Jump to content

Coronavirus

whelk

By whelk
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
If it hadn’t been reported then we would never have known about it. And nobody would have been infected.

 

There has to be rules, otherwise nothing would change. The police have to enforce the rules otherwise they will just be ignored. It's not rocket science.

 

From a selfish point of view, I could safely pop to a beach near me and spend the day sunbathing in a secluded spot with next to no risk of spreading anything. But if the police let me do it they would have to let everyone else and you end up with thousands of people out and about as usual. The police have no option but to make examples of people and they were 100% right to fine these selfish idiots.

Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
There has to be rules, otherwise nothing would change. The police have to enforce the rules otherwise they will just be ignored. It's not rocket science.

 

From a selfish point of view, I could safely pop to a beach near me and spend the day sunbathing in a secluded spot with next to no risk of spreading anything. But if the police let me do it they would have to let everyone else and you end up with thousands of people out and about as usual. The police have no option but to make examples of people and they were 100% right to fine these selfish idiots.

 

I'm not saying that we should all be allowed to do likewise, but whilst the police are out persecuting motorists there is plenty of other stuff going on that is far more virus-friendly.

Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
I'm not saying that we should all be allowed to do likewise, but whilst the police are out persecuting motorists there is plenty of other stuff going on that is far more virus-friendly.

 

Persecution implies punishment to people who have committed no wrong doing, which these people clearly had. It's a punishment, it's supposed to be a deterrent and not very nice, otherwise everyone can just do what they want and the Police will just say, "oh please don't do that."

 

Again, your argument seems to revolve around there being other, worse things happening, which is never a defence for anything.

Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
Are you serious or on a wind up? It's pretty obvious. On a long trip you'll likely stop for fuel, a pee, food, a break etc. On a 2 mile trip you won't. The more we stop, the more we come into contact with others, doors, etc etc. Plus a 200 mile trip brings with it a much greater chance of a breakdown thus 3rd party contact, and/or an accident thus monopolising medical staff and hospital space.

 

Will you not come in to contact with anyone or touch anything on a 2 mile trip?

Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
There has to be rules, otherwise nothing would change. The police have to enforce the rules otherwise they will just be ignored. It's not rocket science.

 

From a selfish point of view, I could safely pop to a beach near me and spend the day sunbathing in a secluded spot with next to no risk of spreading anything. But if the police let me do it they would have to let everyone else and you end up with thousands of people out and about as usual. The police have no option but to make examples of people and they were 100% right to fine these selfish idiots.

 

But the 'rules' / legislation state that the police should ask them to leave the place where they are and return home in the first instance. The police have therefore NOT followed the rules by going straight to issuing a fine.

egg

egg

Posted
Posted
Will you not come in to contact with anyone or touch anything on a 2 mile trip?

 

No. I'll make sure I've had a pee before hand and have sufficient fuel and food/fluid for such an arduous journey. The 200 mile journey on the other hand is a different matter.

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
But the 'rules' / legislation state that the police should ask them to leave the place where they are and return home in the first instance. The police have therefore NOT followed the rules by going straight to issuing a fine.

 

No, the regulations make it a judgement call, and if it is felt necessary a fine for a 'first offence' may be ruled appropriate.

Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
But the 'rules' / legislation state that the police should ask them to leave the place where they are and return home in the first instance. The police have therefore NOT followed the rules by going straight to issuing a fine.

 

Cool, so I can completely ignore all public health instructions, hop in my car and drive down to Cornwall. There’s no reason not to, worst case scenario the Police will stop me and tell me to go home, so I’ve got nothing to lose by trying.

whelk

whelk

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Cool, so I can completely ignore all public health instructions, hop in my car and drive down to Cornwall. There’s no reason not to, worst case scenario the Police will stop me and tell me to go home, so I’ve got nothing to lose by trying.

 

I’ve heard it’s a smooth run down there at the moment

shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
No, the regulations make it a judgement call, and if it is felt necessary a fine for a 'first offence' may be ruled appropriate.

 

That's my understanding too - someone's getting their knickers in a twist and a bit confused :lol:

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
Regulations never make anything a judgement call.

 

Fixed penalty notices

10.—(1) An authorised person may issue a fixed penalty notice to anyone that the authorised person reasonably believes—

(a)has committed an offence under these Regulations

Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
Fixed penalty notices

10.—(1) An authorised person may issue a fixed penalty notice to anyone that the authorised person reasonably believes—

(a)has committed an offence under these Regulations

 

Selective quoting doesn't prove your point. I've already posted earlier in the thread the full regulation regarding people "away from home" and how they should be treated.

Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted

 

Maybe you dozed off when this was discussed yesterday, but from your own link :

 

New public health regulationsExternal Link have been put in place to strengthen the powers the police have to reduce the spread of the virus.

 

Individuals will only be allowed to leave their home for the following very limited purposes:

 

shopping for basic necessities, for example food and medicine, which must be as infrequent as possible

going out for one form of exercise a day, for example a run, walk, or cycle - alone or with members of your household

 

Technically the family considered themselves to be going for their one form of exercise a day, with members of their household.

 

There is nothing in the legislation that limits the distance a person can travel to achieve this.

shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
Forget the police take on it, check the regulations. They are packed with ambiguity and discretion.

 

Of course. As is law in general. The police has the discretion to decide what is appropriate in a given case - there is no absolutely nothing preventing it from issuing a £60 fine for a first offence which I have no issue with at all.

egg

egg

Posted
Posted
Of course. As is law in general. The police has the discretion to decide what is appropriate in a given case - there is no absolutely nothing preventing it from issuing a £60 fine for a first offence which I have no issue with at all.

Agreed on both fronts.

shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)

Technically the family considered themselves to be going for their one form of exercise a day, with members of their household.

 

There is nothing in the legislation that limits the distance a person can travel to achieve this.

 

The government has already provided guidance on how to interpret exercising - people should stay local and use open spaces near to their home where possible and not travel unnecessarily for exercise. The police used its legal discretion, taking account of this guidance in a way that is perfectly appropriate and proportionate.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/coronavirus-guidance-on-access-to-green-spaces

Edited by shurlock
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
Maybe you dozed off when this was discussed yesterday, but from your own link :

 

 

 

Technically the family considered themselves to be going for their one form of exercise a day, with members of their household.

 

There is nothing in the legislation that limits the distance a person can travel to achieve this.

 

There's nothing on the regs (save for Wales) which limits the exercise to one a day. S. 6(2)(b)

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
Selective quoting doesn't prove your point. I've already posted earlier in the thread the full regulation regarding people "away from home" and how they should be treated.

So, a family driving up to the Lake District from Middlesex and intercepted by Lancashire Police at junction 34 of the M6 should get a warning, and only if they try the same trick again get the fine ? What if they decide that their second trip should be to the Yorkshire Dales, so it might be the South Yorkshire Police this time, who are unaware of the first incident so they just get another warning. As Egg states, and as we both have demonstrated by our quoting of the Law, the regulations are vague and in part ambiguous, but for numpties making ridiculous and entirely unnecessary extended pleasure trips I am fully behind the Police.

The Cat

The Cat

Posted
Posted

The way each force police this will be determined by advice from their Chief. I can only say that for Hampshire it's being very much done in an advisory way. I'm not aware of there being any particular problems relating to large gatherings or a disproportionate number of fines.

 

In other news my brother in law's hospital was the one just covered by the programme on C4. They seem to have things under control there which is good to see. As long as people keep being sensible and carry on socially distancing the number of available beds will stay higher than demand.

Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
That link seems to be about Germany. What am I supposed to see?

 

Should be about a small Estonian community which is one of the densest Covid19 hotspots in the world, after a visit from an Italian volleyball team a couple of months ago.

whelk

whelk

Posted
  • Author
Posted
That link seems to be about Germany. What am I supposed to see?

 

Presumably before social distancing so doesn’t really support your point

Fan The Flames

Fan The Flames

Posted
Posted

Can't believe someone on here is arguing that a driver 250 miles from home isnt acting irresponsibly enough to not warrant a fine, yet think's old people with their grand kids are being irresponsible. Someone is having a Weston.

Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
Can't believe someone on here is arguing that a driver 250 miles from home isnt acting irresponsibly enough to not warrant a fine, yet think's old people with their grand kids are being irresponsible. Someone is having a Weston.

 

As I read it the point was about the size of the penalty and not the culpability.

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
As I read it the point was about the size of the penalty and not the culpability.
Here's an idea. How about the people driving hundreds of miles simply stop doing it then the size of any punishment becomes a moot point.
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
As I read it the point was about the size of the penalty and not the culpability.

The Police force that turned them back should be able to contact their local force and have them confiscate their car.

Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
Here's an idea. How about the people driving hundreds of miles simply stop doing it then the size of any punishment becomes a moot point.

 

Not the point though, is it. The punishment must fit the crime.

egg

egg

Posted
Posted (edited)
Not the point though, is it. The punishment must fit the crime.

 

It's absolutely the point. Don't travel, stay local when it's necessary for food/medicine /excersise, and don't visit friends / family is a pretty simple message.

 

I have to say that you confuse me. You appear to advocate travel from hotspots in the UK but not from hotspots overseas. On one hand you understand the risk, but on the other seem oblivious to it. Make your mind up.

Edited by egg
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
What punishment would fit deliberately putting lives in danger?

 

How did he do that? You think there was a lesser risk if he stayed shopping and exercising in high density London?

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
How did he do that? You think there was a lesser risk if he stayed shopping and exercising in high density London?
It's pretty simple. We've been told not to travel hundreds of miles from our home to prevent the spread of the disease. If you travel hundreds of miles under those restrictions and without a proper reason then don't complain if you get fined. If you're dumb enough to do it despite the warnings then you deserve everything you get imo. I'll leave it to others to argue about how infectious one course of action is over another as it's not really relevant.
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
How did he do that? You think there was a lesser risk if he stayed shopping and exercising in high density London?

 

Yes, it's been covered already in the last few pages why. Shopping is essential, exercise is certainly recommended, they are both different to making a purely recreational trip hundreds of miles.

Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
It's absolutely the point. Don't travel, stay local when it's necessary for food/medicine /excersise, and don't visit friends / family is a pretty simple message.

 

I have to say that you confuse me. You appear to advocate travel from hotspots in the UK but not from hotspots overseas. On one hand you understand the risk, but on the other seem oblivious to it. Make your mind up.

Yet you cannot see that there is a difference between domestic travellers and incomers from overseas. One is a known risk because the history is known, the other is an unknown risk.

 

And I am not advocating travel from UK hotspots am I.

Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
It's pretty simple. We've been told not to travel hundreds of miles from our home to prevent the spread of the disease. If you travel hundreds of miles under those restrictions and without a proper reason then don't complain if you get fined. If you're dumb enough to do it despite the warnings then you deserve everything you get imo. I'll leave it to others to argue about how infectious one course of action is over another as it's not really relevant.

Of course it’s relevant. We must never, ever lose sight of the purpose of this mini-lockdown or else the regulations become and end in themselves.

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
Of course it’s relevant. We must never, ever lose sight of the purpose of this mini-lockdown or else the regulations become and end in themselves.
No it isn't at all. You've been told not to do something by the government in order to get the lockdown finished as quickly as possible. If you choose to ignore that then you should be fined and punished. It really is that simple because if everyone decided to drive 200 miles it's very likely that this would get a hell of a lot worse.
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
Yet you cannot see that there is a difference between domestic travellers and incomers from overseas. One is a known risk because the history is known, the other is an unknown risk.

 

And I am not advocating travel from UK hotspots am I.

 

Unless I misunderstand you, it appears to be your point that UK travel over distance is ok. If that isn't your point, then what is it?

 

Your first point is nonsensical. Covid is rampant in the UK. Explain how someone who is showing no symptoms coming in from an overseas hotpot like Milan is any more or less of a danger than someone without symptoms travelling around the UK from a UK hotpot. The reality is that they are an equal risk, hence the attempt at locking down internal travel.

Tamesaint

Tamesaint

Posted
Posted
No it isn't at all. You've been told not to do something by the government in order to get the lockdown finished as quickly as possible. If you choose to ignore that then you should be fined and punished. It really is that simple because if everyone decided to drive 200 miles it's very likely that this would get a hell of a lot worse.

 

It isnt hard to understand.

 

I think he is trolling now.

Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
Because they've forced to stay in high density cities rather than social distancing elsewhere?

 

Because they’ve come into contact, either directly or indirectly, with someone who had the virus. The more people travel around, the more easily it’s spread. Some travel and contact is unavoidable, travelling from Middlesex to the Lakes is completely unnecessary.

 

If they lived in Lewisham or Croydon and they’d driven down the A3 to Ockham common for a walk, I could tolerate that. There’s no need to stop at any services, use any shops, you’re staying roughly in the same area and just trying to get some basic exercise. What this family did goes way beyond that an is completely unnecessary.

 

If you don’t put a stop to this sort of thing, everywhere becomes an inner city ‘hotspot’.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...