Ultimately it’s a fine balancing act between flattening the curve and preserving civil liberties.
At the moment the lockdown (like most other legislation) is dependent on the voluntary co-operation of the masses with coercion necessary to enforce it on a small minority. The more draconian lockdown measures become the harder you strain the voluntary co-operation of the many.
Unless things take a dramatic turn for the worse I think things will largely stay as they are.
Listening to the vague initial plans for releasing us from the lockdown doesn’t fill me with confidence though - from what I’ve heard they’re thinking of staggering it via region and age group. I have no doubt there’ll be a degree of dissent whichever system they choose.
Anyone who thinks fixed amount fines, as in one sum fits all needs to read up on something called the ‘Criminal Court’s Charge’
It was a system brought in, by Failing Grayling when he was LCJ to make people who use the criminal justice system pay for it.
There were fixed sums for pleading guilty, fixed sums for having trials, fixed sums for any hearing, none of it means-teated and there was no judicial power to prevent it applying to people who couldn’t afford it. This, all in addition to the actual fine for the offence itself.
It was a complete and utter cluster. People couldn’t afford to have trials when they were arguably innocent, you had utterly broke criminals stealing Mars bars, receiving tile served for their night in the cell, plus a £500 or so charge for the privilege of pleading guilty.
It was the worst ‘bad debt’ the government ever tried to sell, debt collection agencies wouldn’t touch it, and we were imprisoning people for failing to pay. Magistrates resigned in their scores at the injustice of it all, full time judges hated it.
They were swiftly abolished when Grayling left. Yet another failing for his record.
The lesson was clear. Fixed financial penalties don’t work. They mean nothing to those who can afford them, and everything to those that can’t.
Where a relevant person has reasonable grounds to believe that a child is repeatedly failing
to comply with the restriction in regulation 6(1), the relevant person may direct any individual
who has responsibility for the child to secure, so far as reasonably practicable, that the child
complies with that restriction.
Maybe I am too hard but anyone out breaking the rules should now be dealt with severely.
we have been told, informed requested, maybe it’s time to take severe action.
On social media the mutants screaming it’s not really a law so I am going to do what I want and if they have a problem they can do one…
or finding stupid reasons not to comply, ie one i saw " for my daughters mental well being I need to go sit in the sun each day" really sit in the sun everyday in the UK??
ENOUGH lets get tough and get this across in simple terms for the simpletons out there!
Every other day I have a discussion with my very young nephew on the phone who can see Optimus Prime parked round the corner from his house but his dad won’t let him go see his hero.
They live in NY and “Optimus Prime” and another 2 are there as a temporary holding mortuary outside the hospital beside where they stay.
if people dont get it then we need to act, we don’t want Optimus and his friends on our streets!
The damage utterly draconian measures like you suggest would do to the fabric of the state and society can’t even be comprehended by us.
The vast majority are toeing the line - there are a few flouting the rules but there always will be, even if the police start sniping people from helicopters…
Not sure about that. Most of the “it won’t affect me”/“I’m not going to run scared of a bug”/“it’s all a government conspiracy” people I know are of the No Surrender, bring back national service, we survived the war etc crowd
I’m disappointed they haven’t brought in a rule like in Spain and Israel where you are limited in distance of travel from your property.
Easy to prove where you live and therefor easy to find people. As an idea, Israel is 100 Meters as their distance. I think that would solve a lot of what we are seeing.
The police implement and obey the law (yeah, ok, no laughing at the back). The law, as opposed to made up rubbish peddled by half-wits, contains no restrictions on where you can shop or what you can buy in shops that are allowed to open, nor does it contain restrictions on whether you can drive somewhere to take your dog for a walk.
People sunbathing in a park or bbq-ing on an empty beach are very unlikely to be a threat to public health - and the legislation is public health legislation - people going to work on the other hand…
I think you have taken leave of your senses, and should go and have a lie down.
TBH the nation has been given two weeks to sort their act out, and whilst the majority have followed instruction and guidance, there is still a small minority who don’t, or can’t, see the threat to everyone as a result of their actions.
If the indications are correct, this week will see an increase in deaths, the 14 day window.
Time has come for further action to stop the small number of idiots from spreading this infection.
I have no issues with a total lockdown, give police more powers and see an increase in military involvement; invoke a certain Op to assist the civil authorities, taking MACA to another level.
Without it, the spread will continue, either by increasing the number of deaths or prolonging the threat for months.
I think some of you are missing the point, they’re not just asking us to stay at home to reduce the risk of spreading the virus but to reduce the stress on the NHS…
Walk your dog in the mountains and fall over, that’s mountain rescue, air ambulance, land ambulance etc etc all that could be used elsewhere.
BBQ in the park, seems simple enough but how many burns accidents are there a year? You’ve had to travel there increasing chances of an accident in transit both of which would tie up NHS resources.
The message is simple yet those who believe rules are for the obedience of fools and guidance of wise men may have which one they are mixed up.
It’s about proportionality though isn’t it - there’s a difference between going down the park and keeping a sensible distance from people and traipsing up Ben Nevis.