Earlier this week one of parkswatch’s critical readers – a good thing! – posted a link to a BBC news piece (see here) about two hillwalkers who had been charged by the Police with “Culpable and Reckless Conduct” after being rescued on Beinn a Chroin near Crianlarich. Since then, there have been a number of developments. This posts takes a look at the legal implications, both for Covid-19 and for Mountain Rescue more generally.
I last walked over Beinn a Chroin on 20th March, just a few days before lockdown, having approached from Inverlocharig to the south. This is the quiet side and a longer drive than if I had gone to Glen Falloch, the more popular starting point. But I enjoy exploring and had wanted to get a closer look at the landslips on Stob ab Duibhe that I had seen six months previously.
The round up Beinn an Chroin and An Caisteal from Glen Falloch involves a short section of scrambling through some complex crags (top photo). Before the path developed, finding the easiest route was quite difficult. I remember my first visit, part of a round of all seven of the Crianlarich Munros, scrambling with trepidation up through the steep crags above the col. It was not until I repeated the round, years later, that I realised I had not traversed nearly far enough over over. If you missed or decided to avoid the path, the descent would be even more challenging. My initial guess, from the news reports, given the fine weather, was that the two walkers might have got into difficulties on the crags
Since then, the waters have muddied considerably. There are now two radically different possible accounts of what happened, with several interpretations in-between. It’s not the purpose of the post to determine what happened – though the truth is always important – but rather to consider the implications.
The facts
Police Scotland issued a news release on 2nd June (see here) which stated:
“Police Scotland can confirm that two people have been charged in connection with culpable and reckless conduct after needing rescued from a munro on Saturday, 30 May, 2020…………..”
The news release was thus issued 3 calendar days after the two hillwalkers were charged. As to what actually happened, this is less clear:
“Police received a report of a man and woman in difficulty on the munro around 2.40pm on Saturday. Officers and members of Killin Mountain Rescue Team were subsequently deployed to rescue the individuals who had not been suitably equipped for the climb. They were traced safe and well.”
This statement has raised a number of questions, including from people who have commented on parkwatch (see here). Among the points raised are that it’s not clear if it was the two hillwalkers or a third party who called the Mountain Rescue and whether the two actually needed help off the hill.
At the end of the police release the Chair of Mountain Rescue Scotland, Damon Powell, was quoted as saying:
“We are also aware how deeply frustrating it is when everyone who is making such sacrifices see people openly flouting the guidance. We are pleased to see the police taking action against such individuals.” [my underlining].
On Thursday Mountaineering Scotland, the body that represents hillwalkers and mountaineers in Scotland [I used to be its President and served on its Committee for 8 years] issued another news release (see here). This quoted Damon Powell as saying:
“Mountain rescue teams are here to help. If people get into difficulties in the hills they should be clear that MR assistance is provided without cost and without judgement.”
The two statements are contradictory. Moreover, if you read the Police Scotland quotes in the two releases, they are very different in tone. Both have been quoted by the media (see here for second BBC story).
What’s going on?
Implications of scenario 1 – the two hillwalkers needed rescuing
I have heard, third hand so not reliable, that the hillwalkers did need rescuing, contrary to the scepticism (mine included). Indeed, worse than that it is possible they rang, demanding a helicopter, and then when brought down by the Killin Mountain Rescue Team were rude and ungrateful. Let’s suppose this shameful scenario is true and it was this behaviour that prompted the Police to charge them with “Culpable and Reckless Conduct”.
This offence is normally used to cover activities that endanger others, like dropping objects from height onto others or – interestingly – deliberately infecting people with disease (see here). I absolutely understand the concerns from mountain rescue team members, who are for the most part volunteers, of being infected. However, if the charge was made because of the risk of spreading disease, the Procurator Fiscal would probably have to show that the two people went out walking knowing that they had Covid-19 and therefore, if they needed the mountain rescue, they would be putting team members at risk. That appears unlikely as very few people have Covid-19 due to the lockdown. Moreover, if the walkers had been isolating the previous weeks, they would almost certainly be Covid-free and therefore not putting others at risk.
If, however, the Police made the charge on the grounds of preventing disease, the implications for Mountain Rescue would be significant. Any symptom free person who called the rescue for whatever reason would effectively be criminalising themselves. Such people include those working in the countryside – gamekeepers have accidents and get rescued – and those walking in the hills close to their homes (which is endorsed, if undertaken with care, as a safe activity under current Scottish Government guidance).
