HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

These "rules" are designed to protect us all, it's in everyone's interest to abide by them.

I find your attitude towards covid protection (for the common good) distasteful.

valvesRus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:51 pm These "rules" are designed to protect us all, it's in everyone's interest to abide by them.

I find your attitude towards covid protection (for the common good) distasteful.

These covid rules were invented by politicians because they wanted to stay in a job.
And they were fearful that not introducing these laws would result in bad publicity for them and increase their chances of losing the next election.

They were also introduced by politicians with a mindset that the people are the pawns of the government.

And regardless of what the rules were designed for, it's very clear how they are being used by police officers.
They are being used as an easy way to meet quotas.
They are being used by butt hurt police officers to impose their will on anyone that stands up to them. Or on anyone that they don't personally like.

Do you really think that when the 2 photographers outside HMP Lincoln were given a Covid fine that that was protecting anyone?
Do you really think that giving this delivery driver a Covid fine is protecting anyone?
Do you really think that fining 2 women in Derbyshire that went for a walk 5 miles from their home was protecting anyone?

This "protect us all" rhetoric was the same rhetoric used by the American Government in the wake of 9/11 to torture people.
It's the same rhetoric used by the Nazis: "protect us from the Jews and the Bolsheviks".
It was the same rhetoric used by Stalin "protect us from evil capitalism".

You can fall for this propoganda. I won't.

History shows us that there's always a significant amount of "boot lickers" that will support totalitarian behaviour from government employees.

Lindsayt wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:11 pm

savvypaul wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:32 am
Of course.

But, had he been warned before?

Had he previously refused to wear a mask?

We don't know.

Social media is the perfect catalyst for instant reaction. Not saying that's necessarily the motive, here, but...we don't know.

And on the other hand - as far as we know - this delivery driver had never received any warnings.

Innocent until proven guilty.

What do you think the chances are that this delivery driver had been warned by this police officer and he still didn't put a mask on?
I'd rate it as 0.1%.

And he may well have stayed more than 2 metres away from anyone else in the chemists.

The only thing we know is that we don't know if he had previous warnings or not.

If he had previous advice and warnings, and refused to comply, then the fine seems justified.

If he hadn't had previous advice and warning, then a fine would seem premature.

The requirement to wear a mask in a shop is a law that was passed by a democratically elected parliament. Nothing totalitarian about it.

The fine being £200 the probabiliyy is that it was not a first offence. Thev c**t got what he deserved and if he does it again the fine will be greater. We are in a pandemic which has killed 120,000+ FFS.

savvypaul wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:36 pm
The requirement to wear a mask in a shop is a law that was passed by a democratically elected parliament. Nothing totalitarian about it.

Absolutely Paul.



I could go as far as to say that some officers are over enthusiastic in the way these rules are policed, or perhaps they were not given proper guidance ?

But it's a long, long way from being a Police state.

My biggest worry is that some sections of the population will completely forget about "the rules" and lead us ALL into another lock-down. Then public order offences will increase greatly and I fear the consequences .

valvesRus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:23 pm

savvypaul wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:36 pm
The requirement to wear a mask in a shop is a law that was passed by a democratically elected parliament. Nothing totalitarian about it.

My biggest worry is that some sections of the population will completely forget about "the rules" and lead us ALL into another lock-down. Then public order offences will increase greatly and I fear the consequences .

Given our history and culture, and the length of time that restrictions have been in place, I'd say that compliance is very high. Someone refusing to wear a mask is very much the exception.

Lindsayt wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:34 pm

valvesRus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:51 pm These "rules" are designed to protect us all, it's in everyone's interest to abide by them.

I find your attitude towards covid protection (for the common good) distasteful.

These covid rules were invented by politicians because they wanted to stay in a job.
And they were fearful that not introducing these laws would result in bad publicity for them and increase their chances of losing the next election.

They were also introduced by politicians with a mindset that the people are the pawns of the government.

And regardless of what the rules were designed for, it's very clear how they are being used by police officers.
They are being used as an easy way to meet quotas.
They are being used by butt hurt police officers to impose their will on anyone that stands up to them. Or on anyone that they don't personally like.

Do you really think that when the 2 photographers outside HMP Lincoln were given a Covid fine that that was protecting anyone?
Do you really think that giving this delivery driver a Covid fine is protecting anyone?
Do you really think that fining 2 women in Derbyshire that went for a walk 5 miles from their home was protecting anyone?

