Reduction in social gatherings.

[MikeWM]

You just end up with dismal 'blame' articles like this, in what passes nowadays for a local 'newspaper'

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/ne...res-crowds-bars-coronavirus-lockdown-18926956

Shocking pictures show crowds outside bars before ‘rule of six’ comes in

It was a busy Saturday night in Cambridge as people flocked to the city's bars ahead of changes to Covid-19 restrictions.

Shocking pictures taken on St Andrew's and Downing streets show a mass of people waiting outside the venues during the last weekend before lockdown measures tighten across the UK.

I was passing through that exact area on Saturday night around the same time. There was a nice positive atmosphere, and my only thought was how nice it was to see a lot of young people having a good time and a fun night out.

I don't understand the mentality that would take photos and sent them to the paper so they can call them 'shocking' This year really has brought out a side of the British people that I didn't expect, and would rather have never found out about.

 

[AdamWW]

There are a lot of things that won't happen though, even if they lift restrictions. I doubt the kids will be able to sit on Santa's knee in the grotto,

I think that is frowned upon these days anyway....a chair to one side seems to be the rule.

 

[Meerkat]

The crazy bit is this fool Malthouse says to use the non-emergency number to grass-up your neighbours. Which is not only abhorrent, but completely ineffective as the people will have likely gone home by the time PC Plod arrives....

I have used the non-emergency number and had very quick response before. AIUI it’s the same operations room answering as 999, just a lower priority to answer it if they are busy with 999 calls.

In all likelihood your neighbours are only going to grass you up if you are really taking the mick or you are generally a bad neighbour - noisy parties, big bbqs etc etc.

 

[BJames]

In Lenton? I didn't hear anything!

From what I've heard in student circles sounds like the problem arose when one of the people there basically started mouthing off at Community Protection (who have no real legal powers) so they called the police. BUT the fine is completely and utterly out of proportion, the student should go to court and it will very likely be reduced. An example was likely made so that police/community protection/neighbours/landlords can spread the message and say "it's not just a threat, people have already been fined!"

It doesn't make sense just to jump to a £10k fine. Imagine not wearing a mask and being fined £3.2k on the spot for a first offence.

I have used the non-emergency number and had very quick response before. AIUI it’s the same operations room answering as 999, just a lower priority to answer it if they are busy with 999 calls.

In all likelihood your neighbours are only going to grass you up if you are really taking the mick or you are generally a bad neighbour - noisy parties, big bbqs etc etc.

Although I don't agree with using 101 for reporting people I definitely agree that the police are only going to attend for something which would still be construed as a "small gathering". More likely that they'll respond quicker to parties such as the example above in Lenton.

We've used that number before as well, reporting something non-urgent but the operator said they'd send someone straight round, and they came.

 

[Meerkat]

BUT the fine is completely and utterly out of proportion, the student should go to court and it will very likely be reduced. An example was likely made so that police/community protection/neighbours/landlords can spread the message and say "it's not just a threat, people have already been fined!"

It’s a pretty effective system really. Everyone will remember “bloke got fined ten grand!!”, but probably wont ever even hear about the same bloke actually getting a £500 fine at court.

 

[AdamWW]

It’s a pretty effective system really. Everyone will remember “bloke got fined ten grand!!”, but probably wont ever even hear about the same bloke actually getting a £500 fine at court.

Like all the stories over people suing over something frivoulous which tend not to make the headlines when the case is thrown out.

 

[MikeWM]

So the statutory instrument used to introduce the new limit of 6. Available 15 minutes before they came into force. They won't be debated in parliament until afterwards... This is concerning stuff.

A good explanatory thread here

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1305276954816503808?s=19

Indeed. Combining this and the Brexit/treaty stuff that is currently happening, I'm seeing a lot of legal types (finally) showing concern at the way the Government is handling the basics of the rule of law.

Even Liberty have woken up now. (I have wondered where they have been the last 6 months, but they seem to have finally smelled a rat).

 

[Islineclear3_1]

In the Metro today:

Metro Newspaper site Metro.news has a new online home on Metro.co.uk | Metro UK

Exciting news: Metro.News has merged with metro.co.uk!

www.metro.news

A UNIVERSITY student has been fined £10,000 for breaking coronavirus rules after dozens of people turned up to a party at his digs.

Stuart Hawk, 19, and his housemates said they ‘only’ invited around 25 pals — five fewer than the legal limit — to the bash at their shared home on Friday.