It seems more likely that the Police decided to charge the two hillwalkers because they were ill-prepared – hence the references to them being not “suitably equipped”. The implications of this, however, are even wider and extend far beyond the corona crisis. Anyone calling the rescue in future could lay themselves open to charges of “Culpable and Reckless Conduct”. That would deter people calling out the rescue, whether for themselves or others, with potentially disastrously consequences.
It’s because of issues such as this that Mountain Rescue Teams in Scotland have, in the past, generally avoided judging people they have rescued, however foolish they have been. Most people who are rescued are of course very grateful, learn from their mistakes and go on to raise money for the Rescue Teams.
In the current situation, where Team Members are putting themselves at risk, however small, of catching Covid-19 one can see why the mountain rescue, faced with some rude hillwalkers, might have lost their usual patience. Then, once they realised the implications, they corrected what they had said. Whatever the details of what actually happened, I think they were right to do that. The charge of “Culpable and Reckless Conduct” is not appropriate for people who need to be rescued.
This is not to argue that the charge of “culpable and reckless conduct” might never be appropriate in in the hills. For example, deliberately trundling boulders down hillsides, knowing people might be below, poses similar risks to dropping traffic cones off bridges.
Implications of Scenario 2 – the hillwalkers didn’t need rescuing
At the other extreme, suppose the hillwalkers didn’t really need rescuing and they were charged because they had travelled 60 miles, as is implied by other parts of the Police News Release:
“A 27-year-old man and a 23-year-old woman have been reported to the Procurator Fiscal after travelling more than 60 miles from Glasgow to climb Beinn A’ Chroin, near Crianlarich.”
If this was the case, it raises very serious legal issues. Travel for Outdoor Recreation is not unlawful under the current Coronavirus Restriction Regulations. That interpretation of the law was confirmed on Monday by Nicola Sturgeon when she threatened to legally restrict how far people can travel if the public don’t follow the latest government guidance which recommends only travelling c.5 miles. While Nicola Sturgeon may not want people to travel at present, you still have a perfect legal right to do so under the Restriction Regulation.
For the Police to try and turn government guidance into law by using the common law charge of “Culpable and Reckless Conduct” to people breaking that guidance would be to act way beyond their powers, pervert the use of the law and have serious civil liberties and human rights implications.
It’s worth noting here a further point in terms of the distance these two walkers travelled from Glasgow. Most of the car parks around Glasgow remain closed, under government orders of dubious legal status as is now coming increasingly clear. If people living in urban areas, therefore, do want to exercise their legal rights to enjoy outdoor recreation in the countryside, it’s very hard to do so without travelling a distance (I drove 50 miles down to the Borders last weekend to find a place I could park without difficulty or hassle). The Luss Hills are far closer to Glasgow but good luck if you want to go there because the car parks have been shut off. The layby in Glen Falloch where these two walkers most probably parked is is one of places where I have headed to if travelling north as there is plenty of safe off-road park and its 800m from any house so poses little or no risk to nobody. Whatever happened afterwards, this was a “responsible” place to go in the current circumstances.
What needs to happen
While the truth about why the Police charged the two walkers with “Culpable and Reckless Conduct” may lie between these two scenarios, whatever the case the charge appears unjustified. Either it has huge implications for the future of Mountain Rescue or it was an abuse of the law. Because of this the Chief Constable of Police Scotland, Iain Livingstone, needs to instruct his force to withdraw the charges.
What then happens should depend on what prompted these charges. If the concern of the local officers was that the hillwalkers had breached government guidance, Iain Livingstone should remind them that law enforcement is about law, not guidance. He has already said as such, while standing alongside Nicola Sturgeon at a daily briefing. He has also, to his credit, engaged the Human Rights Lawyer, John Scott, to review whether Police Scotland has enforced the law equitably during the (see here). The problem is some of this officers still appear keen to take the law into their own hands. The reasons this is happening need to be made public.
If the concern of the police, however, was that these two hillwalkers had put themselves and others at some risk, then I have some sympathy but I think there is a need to consider other ways of dealing with the issues. As Mountain Rescue Scotland has recognised, charging people, however stupid, with reckless conduct is likely to have serious adverse consequences for whether people call out the mountain rescue in future.
