Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Would you report people to the police for for breaking the conditions of the Covid 19 lockdown

Would you report individuals or groups to the police just for violating the rules of the lockdown?


  • Total voters
    124
We've seen a complete reversal of Policing since that first disasterous weekend here - no checkpoints, or challenging farmers who were ploughing their fields - it's pretty much all at hub points like supermarkets advising people on SD and stuff like only one adult (if possible) per household going shopping. They've also been giving out Easter eggs to houses with the NHS rainbows in the windows - and concentrating that in the more deprived areas in the district.
Nah. They’re going round in riot vans bullying homeless women.

SpookyFrank has seen them doing it!
 
Running through a local park yesterday, there was quite a few sunbathers, 2 teenagers playing 1 on 1 footy, tackling each other etc. All would have been visible from the roads, where police vehicles passed a number of times, so it seems unlikely reporting them would have much effect
 
Talk about seeing things I can't imagine, well if you'd seen the things I've seen you'd hate coppers too. From outright hate crimes to the wall of silence you get from the entire fucking lot of them when people try and seek recourse.

Just yesterday I saw four of them bowl up in a fucking riot van just to move on one homeless woman. Not to get her any support, not to check on her welfare, just to get her to fuck off somewhere else. That's what they do for the most vulnerable in society, kick them when they're down. Or just ignore them altogether, as they did for all those girls in Rochdale and Telford.
It’s almost like it’s a nuanced situation, with complex power dynamics, and incredibly wide ranging roles within our society, with many excellent and principled individuals and some who take advantage of their position.
 
Not really bringing out the best in you, this situation, is it.

You know, you posting that is much more personal and unpleasant than me making one post where I'm somewhat sarcastic about a topic. Apart from that I haven't posted in any way that justifies your comment. (Which does hurt, BTW, as you clearly intended, so well done).

No one can blame them.

The issue is how this virus spreads.

I'm not sure you read the whole post. They were keyworkers' children at school.

It's interesting about the dog walking rules in Spain and Italy. Obviously they are stricter than here (though I can't get the logic behind fining minors for walking dogs) but from some people on here you get the impression that dog walking isn't allowed at all - that the lockdown literally means everyone not a medical worker isn't allowed to leave the house for any reason at all. JuanTwoThree maybe you could correct me, but people are allowed to go the supermarket, take supplies to vulnerable people, and so on, right? The main difference seems to be that daily exercise hasn't been included as a specific reason.
 
It’s almost like it’s a nuanced situation, with complex power dynamics, and incredibly wide ranging roles within our society, with many excellent and principled individuals and some who take advantage of their position.

The excellent principled ones cover for the scumbags, ergo their principles are for shit.

e2a: Putting this thread on ignore now.
 
It depends is the answer, like all other infractions of the 'rules' I would make a judgement call based on the situation and my own moral code, I wouldn't hesitate to report someone who I thought was defrauding old people out of money but equally would not report someone for downloading movies or having a spliff in the privacy of their home.
They're all illegal but the world isn't black and white and we all get to make that moral judgement and you have to apply the same standards to maintaining the lockdown as you do to anything else.
People calling plod to report violations of the lockdown, well I'm sure that the number of genuine calls is dwarfed by people trying to settle personal scores whilst cloaking themselves in the aura of moral outrage.
 
This report shocked me tbh ,

Treat such reports with scepticism, though. They will be reporting exactly what the police have told them without any kind of fact-checking. Seen it before, particularly with local press, with utterly fictitious versions of events from plod being reported unquestioningly.

In particular, this bit 'GMP received over a THOUSAND reports of people breaking coronavirus lockdown rules last weekend' doesn't really mean anything. How many of those reports were substantiated? They don't say, but that's the relevant fact, not how many people rang in with a complaint.
 
There were eight of them on Paddington Rec the other day. They mostly went round in pairs, telling off couples who were sunbathing. Of course when they approached the miscreants, they created groups of 4. :facepalm:
And I've yet to see an explanation as to how people who clearly live together sunbathing together and away from everybody else in a park are spreading the virus.

Seems to be about people daring to look like they're enjoying themselves as much as anything.
 
It's interesting about the dog walking rules in Spain and Italy. Obviously they are stricter than here (though I can't get the logic behind fining minors for walking dogs) but from some people on here you get the impression that dog walking isn't allowed at all - that the lockdown literally means everyone not a medical worker isn't allowed to leave the house for any reason at all. JuanTwoThree maybe you could correct me, but people are allowed to go the supermarket, take supplies to vulnerable people, and so on, right? The main difference seems to be that daily exercise hasn't been included as a specific reason.

If I've got it all right you can go to a nearby supermarket, on foot, by yourself. Two people can drive to a shop but not shop together. Co-workers and people driving non-drivers to their work over one km is allowed, two per car with the passenger in the offside rear seat (9 seaters can take 2 passengers). I have a sworn statement from her co. on the dashboard that my wife is a supermarket worker if I am stopped after taking her up , and I have no shopping with time-stamped receipt on board.

People have been fined for only buying beer because the police have a list of essential foods, you can buy other things but there must be essentials too in a substantial purchase. All non-food and non-essential aisles have been taped off.

You can leave supplies for vulnerable people, I think.

No outside exercise, which includes communal gardens, gyms, pools in blocks of flats.

The dog thing is because young people were out for hours in groups, each with the family dog. So it's only registered adult owners who can walk their dogs a limited distance.

Spain fucked up at first with football matches and massive marches but since the 16th it's been serious.

Dutch or British troops on the streets (mainland obvs) are probably filling sandbags and rescuing plucky pensioners. Here having the army so visible and acting as cops has a different resonance for anybody over 60, but it's being accepted as far as I can see.
 
