Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
    • David Byrne’s obviously got a few hits to play, but he’s not cheesy enough for the Legend Slot. Other headliner perhaps?
    • Too good for the legends slot 
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...