When will this shit end?

[Crazyfool01]

28 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Police support it.

 

"It comes after fears Brits would simply ignore the rules - with Met chief Dame Cressida Dick saying cops have "other things to do" than barge in on Christmas lunches."

they support it because they won't have the need to enforce anything ...... they arent going to get calls about groups of 21 people 

[efcfanwirral]

I think it comes down to those who think for themselves vs those who let the government do their thinking for them. Some people are genuinely baffled by "you might be allowed to go to the pub but safety-wise you probably shouldn't" type thinking. 

And that's the crux of our problem - we're all reasonably sensible people on here who seem to actually think about things at a deeper level. But for huge amounts of the country being "allowed" means it's safe so they'll run absolutely riot over those few days

The only way this would work is with a strict "don't leave your house" for the next 4 weeks. We're just throwing it all away and I'd hate to think there was political motivation because it feels like willfully allowing loads of deaths

[Zoo Music Girl]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

Oh yeah it would be a free for all, I was wondering what one it meant.

I get what you mean, it seems a bit of a mess. Take my immediate family we have households:

- my parents

- me

- my sisters, her husband and 2 boys

- my sister and her husband

- my youngest that lives in London.

5 different households, one of which will have to not see any of us. That’s not even taking into account any other family or groups. This idea seems like a complete mess, not policeable in anyway and as it’ll lead to people being left out it will mean people will break the rules and we’ll see cases rising etc. 

Yeah so presumably your sisters' husbands have family on their side they would want to see too. It quickly gets to be a lot of bubbles or a lot of people being left out.

[Guest]

I find it strange the mentality of people are just going to break the rules anyway so we might as well relax the rules. That’s like saying people are going to illegally download media so we might as well allow them to do it. It’s about messaging and explaining to people why these measures are in place. 

[Copperface]

36 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Police support it.

 

"It comes after fears Brits would simply ignore the rules - with Met chief Dame Cressida Dick saying cops have "other things to do" than barge in on Christmas lunches."

Massive difference between 'supporting' something, and being able to do sod all about it.

[Guest]

Just now, Zoo Music Girl said:

Yeah so presumably your sisters' husbands have family on their side they would want to see too. It quickly gets to be a lot of bubbles or a lot of people being left out.

So the one with kids his family are in Bolton so they won’t be down here. The other brother in law, potentially but I don’t think my sister would be keen. If I count as a separate household I’d sacrifice my Christmas if they wanted to meet up. 

[Zoo Music Girl]

1 hour ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Where do you meet, a mansion? 

No you misunderstand me. We don't all meet together. I was assuming the four bubbles applied throughout the period (we won't even see my partner's sibling's parents). 

We actually the turns thing you describe: so my partner's family this Christmas Day as we saw mine last year. So that would be six of us maximum, more often just four. But I would still normally see my parents at some point between Christmas and New Year under ordinary circumstances.

I could be wrong but I was taking the bubbles thing to mean Christmas as a period and four bubbles throughout so was just illustrating that if there are only four  bubbles allowed we can't even see our parents each because of the other bubbles they need to be in. It gets complicated.

[squirrelarmy]

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

So the one with kids his family are in Bolton so they won’t be down here. The other brother in law, potentially but I don’t think my sister would be keen. If I count as a separate household I’d sacrifice my Christmas if they wanted to meet up. 

Both of my sisters have young kids. They’re the only ones really excited about Christmas. I’m more than happy to let them do the socialising with my mum and I’ll stay at home out of the way. 
 

Not having to deal with overexcited 6 year olds at Christmas is a bonus. 

[Crazyfool01]

2 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

Both of my sisters have young kids. They’re the only ones really excited about Christmas. I’m more than happy to let them do the socialising with my mum and I’ll stay at home out of the way. 
 

Not having to deal with overexcited 6 year olds at Christmas is a bonus. 

with all those dates you get you are probably the highest risk  

[Chapple12345]

Is there any suggestion that they might give several scenarios to allow certain amounts of people to meet? It'd be vastly irresponsible for several groups to meet if cases were higher but maybe if cases were lower there could be a bit more wiggle room to the limits? 

[incident]

8 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I find it strange the mentality of people are just going to break the rules anyway so we might as well relax the rules. That’s like saying people are going to illegally download media so we might as well allow them to do it. It’s about messaging and explaining to people why these measures are in place. 

