News3 mins ago
A Way Out For Boris?
Amnesty for all those convicted of lockdown offences and all fines refunded.
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Fines cannot be refunded because the law was broken and the fines were legally levied.
If there is evidence in Gray’s report that people in No.10 broke the law, then they should be fined, the same as everyone else.
The broader picture, if the people who implemented the rules on everyone else are found to have routinely broke them, then their position is untenable - whether they are civil servants, ministers or higher.
If there is evidence in Gray’s report that people in No.10 broke the law, then they should be fined, the same as everyone else.
The broader picture, if the people who implemented the rules on everyone else are found to have routinely broke them, then their position is untenable - whether they are civil servants, ministers or higher.
//Yes - either prosecute the No 10 offenders...//
Not possible. As I pointed out a couple of days ago. These are "summary" offences and proceedings must begin within six months of the date of the alleged offence. The legislation was revoked from 4th July 2021 meaning no offences could have been committed later than that and any earlier offences are "out of time." I heard Ms Dick of Dock Green prattling on the telly a couple of days ago and she emphasised that the offences were summary but did not go on to explain the implications, nor did she say why her officers were investigating matters that could not be prosecuted.
Not possible. As I pointed out a couple of days ago. These are "summary" offences and proceedings must begin within six months of the date of the alleged offence. The legislation was revoked from 4th July 2021 meaning no offences could have been committed later than that and any earlier offences are "out of time." I heard Ms Dick of Dock Green prattling on the telly a couple of days ago and she emphasised that the offences were summary but did not go on to explain the implications, nor did she say why her officers were investigating matters that could not be prosecuted.
NJ
I heard Ms Dick of Dock Green prattling on the telly a couple of days ago and she emphasised that the offences were summary but did not go on to explain the implications, nor did she say why her officers were investigating matters that could not be prosecuted.
———
As I said the other day
The Met have been forced to act in light of the weight of public opinion because so many of them were fined for similar offences at the time
Gray is just backing herself up in case the ministerial code has indeed been broken in terms of Boris lying to parliament
Notwithstanding the fact that now she has spoken to Downing St officers thrn questions will rightly be asked of the Met and their actions(or perceived inaction) at the time too
Plus I have no doubt that Cummings has copies of everything anyway
I heard Ms Dick of Dock Green prattling on the telly a couple of days ago and she emphasised that the offences were summary but did not go on to explain the implications, nor did she say why her officers were investigating matters that could not be prosecuted.
———
As I said the other day
The Met have been forced to act in light of the weight of public opinion because so many of them were fined for similar offences at the time
Gray is just backing herself up in case the ministerial code has indeed been broken in terms of Boris lying to parliament
Notwithstanding the fact that now she has spoken to Downing St officers thrn questions will rightly be asked of the Met and their actions(or perceived inaction) at the time too
Plus I have no doubt that Cummings has copies of everything anyway
which luminary said that this thread should be in "news"
hey lady nothing in news should be in news on AB
it ( they ) should be in the right wing guff section
I also cannot see the point of the Met investigating these things now and I’m sure it’s the last thing they want to be doing.
well we know that for chrissakes - they havent dont anything!
hey lady nothing in news should be in news on AB
it ( they ) should be in the right wing guff section
I also cannot see the point of the Met investigating these things now and I’m sure it’s the last thing they want to be doing.
well we know that for chrissakes - they havent dont anything!
'The legislation was revoked from 4th July 2021 meaning no offences could have been committed later than that and any earlier offences are "out of time."'
If they were out of time, do you really think the Met would be investigating them?
The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, Section 64A states,
"(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, a magistrates' court may try an information (or written charge) relating to an offence created by or under this Act if the information is laid (or the charge is issued)—
***(a) before the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the date of the commission of the offence, and
(b) 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."*** [emphasis added]
If they were out of time, do you really think the Met would be investigating them?
The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, Section 64A states,
"(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, a magistrates' court may try an information (or written charge) relating to an offence created by or under this Act if the information is laid (or the charge is issued)—
***(a) before the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the date of the commission of the offence, and
(b) 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."*** [emphasis added]
Thanks Corby.
I'd looked for 3 year exceptions to the six month rule before I posted but obviously not well enough.
When you suggest that enquiries would not continue if the offences were not subject to prosecution, that may be true. However, even if they were not actionable it is quite likely that enquiries would still proceed in these circumstances. There is nothing to prevent the police offering fixed penalties which could not be pursued if unpaid, and nothing to prevent the recipient paying them. They (the police) often do this with speeding allegations and many people have been known to pay them. If offences found to have been committed it might well be good PR for the recipients to pay them to demonstrate that "we are all in this together."
In any case thanks again for the correction.
I'd looked for 3 year exceptions to the six month rule before I posted but obviously not well enough.
When you suggest that enquiries would not continue if the offences were not subject to prosecution, that may be true. However, even if they were not actionable it is quite likely that enquiries would still proceed in these circumstances. There is nothing to prevent the police offering fixed penalties which could not be pursued if unpaid, and nothing to prevent the recipient paying them. They (the police) often do this with speeding allegations and many people have been known to pay them. If offences found to have been committed it might well be good PR for the recipients to pay them to demonstrate that "we are all in this together."
In any case thanks again for the correction.
Boris' bottle of wine & piece of birthday cake look farcically insignificant looking at the continuous shenanigans within the European Parliament;
https:/
https:/
1 to 18 of 18
Latest Posts
Two Yellow Cards But Not Sent Off
Football11 mins ago
Met Officer Threatened To Arrest A...
News11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