Last edited:
And I've yet to see an explanation as to how people who clearly live together sunbathing together and away from everybody else in a park are spreading the virus.

Seems to be about people daring to look like they're enjoying themselves as much as anything.
It's a broken windows policy but it does seem petty.

Me and Mrs S are going to troll them if they're there this weekend. Lie on one side of the park, wait for them to get within about 20 yards of us, then walk round and do it on the other side.
 
Last edited:
Treat such reports with scepticism, though. They will be reporting exactly what the police have told them without any kind of fact-checking. Seen it before, particularly with local press, with utterly fictitious versions of events from plod being reported unquestioningly.

In particular, this bit 'GMP received over a THOUSAND reports of people breaking coronavirus lockdown rules last weekend' doesn't really mean anything. How many of those reports were substantiated? They don't say, but that's the relevant fact, not how many people rang in with a complaint.

There's some quite detailed figures from GMP . Normally in debates on crime the arguement is that police figures of reported crime and anti social behavior ( ie people rang in with a complaint) underestimate the actual level of crime and anti social behaviour. However in this case you seem to be suggesting that its the other way around?
If , going on your experience locally, the Police create for the press fictitious versions of eevents , what would be their motive for doing this during a viral epidemic?

There were 1,132 coronavirus-related breaches reported between Saturday and Tuesday, the force said.

That included 494 house parties - some with DJs, fireworks and bouncy castles - and 166 street parties.

One woman in Bury became the first person in Greater Manchester to be charged under the Coronavirus Act 2020 after police had to repeatedly shut down one of the parties.

Greater Manchester Police also had to deal with 122 different groups gathering to play sports, 173 more gatherings in parks and 112 incidents of anti-social behaviour and public disorder.
 
There's some quite detailed figures from GMP . Normally in debates on crime the arguement is that police figures of reported crime and anti social behavior ( ie people rang in with a complaint) underestimate the actual level of crime and anti social behaviour. However in this case you seem to be suggesting that its the other way around?
If , going on your experience locally, the Police create for the press fictitious versions of eevents , what would be their motive for doing this during a viral epidemic?
You miss the point of those stats. They are the numbers of reports, not the numbers of actual things the police found to be happening. As for the final bit, '173 more gatherings in parks' could mean anything really, given how coppers are acting in parks.

As to their motive to present the situation in this way now? To make themselves sound useful, to get the extra powers they're after. All kinds of reasons. But really, when coppers lie their heads off, sometimes I do scratch my head and wonder why. You really have to ask them.
 
He literally has no clue. He’s just simply never seen the work the police do in protecting the most vulnerable in society. Those with mental health issues, welfare checks, the drunk and incapacitated, the homeless on spice, the domestic violence victims, running MARAC, runaway kids, the elderly wandering with dementia, the injured in road traffic accidents, child protection both online paedophiles and offline rapists and beaters and neglect, trafficked women, modern slavery. And that’s before they get on to helping the victim of other crimes, robbery, burglary, rape, murder.

Our police officers stand on the front line of ALL of that. I see them at work a lot in my line of work. They see and hear things that SpookyFrank cannot imagine, cos he’s so naive he doesn’t think you need anyone there. They place themselves in danger routinely, and they’re placing themselves in danger now doing their jobs in the middle of a pandemic. Comments like Franks above are an embarrassment. Go back to sixth form college.
Whilst agreeing with a lot you have said, I also know a police officer who admits to kicking homeless people in their sleeping bags for fun and said his favourite thing is taking their tents away. For fun. He was reported for this when he started his training from PCSO to police but he’s now a serving officer. He’s an angry aggressive ex-army man who actually frightens me.

When you see and hear that stuff or have been on the receiving end of police brutality or corruption or seen how it has affected those around you it’s actually really hard to balance that with the good that some officers do.
 
And I've yet to see an explanation as to how people who clearly live together sunbathing together and away from everybody else in a park are spreading the virus.

Seems to be about people daring to look like they're enjoying themselves as much as anything.

Because once some people start to do it, more do, and spaces rapidly become more crowded. And other behaviours will creep in.
 
Because once some people start to do it, more do, and spaces rapidly become more crowded. And other behaviours will creep in.
And yet, I was out in Regent's Park at the weekend, and there were lots of people doing this and doing it safely. It's a bogus argument in this instance, imo.
 
You miss the point of those stats. They are the numbers of reports, not the numbers of actual things the police found to be happening. As for the final bit, '173 more gatherings in parks' could mean anything really, given how coppers are acting in parks.

As to their motive to present the situation in this way now? To make themselves sound useful, to get the extra powers they're after. All kinds of reasons. But really, when coppers lie their heads off, sometimes I do scratch my head and wonder why. You really have to ask them.

Large numbers of 'crime' are recorded by reported rather than investigated , anti social behaviour, hate crime, including some thefts and burglaries. Not sure what extra powers the Police would be after to be honest normally they are only too pleased to reduce being called out with such a diminishing work force.
 
Whilst agreeing with a lot you have said, I also know a police officer who admits to kicking homeless people in their sleeping bags for fun and said his favourite thing is taking their tents away. For fun. He was reported for this when he started his training from PCSO to police but he’s now a serving officer. He’s an angry aggressive ex-army man who actually frightens me.

When you see and hear that stuff or have been on the receiving end of police brutality or corruption or seen how it has affected those around you it’s actually really hard to balance that with the good that some officers do.

It's quite possible to recognise that lots of individual coppers are arseholes, and even that the institution is problematic and would not be required in an ideal world. But Frank's implication that he'd never call them is clearly ridiculous. Of course he would if e.g. he saw a rape in which he couldn't intervene, or thought he had credible information that a bomb had been planted. To pretend otherwise is just sub-sixth-form posturing.
 
Back
Top Bottom