But around 50 partygoers descended on the property and concerned neighbours contacted police, who slapped ex-public schoolboy Hawk with the maximum penalty. The Covid-busting event happened as thousands of people enjoyed a ‘last hurrah’ before prime minister Boris Johnson’s ‘Rule of Six’ on social gatherings kicks in today.

 

[Bantamzen]

You just end up with dismal 'blame' articles like this, in what passes nowadays for a local 'newspaper'

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/ne...res-crowds-bars-coronavirus-lockdown-18926956



I was passing through that exact area on Saturday night around the same time. There was a nice positive atmosphere, and my only thought was how nice it was to see a lot of young people having a good time and a fun night out.

I don't understand the mentality that would take photos and sent them to the paper so they can call them 'shocking' This year really has brought out a side of the British people that I didn't expect, and would rather have never found out about.

Unfortunately this was all too predicable. There's always been a subset of mean spirited people in this country who have resented other people, especially if they appear to be enjoying life more than them. So the opportunity to fill social media with their vitriol, and now the chance to show them by dobbing them in will be manna from heaven to these people. And it won't just be raves or student parties, anything that mildly irritates them that might involve 7 or people will be documented and reported. I wouldn't want to be working on the Police lines from now on.

 

[Meerkat]

Unfortunately this was all too predicable. There's always been a subset of mean spirited people in this country who have resented other people, especially if they appear to be enjoying life more than them. So the opportunity to fill social media with their vitriol, and now the chance to show them by dobbing them in will be manna from heaven to these people. And it won't just be raves or student parties, anything that mildly irritates them that might involve 7 or people will be documented and reported. I wouldn't want to be working on the Police lines from now on.

The police won’t get round to it if you grass up 7 people having a quiet family gathering, and even if they do they will just drop by and ‘offer advice’ - if the response is suitably contrite they will leave it and move on.

Like all the stories over people suing over something frivoulous which tend not to make the headlines when the case is thrown out.

They don’t even go to court.
The public remember “he was suing about that allegation of adultery wasn’t he, so presumably didn’t do it”
But actually the person just said “I am instructing my lawyers”....who probably just laughed and billed them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately this was all too predicable. There's always been a subset of mean spirited people in this country who have resented other people, especially if they appear to be enjoying life more than them. So the opportunity to fill social media with their vitriol, and now the chance to show them by dobbing them in will be manna from heaven to these people. And it won't just be raves or student parties, anything that mildly irritates them that might involve 7 or people will be documented and reported. I wouldn't want to be working on the Police lines from now on.

Why is it mean spirited to wish that everyone complies with the law, which is there for the overall benefit to society?

 

[DB]

Why is it mean spirited to wish that everyone complies with the law, which is there for the overall benefit to society?

Because these arbitraty restrictions increasingly show no evidence of being for the overall benefit of society.

 

[Meerkat]

Because these arbitraty restrictions increasingly show no evidence of being for the overall benefit of society.

You are saying there is no evidence that meeting inside homes is a , if not the, major transmission route?

 

[DB]

You are saying there is no evidence that meeting inside homes is a , if not the, major transmission route?

There is no evidence for an arbitrary number of 6.

Not to mention the bigger point - that there is also no evidence that slowing down the spread has any long-term benefits.

 

[Bantamzen]

The police won’t get round to it if you grass up 7 people having a quiet family gathering, and even if they do they will just drop by and ‘offer advice’ - if the response is suitably contrite they will leave it and move on.

The Police have far more important things to than going around telling people off for having small gatherings in their homes / gardens.

Why is it mean spirited to wish that everyone complies with the law, which is there for the overall benefit to society?

1. Because it is
2. Because it really is
3. Because the Police have far more important things to than going around telling people off for having small gatherings in their homes / gardens.

Now if we were talking about a party of 50 playing dance music into the night, sure that warrants a call. But if its the Jones' having a couple of Timmy's mates over for a birthday BBQ, its mean spirited. Completely and utterly mean spirited, and it will happen. Up and down the country I can already hear the flutter, and notice the breeze of a million net curtains twitching.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is no evidence for an arbitrary number of 6.

You need to pick a number. It could have been 5, it could have been 7. The clear aim is to prevent extended-family at-home get-togethers because they are the main source of spread at the moment.

 

[Ianno87]

The Police have far more important things to than going around telling people off for having small gatherings in their homes / gardens.