One option, which I know Mountain Rescue Teams have been keen to avoid up till now, would be to name and shame people after packing them off back home. It might have been quite effective in this case. Another would have been to announce that Mountain Rescue Teams can’t guarantee they will rescue anybody while Covid-19 is prevalent. That might deter people who think they can call out a helicopter any time and those who are most likely to get into difficulties. Other more sensible people would follow Mountaineering Scotland advice and choose routes and activities that are well within their competence.
Whatever the answer, Mountain Rescue Scotland and the police need to engage with the wider mountaineering and hill walking community about how they can respect the rights of people wanting to go to the hills while those undertaking outdoor recreation need to respect the rights of rescue team members not to put themselves at risk.
All the public comments about Covid 19 requirements that I have heard in recent weeks from both the Chief Constable and his senior colleagues have been clear and thoughtful. It has been an impressive performance that must have considerably enhanced the reputation of Police Scotland. But it also appears that this use of the charge of culpable and reckless conduct was inappropriate and is likely to have long term repercussions throughout the outdoor recreation community. For example, some will now fear they risk in the future a police inspection of the contents of their rucksac on descent from the hill to check if map, compass, mobile phone, snow shovel, or whatever is present, to satisfy the desire of a local officer to demonstrate “reckless” action. The best and simplest way for the Chief Constable to repair this blip in the Police Scotland performance is for these charges to be dropped ASAP.
This “who calls the shots” over access gives us a useful pointer. It will become very important as Covid restrictions are eased, for the Public to become involved in reclaiming and ring-fence the traditional rights we once enjoyed. Ill-considered abuses of power, and the “NO” society that is now being permitted to undermine all social freedoms in the countryside, cannot escape censor. Governing bodies of many Outdoor pursuits will have to fight hard to ensure full restoration of access rights taken away without discussion or consent.
Already, daily now, sad reports emerge describing the manner in which some sections of the general public are taking advantage of the easing of lockdown south of the border. The media is full of ‘dramatised’ stories about illegal groups gathering too closely, parking unsafely and taking risks others consider inappropriate. The random piles of litter strewn across open spaces is damning. This mindless behaviour makes it even more likely that as risks from Covid eventually recede the nation could too easily enshrine some new authoritarian norm, with right-to-roam freedoms further curtailed and defined. The argument repeated each day by the incessant and divisive media – that the general public appear unable to show proper respect for spaces they wish to enjoy – is a powerful one for the anti-freedoms lobby to voice.
Scotland already knows too well how this overbearing attitude of a minority group holding un-elected positions of authority within a quango has been used to curtail traditional freedoms surrounding camping and use of boats in the LLTNP. The well respected, self-selected, largely volunteer Mountain rescue teams , and even the RNLI local stations, should guard against the danger of being seen to grab an element of “public” authority never fully defined or awarded to them by public consent. Any move to ‘over play their hand’ would undo years of public trust.: As charities, any Public disaffection with how these self funding bodies are seen to influence rights of public access and recreation, must have unforeseen consequences for their future budgets. A potential denial of funding for these charities would ultimately affect us all..
Virtually every council appears to be backing away from the courts to ensure Access because of the cost. The public has spent half a million pounds of public money on pursuing the Drumlean Estate case through the courts and has received absolutely nothing from its “success”. The gates stay locked.
There is a different approach. Property damage is not, in itself, a crime. Think of car accidents. Damaging property without a reasonable excuse is however the offence of Vandalism. Let us suppose the Access Officer, when trying to unblock a route which the public have a right to use (as agreed by the Scottish Courts), inflicted minimal damage on a chain or padlock securing closure, would the police or courts prosecute? Clearly any defendant could produce a host of witnesses to confirm that there was a “reasonable excuse” for any damage caused and the very best any prosecutor could hope for might be a verdict of Not Proven. Even an offence was reported it would not be prosecuted.
This has been the approach tried just over the boundary at Red Road, Cardross. Here access has been blocked for 9 years and despite considerable efforts by the Access Officer, an offer of funds to build an access gate and an offer of professional mediation, there was no response at all. However as soon as Direct Action commenced in the form of very publically repeatedly unblocking the route (with incidental very minor damage to the chain) plans for a pedestrian gate were immediately formulated and it is now being built.
The legality of this approach has yet to be tested in court and the clever money suggests that it will never be. To remove the threat of prosecution for damaging property might well open a hornet’s nest of problems associated with every crank with a cause. However an Access Officer with the endorsement of an Access Committee would be irreproachable. Why not try this at Drumlean before spending any more money on interim interdicts and the like
Talking of seeing people openly flouting the guidance…
Why does the Scottish media not ask Nicola Sturgeon, if travel is so potentially deadly why did she travel to the SEC at the height of the infection just to see the temporary hospital being built?