A large part of it would be ability and willingness to enforce and prosecute it though.

No politician in the country is going to put their name to a law that could potentially result in jail time or a large fine for someone going to visit their mother on Christmas Day. No police officer is going to want to enforce that law, and while lawyers and judges would (probably reluctantly) follow process laid down in the law, it's obvious that they'd be pilloried in the press for doing so.

 

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

All this talk of undoing all the good of the lockdown and the condemnation of loads of people to death forgets one important thing.

There is another 20 days of a tighter tiered lock down - this should continue to lower number of infected people meaning that by the time a relaxation happens the number of people with Covid in the community should be relatively low - and people with symptoms, positive tests or isolating should still be isolating. If pubs and things are open it's not going to be a free for all like a normal Xmas there will still be restrictions in place not making a trip to the pub unsafe as such. 

Let's see how tight these additional tighter tiers are going to be before unleashing the grim reaper.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

Both of my sisters have young kids. They’re the only ones really excited about Christmas. I’m more than happy to let them do the socialising with my mum and I’ll stay at home out of the way. 
 

Not having to deal with overexcited 6 year olds at Christmas is a bonus. 

I’d love to be around my nephews on Christmas Day, whilst they’ll be crazy excited it’s great to see them open their presents etc. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, incident said:

A large part of it would be ability and willingness to enforce and prosecute it though.

No politician in the country is going to put their name to a law that could potentially result in jail time or a large fine for someone going to visit their mother on Christmas Day. No police officer is going to want to enforce that law, and while lawyers and judges would (probably reluctantly) follow process laid down in the law, it's obvious that they'd be pilloried in the press for doing so.

 

They probably wouldn’t want to, no one wants to do any of this. My point was about the idea that just because people are going to break a rule we should get rid of the rule is one that I find strange. 

[Crazyfool01]

Lovely green arrows here  

[incident]

Just now, Ozanne said:

They probably wouldn’t want to, no one wants to do any of this. My point was about the idea that just because people are going to break a rule we should get rid of the rule is one that I find strange. 

That's not what's being done, though.

The idea is to set the rules in such a way that it might actually get followed while stopping short of being a free for all.

Most laws do that to some degree - for example road traffic accidents would reduce dramatically if there was a national 10mph speed limit on all roads and everyone obeyed it. But almost nobody would, so the limits are (generally speaking) set at a level that most people will be prepared to stick to.

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

Its simply the realisation that people will meet up over Xmas and there isn't any point in having restrictions in place which are unenforceable.

 

Even sturgeon agrees with this it seems

But 4 households is a restriction. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, incident said:

That's not what's being done, though.

The idea is to set the rules in such a way that it might actually get followed while stopping short of being a free for all.

Most laws do that to some degree - for example road traffic accidents would reduce dramatically if there was a national 10mph speed limit on all roads and everyone obeyed it. But almost nobody would, so the limits are (generally speaking) set at a level that most people will be prepared to stick to.

Tbf it was more a comment in regards to a previous post on here, not what the governments motives are. 

[Guest]

 

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

Police support it.

 

"It comes after fears Brits would simply ignore the rules - with Met chief Dame Cressida Dick saying cops have "other things to do" than barge in on Christmas lunches."

Dick? HAHAHA

[steviewevie]

27 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I find it strange the mentality of people are just going to break the rules anyway so we might as well relax the rules. That’s like saying people are going to illegally download media so we might as well allow them to do it. It’s about messaging and explaining to people why these measures are in place. 

people are going to just take drugs anyway, so may as well legalise them.

[steviewevie]

I blame jesus.

[stuartbert two hats]

32 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

No you misunderstand me. We don't all meet together. I was assuming the four bubbles applied throughout the period (we won't even see my partner's sibling's parents). 

We actually the turns thing you describe: so my partner's family this Christmas Day as we saw mine last year. So that would be six of us maximum, more often just four. But I would still normally see my parents at some point between Christmas and New Year under ordinary circumstances.

I could be wrong but I was taking the bubbles thing to mean Christmas as a period and four bubbles throughout so was just illustrating that if there are only four  bubbles allowed we can't even see our parents each because of the other bubbles they need to be in. It gets complicated.

Yeah, I realised as the conversation moved on that I had the wrong end of the stick!

[Crazyfool01]

It’s going to make for an interesting question and answer session at the next briefing !! 

[steviewevie]

christmas is the opiate of the masses.