1. Because it is
2. Because it really is
3. Because the Police have far more important things to than going around telling people off for having small gatherings in their homes / gardens.

Now if we were talking about a party of 50 playing dance music into the night, sure that warrants a call. But if its the Jones' having a couple of Timmy's mates over for a birthday BBQ, its mean spirited. Completely and utterly mean spirited, and it will happen. Up and down the country I can already hear the flutter, and notice the breeze of a million net curtains twitching.

Methinks this "snitch on the neighbours" statement is merely to make the cutrain-twitchers *think* the police are doing something, when in reality the report would probably just go in the junk folder uninvestigated.

I'd like to think most of the public will have at least some sense and only report more serious / piss-taking breaches.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Why is it mean spirited to wish that everyone complies with the law, which is there for the overall benefit to society?

Because it’s bullsh!t when the government making that law is about to break a treaty and violate international law?

 

[AdamWW]

There is no evidence for an arbitrary number of 6.

Why does that mean the whole principle is wrong?

Not to mention the bigger point - that there is also no evidence that slowing down the spread has any long-term benefits.

I think we can be resonably sure that it would be rather bad if it got to the point where even by concentrating entirely on Covid patients the health system couldn't treat everyone who needed it.

No we don't know that would happen.

But currently the evidence is suggesting it is a serious risk.

 

[DB]

Methinks this "snitch on the neighbours" statement is merely to make the cutrain-twitchers *think* the police are doing something, when in reality the report would probably just go in the junk folder uninvestigated.

Probably

I'd like to think most of the public will have at least some sense and only report more serious / piss-taking breaches.

I'd like to have your confidence in the sense of the public, but afraid I very much expect there to be loads of petty reports about 7 people at a barbecue and the like.

 

[bramling]

Methinks this "snitch on the neighbours" statement is merely to make the cutrain-twitchers *think* the police are doing something, when in reality the report would probably just go in the junk folder uninvestigated.

I'd like to think most of the public will have at least some sense and only report more serious / piss-taking breaches.

I don’t know about that. Social media is in overdrive here after someone posted that one shop in the town didn’t have a hand gel dispenser.

If that merits over 200 social media posts then anything is possible!

 

[birchesgreen]

I somehow doubt the police will be going around people's houses if they have 7 people at a BBQ. Around here they don't come out if there are reports of theft or criminal damage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because it’s bullsh!t when the government making that law is about to break a treaty and violate international law?

Well, I'd rather they didn't, but conflating the two is just immature in my view.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

You need to pick a number. It could have been 5, it could have been 7. The clear aim is to prevent extended-family at-home get-togethers because they are the main source of spread at the moment.

But they could ride the Piccadilly Line together, legally, from Cockfosters to Heathrow, and - if there is a danger - infect how many people?

 

[Bantamzen]

Methinks this "snitch on the neighbours" statement is merely to make the cutrain-twitchers *think* the police are doing something, when in reality the report would probably just go in the junk folder uninvestigated.

I'd like to think most of the public will have at least some sense and only report more serious / piss-taking breaches.

Sadly I honestly believe that a lot of people won't use sense, the thought of getting one up will be too much temptation. If people will fight years long legal battles over inches of land, they'll be right on it!

 

[DB]

I think we can be resonably sure that it would be rather bad if it got to the point where even by concentrating entirely on Covid patients the health system couldn't treat everyone who needed it.

It did that anyway (delayed cancer treatments, etc) - reportedly leading to lots of medical staff with nothing to do...

 

[Bletchleyite]

But they could ride the Piccadilly Line together, legally, from Cockfosters to Heathrow, and - if there is a danger - infect how many people?

Or they could do both. If they did both, there would be even more spread. People seem not to get this - it's an effect on overall numbers we want.

 

[AdamWW]

It did that anyway (delayed cancer treatments, etc) - reportedly leading to lots of medical staff with nothing to do...

Are you seriously using this to argue that we would have been no worse off if we'd run out of critical care beds?

 

[DB]

Are you seriously using this to argue that we would have been no worse off if we'd run out of critical care beds?

But we didn't come close to that - and it's now even less likely, with the extra capacity and the reduced hospitalisations currently being seen.

 

[AdamWW]

But we didn't come close to that - and it's now even less likely, with the extra capacity and the reduced hospitalisations currently being seen.

No, we didn't reach that with a lockdown.

That doesn't mean that we can now stop making efforts to reduce spread and we'll be fine.