Why, if meeting people outwith your household indoors is so deadly as she has repeatedly told us this week, does she do exactly that every day at the press conference which could easily be a virtual event?
Why, when we are urged to work from home if at all possible, does she not do so?
When the appearance of doing the right thing regardless of the actual risk is supposedly so important. why doesn’t the Scottish Government set an example?
Brilliant comments from all above. Breach of the peace is the normal charging from the police. Nick your spot on about the 5 miles. It only what Sturgon wants. The blocking off of car parks disabled toilets was deliberately put in place and then used as a propaganda stunts against a public that has being foolishly keep away from the outdoors .As Tom pointed out their will be many fights to restore our rights..Niall ha pointed out the Scottish Government poor example. The minister Ian Blackford Nicola Sturgon right hand man drove from London to Skye 630 miles stoping 4 times. The Transport Police Chief officer travels to Yorkshire and back to Glasgow, 2 times to his home in England why then has Sturgon not sacked them she said as much against Cumming then wee have Sturgon with the perfect hair cuts front and back Dave it’s scarry to think they will search our rucksack. Was not long ago they wanted to stop us going into the hills and stop boxing, motor racing. Our country is being turned up
Brilliant comments from all above. Breach of the peace is the normal charging from the police. Nick your spot on about the 5 miles. It only what Sturgon wants. The blocking off of car parks disabled toilets was deliberately put in place and then used as a propaganda stunts against a public that has being foolishly keep away from the outdoors .As Tom pointed out their will be many fights to restore our rights..Niall ha pointed out the Scottish Government poor example. The minister Ian Blackford Nicola Sturgon right hand man drove from London to Skye 630 miles stoping 4 during lockdown Sturgon not sacked them she said as much against Cumming then wee have Sturgon with the perfect hair cuts front and back Dave it’s scarry to think they will search our rucksack. Was not long ago they wanted to stop us going into the hills and stop boxing, motor racing. Our country is being turned up
Blackford drove home from work. Just like everyone else who works in the Palace of Westminster. He didn’t break any law.
Also politicians are counted as essential workers and are free to travel as far as they like. So are journalists, press photographers and camera crews. The person who stalked C Calderwood came all the way from Glasgow to do so, apparently perfectly legally.
If you want to Yoon then stay on the herlad and englishperson comment sections.
The fact that they are “counted as essential” doesn’t magically make them immune to the virus, nor should it give them carte blanche to do whatever they like as they seem to think.
It just makes it look as if they don’t believe what they are saying. There is no practical reason why they can’t comply with the restrictions.
(I have no idea what the rest of your post is supposed to mean)
Thanks Nick. Good article. I suspect it may be considered expedient to let these charges hang around for a while, nothing terrorises a generally affluent, law abiding population like hillwalkers more than a nebulous threat of criminal sanction.
A rapid conclusion to the issue might be seen as needlessly counterproductive to the pursuit of control of movement.
Dear author, what was the reason for flouting the guidelines and going 10 times over the guidelines? What was the requirement to drive to the Borders and the exercise could not be done more locally? To name few, Mugdock, Strathblane, Campsies and Kilpatrick car parks are all not too busy and allow enough space to pass people.
I am afraid that if we cannot stick to the guidelines and yet manage to find reasons why they do not apply to us, loosening the hard rules is going to be off the table.
Dear Stephen, have you checked all these car parks? As of this evening Mugdock says its still closed but obviously that may be wrong. It would be good to know if they are all open again but if they are those Councils have flouted the First Minister’s Guidance just as much as the two walkers who were charged by the police. The problem I’d suggest lies with the government advice…………Nick
Yes, Mugdock car parks open. Both the Stirling Council and East Dumbartonshire side. Which makes it odd that as far as I know Queens View CP is still closed.
Cheers! That is really positive, just a shame the website had not been updated but I guess that might come Monday. Perhaps QV still closed as its judged more than five miles from where most people live? If so, it will have just added pressures to Mugdock. There is lots of space on Kilpatricks, Nick
I am still unsure as to why you had to travel so far?
My point is that dismissing the guidance and publicly admitting this will not help us to fight for a relaxation of the distance allowed.
Perhaps people who observe the guidance will be punished by people who travel further than necessary.