This "protect us all" rhetoric was the same rhetoric used by the American Government in the wake of 9/11 to torture people.
It's the same rhetoric used by the Nazis: "protect us from the Jews and the Bolsheviks".
It was the same rhetoric used by Stalin "protect us from evil capitalism".

You can fall for this propoganda. I won't.

History shows us that there's always a significant amount of "boot lickers" that will support totalitarian behaviour from government employees.

I refer you back to my comment re seatbelts. They (our democratically elected government, (and, no, I didn't vote for them.)) made it a law: it doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, if you fail to comply you'll be fined: end of.
The reason it has to be compulsory is because some idiot will always think he's above the rules and thereby endanger others.
Like I also said, being asked to mask-up is to protect others. (This is a proven scientific fact not "rhetoric.") If you want to portray it as in some way suppressing your human rights then you're wrong (but hey: bring up the Bolsheviks and Nazis because that always wins the argument.)
There's only one set of "propaganda" on show here, and that's the refusenik bullshit that you're spouting.
In areas regarding public health I actually wish the authorities were even stricter because the libertarians amongst us would kill us all if thy had the chance.

savvypaul wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:36 pm
The only thing we know is that we don't know if he had previous warnings or not.

If he had previous advice and warnings, and refused to comply, then the fine seems justified.

If he hadn't had previous advice and warning, then a fine would seem premature.

The requirement to wear a mask in a shop is a law that was passed by a democratically elected parliament. Nothing totalitarian about it.

And how would the police officer know if he'd had previous warnings in different locations before? Unless it had been the same officer giving him a warning?

Chances are, this delivery driver had been given no previous wanrings whatsoever.

And the behaviour of the police officer was disgustingly overzealous - and quite possibly illegal.

And what is the actual legislation that says that anyone forgetting to wear their mask in a shop should be made to pay a fine?
I bet there's no such legislation. And that if there is, it's illegal legislation. Because it contradicts legislation on Human Rights. Or because the people that passed it went beyond the powers that they were authorised to have.

And there's the precedent of the Bush administration that passed and enacted unconstitutional legislation regarding terrorism in the wake of 9/11. It's a load of bollocks to say that democratically elected governments can't or don't do totalitarian things.
Hitler was democratically elected as part of a coalition government.

CN211276 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:56 pm The fine being £200 the probabiliyy is that it was not a first offence. Thev c**t got what he deserved and if he does it again the fine will be greater. We are in a pandemic which has killed 120,000+ FFS.

Watch the follow up video. You tell me, does this phone conversation with the delivery driver seem consistent with someone that has been fined before for Covid breaches?



Or does it seem more consistent with someone that was going about their business and just so happened to be the unlucky recipient of totally inappropriate policing?

valvesRus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:23 pm
Absolutely Paul.



I could go as far as to say that some officers are over enthusiastic in the way these rules are policed, or perhaps they were not given proper guidance ?

But it's a long, long way from being a Police state.

My biggest worry is that some sections of the population will completely forget about "the rules" and lead us ALL into another lock-down. Then public order offences will increase greatly and I fear the consequences .

In the last year the UK has been - in many ways - more of a totalitarian regime than 1936 Germany. With there being lengthy periods with large portions of the population effectively being under house arrest.

Compare and contrast living conditions over the last year with being a prisoner in a Cat D prison in 2019.

1936 Germany! I think you need to read some history.
Hilarious.

CycleCoach wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:15 pm


I refer you back to my comment re seatbelts. They (our democratically elected government, (and, no, I didn't vote for them.)) made it a law: it doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, if you fail to comply you'll be fined: end of.
The reason it has to be compulsory is because some idiot will always think he's above the rules and thereby endanger others.
Like I also said, being asked to mask-up is to protect others. (This is a proven scientific fact not "rhetoric.") If you want to portray it as in some way suppressing your human rights then you're wrong (but hey: bring up the Bolsheviks and Nazis because that always wins the argument.)
There's only one set of "propaganda" on show here, and that's the refusenik bullshit that you're spouting.
In areas regarding public health I actually wish the authorities were even stricter because the libertarians amongst us would kill us all if thy had the chance.

The seat belt law is totalitarian.

Not wearing a seatbelt makes you no more of a danger to others than if you are wearing a seatbelt.
It only makes you more of a danger to yourself.

Does this mean that we should also ban people from eating butter?
Or more than 1 egg a day?
Or 2 cream cakes?

Or from crossing the road when the red man is lit?

Or from using a ladder?

Or going ski-ing?