could have avoided it by refusing to give their 'intellectual property' (AKA 'name') which would have completely stymied their prosecution as 'without a name they cannot bring a charge against someone as they need the name to bring a charge against'.

And you think that no one ever thought to mention this to all the hardened criminals doing time right now? You knew, but no one else did? Obviously we all know now and can operate above the law with impunity, but no lawyer, no barrister, no QC, no one in jail, no one at all in the history of the modern judicial system ever thought to mention this massive loophole that makes everyone immune from any prosecution to anyone else?

Yup, that seems legit! I'm off to rob a bank!

 

[canvey]

Once in custody someone who refuses to provide their name and address will be detained for the purpose of investigation and establishing their identity.

At which point you discover that all the claims about the Police/State not holding onto finger print and DNA samples and other personal information are all lies.

That freeman stuff is all bonkers. If anyone get off using it, it's because the police just can be bothered wasting their time on yet another bonkers person while they are busy acting as taxi drivers for all the drunks and care in the community cases.