Hi Stephen, I didn’t get in a car for ten weeks, made lots of rational arguments against the restrictions, lobbied even, and it made not a blind bit of difference. Its only when the government realises people are going to act that they will be forced to allow what should never have been stopped. I went south as far as I did because I know it would be uncrowded compared say to Loch Lomondside and wanted to demonstrate that, whatever people’s fears, there are dozens of places in Scotland where you can go where there is no conceivable risk of spreading the virus. Tinto is closer but I guessed parking would be restricted and there would be more many more people. I don’t think driving 10, 30 or 60 miles makes any difference in terms of Covid. I hope this makes sense. Nick
As it happens I was out at Mugdock today. It was mobbed. Passing groups of people every 50 yards. Mostly not within 2 metres but still a higher risk than driving for 45 minutes and walking on an empty hillside. Which is what I will be doing tomorrow.
Why? Because I want to and it is safe. Unlike certain protestors I am not in a crowd spreading the virus. And because the 5 mile limit is an unreasonable restriction on my rights.
Just like the restrictions on retail, the effect is to concentrate people into closer proximity than normal, the exact opposite of the stated intention. How long are they going to keep this farce going?
A few thoughts on this (I’m in England but I think most of this applies to Scottish MR also):
– If you need emergency help in the hills you should call 999 and ask for Police. Police then decide whether or not Mountain Rescue is needed (MR is never directly called/deployed). This may explain why “it’s not clear if it was the two hillwalkers or a third party who called the Mountain Rescue”.
– All hill-going members of mountain rescue are volunteers (with just a handful of paid people at national head office level). It would be fairer to say “almost all of” or just “who are volunteers” instead of: “mountain rescue team members, who are for the most part volunteers”.
– This makes it sound like everyone who is rescued raises money for MR: “Most people who are rescued are of course very grateful, learn from their mistakes and go on to raise money for the Rescue Teams”. Whilst there are some very kind and generous individuals who raise money, this is not the case in general, and donations resulting from rescues in no way cover the cost of running an MR team.
– You are worried that these charges will set a dangerous precedent for the future. However they are more appropriate in these times, when people have been explicitly told from a variety of sources (e.g. MR, National Parks, Mountaineering Bodies) that if they do go out, plan very carefully and take extra care (e.g. set easier objectives, prepare to self-rescue). I would absolutely not want these charges to be used in a typical MR scenario once we are back to “normal”.
– “In the current situation, where Team Members are putting themselves at risk, however small, of catching Covid-19”
It is not just the extra COVID-related risk to individual MR volunteers which should be considered, but also the extra time/effort/money required to operate under the current conditions. Plus the extra risk if the volunteers are health or key workers.
– Imagine how it feels to be called to voluntarily rescue some people who have out in the hills, not following governance guidance or even basic hill sense, whilst you yourself have been “stuck at home”. This is all thankfully a moot point now restrictions have been eased in England at least, but I could potentially see how MR teams could become seriously short-staffed or not able/willing to operate at all. Remember that MR is mainly run on goodwill, which can become stretched. A few “heavy-handed” charges get the headlines and may help to discourage the inexperienced from getting out of their depth.
As a former MRT member and former police officer I am no expert in the Law or in its eyes.
However, the application of that charge requires ‘completion’ of ‘essentials’ .
The essentials are culpability and recklessness.
Proof of culpability in the specific charge demands knowledge on the part of the individual that they would pose an additional risk to others.
The reality (as pointed out in the original article) is that there is no difference in physical risk to MRTs between someone who had walked from their back door to the same spot and got into difficulties and someone who drove 60 miles.
It will be for the Crown to establish whether that essential was completed or was not.
The second essential is that of recklessness.
If there is evidence that the party involved was covid positive that could form part of a construct to demonstrate completion of that essential.
People traverse that hill in trainers on most days. I have done so myself. On a regualr basis people go into the hills without maps, wearing jeans, without enough water, without preparing a route card and sometimes they overstretch themselves etc. etc. if any of us could put our hands up and say that we’ve never been guilty of these things we’d have lived pretty uninteresting lives.
In the unlikely event of the Crown deciding that the recklessness amounted to criminality in this instance where does that leave the climber who fall? Clearly, it could be argued that any fall results from a lack of preparedness? Failure in reading the conditions, failure to train hard enough and running out of strength, failure to read the route description fully and failure to check that your crampon toe bail was fully seated are some examples.
