r/Glasgow Tools

Title
Author	meepmeep13
Comment	> Others see you doing this so they think "if u/meepmeep13 can do it then so can I" Again, are you saying that because most people have no justification to go to Mugdock, nobody should be allowed to go to Mugdock? So in other words it's all about optics? That we should appear to be in a police state where all travel is banned in order to avoid having to actually be a police state where all travel is banned? In which case, why not just impose the ban and be done with it? The implications of all of this for civil liberties is terrifying, and I absolutely agree with https://davidallengreen.com/2020/03/the-extraordinary-legal-situation-of-the-coronavirus-lock-down/ > The police, in turn, have been given wide powers to enforce these regulations, including the use of coercive force. > And in turn, again, the police are interpreting these wide powers even more widely, with roadblocks, drones, and a made-up restriction on “essential travel”. > Those with mental health problems, and those in abusive households, are being made to feel that the law means that they have to stay inside. > This is actually not the case at law. > The Regulations provides scope for leaving the house for such important reasons. > One can hardly dare imagine what is now happening behind closed doors, with vulnerable people believing (wrongly) that the law prevents them escaping. > And one must dread the real consequences of this. I am treating the Mugdock case as one exemplar of how we are inventing rules that do not exist, and do not need to exist, and we need to allow people to get out.
Reddit Link	https://www.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/frix9g/daily_discussion_for_coronavirus_covid19_30_march/flwusys/
Created	Mon 30th Mar 2020 12:00pm
Status	normal ()

> Others see you doing this so they think "if u/meepmeep13 can do it then so can I"

Again, are you saying that because *most* people have no justification to go to Mugdock, *nobody* should be allowed to go to Mugdock?

So in other words it's all about optics? That we should appear to be in a police state where all travel is banned in order to avoid having to *actually* be a police state where all travel is banned? In which case, why not just impose the ban and be done with it?

The implications of all of this for civil liberties is terrifying, and I absolutely agree with https://davidallengreen.com/2020/03/the-extraordinary-legal-situation-of-the-coronavirus-lock-down/

> The police, in turn, have been given wide powers to enforce these regulations, including the use of coercive force.

> And in turn, again, the police are interpreting these wide powers even more widely, with roadblocks, drones, and a made-up restriction on “essential travel”.

> Those with mental health problems, and those in abusive households, are being made to feel that the law means that they have to stay inside.

> This is actually not the case at law.

> The Regulations provides scope for leaving the house for such important reasons.

> One can hardly dare imagine what is now happening behind closed doors, with vulnerable people believing (wrongly) that the law prevents them escaping.

> And one must dread the real consequences of this.

I am treating the Mugdock case as one exemplar of how we are inventing rules that do not exist, and do not need to exist, and we need to allow people to get out.