That party is unlikely to have set out with the intent of getting into difficulties and unlikely to have set out with the intent of calling out a mountain rescue team. It might be that there is evidence of those things but without it the essential of recklessness cannot be completed.
There is a thing called the force continuum. It dictates that force should not be used until discussion, negotiation and persuasion have been attempted and failed or were not appropriate in the given circumstance.
Whenever it is used the force must be the minimum appropriate to the situation
Whereas the continuum is most widely recognised in the application of physical force it remains that the use of the Law is use of force.
Leaving your home for exercise is lawful. Driving 6 yards, six miles or 60 miles to take your exercise is lawful. Walking up a hill is lawful. Consequently, regardless of whether we think the party was morally justified/not playing the game like the majority, unless there is some evidence that we are not privy to they did nothing that was unlawful and more particularly did nothing that was criminal.
For a considerable period, I worked in a specialist department where the job each day was reading police reports prior to their forwarding to the Crow. I’ll not enter into too much detail. I will have to ask you to accept that police officers charging people with incompetent charges was a monotonously regular thing. It most often occurred in a situation where the officers were frustrated by someone’s conduct and the ‘standard’ stuff didn’t fit. They’d then try and hammer a big square legal peg into a very small legal hole.
Sometimes their excuse was that a supervisor had ordered them to do it.
The case in question in this instance seems to have a lot of gaps in the chain of evidence in respect of completion of . Personally, I am unable to see how those gaps could be filled. I wasn’t there. I didn’t report it. I haven’t seen the report.
If there is a case laid before a court I’d be most interested to see how it would run.
Part of the ideal solution would be to gain access to the report to the Crown and to the decision made by the Crown. good luck with any attempt to achieve that end.
I am in full agreement with your article with the exception of travelling to a small hamlet such as Durisdeer. I have also walked in this broad area recently, well researched beforehand, 3 walks in two weeks no other person met, objective achieved. But I have deliberately taken on board the ‘outsider’ concerns and parked at forest lay-bys etc. Maybe you did too but at both Durisdeer and Wanlockhead that is more difficult. I did turn away from a D&G hill last weekend as parking was at a homestead. Long drive nil hill reward. Hopefully next week better access allowed but for now I will still not visit remote towns/villages.
Thanks Des, sorry if it was not clear but I went nowhere near the village of Durisdeer, parked on the other side of the hill. I think there is a real issue of small communities getting used to seeing people again – just like there was on my street in Glasgow after the first three weeks of lockdown when more people started going out for exercise – and it would be a good thing if the government said people could walk through villages as they can do in towns. It would help allay the fears. The risks of transmitting Covid-19 outdoors are tiny but till people get used to seeing outdoors, realise you can walk round people etc etc the fear is going to continue. I have passed more people in Pollok Park over the last 6 weeks than people in Durisdeer would come across in a year’s worth of tourist visits but until rural communities start experiencing that and realise it poses no threats I cannot see rural tourist businesses being able to start up again.
I posted on any sites I came across ref this incident broadly critisizing the Police action in this case, Nowhere did it say the walkers needed rescued but that a third party had reported two walkers in apparent difficulty and the police had called on the MR team for assistance. The statement that the couple were traced and found to be safe and well and brought down safely does not imply a rescue but a removal off the hill with or without the approval of the couple involved.. The Police across the UK have been turning guidance into a law of their own making. Nowhere in the report did the couple break any law, but the Police chose to muddy the water implying that driving 60 miles was unlawful or that being ill equipped was an offence. Culpable and Reckless is a charge unique to Scotland and falls into the same line as the conspiracy laws used in N. Ireland when no actual offence had been committed. Perhaps it is unfortunate that the couple involved did not come out and put their side of the story either to confirm or deny the sometimes outlandish statements made about the incident. I think there would be a case for the involved Police officers to be charged with misuse of the law in this case.
Hi Brian, I am not sure if anyone except those involved can complain about the conduct of the police in this case but I have today made a submission to the Independent Review into how the police have used their powers in the National Park during the lockdown from a human rights perspective It is open to anyone to make submissions, Nick
I despair of some people who can barely control themselves when the RNLI or Coastguard or MR is called out and they can see no further than these people must be breaking the law and should be punished to the greatest extent possible. Looking behind the stories there is invariably no law being broken or the emergency services have been called out usually by what they choose to refer to as a false report with good intent, which the press fail to publish. The Police have seen the Covid as an excuse to push their own vision of guidance as law to force the public by way of fear, to comply with a denial of rights.