COVID fines

This board can’t have it both ways. 200000+ died. If, as many on here hold, these were largely preventable then why should we feel sorry for those who took the proverbial, put others at risk and got caught? If you believe the restrictions were a sham of course, so are the fines. But you have to be self-consistent.
 
This board can’t have it both ways. 200000+ died. If, as many on here hold, these were largely preventable then why should we feel sorry for those who took the proverbial, put others at risk and got caught? If you believe the restrictions were a sham of course, so are the fines. But you have to be self-consistent.
You must be furious with downing Street parties then
 
This board can’t have it both ways. 200000+ died. If, as many on here hold, these were largely preventable then why should we feel sorry for those who took the proverbial, put others at risk and got caught? If you believe the restrictions were a sham of course, so are the fines. But you have to be self-consistent.
You can't have it both ways, so surely these people should have exhausted about 6 months of report writing before accepting a token fine
 
This board can’t have it both ways. 200000+ died. If, as many on here hold, these were largely preventable then why should we feel sorry for those who took the proverbial, put others at risk and got caught? If you believe the restrictions were a sham of course, so are the fines. But you have to be self-consistent.
Who wants it both ways? The fines these people got were massively disproportionate and life changing. Meanwhile the people who made the rules made a mockery of the whole thing and even if they receive the same level of fine won't feel it to anything like the same level.

My issue is that the little guys get screwed over every time. The whole pandemic was seized on by opportunists to feather their own nests and I agree with none of it.
 
You must be furious with downing Street parties then
Obviously. Why would you assume otherwise? And I’ll be sympathetic to any who were innocent. As to the guilty, fines always disproportionately affect the poor, but so does criminality as a rule, and you can always not do the crime in the first place.

200000 dead, that’s what’s life changing for millions of families. if the rules were justified, the punishments are.
 
Obviously. Why would you assume otherwise? And I’ll be sympathetic to any who were innocent. As to the guilty, fines always disproportionately affect the poor, but so does criminality as a rule, and you can always not do the crime in the first place.

200000 dead, that’s what’s life changing for millions of families. if the rules were justified, the punishments are.

According to some on here I’m obsessed with covid so am probably the last person you’d expect to be defending any of these people.

But even I can see £10,000 for a snowball fight and £14,000 for a party someone didn’t even attend is ridiculously harsh.
 
According to some on here I’m obsessed with covid so am probably the last person you’d expect to be defending any of these people.

But even I can see £10,000 for a snowball fight and £14,000 for a party someone didn’t even attend is ridiculously harsh.
The snowball fight one was a bit of a shocker, mainly because we knew right from month one that the risk outside was negligible, and where I took most issue with the rules was that they never fully took this into account in persecuting people for having coffees, sitting on benches etc. And we know there were plenty of daft anomalies.

But the bottom line is most of the breaches being complained of were clear. And this was serious. You had a disease with an infection fatality rate of 1.2 to 1.5% at its peak. If you infect one other person unnecessarily, that’s arguably 1.2 to 1.5% of a homicide. Which even on present tarrifs is probably two months or so in prison, not just a fine. In many ways the penalties were excessively lenient. People who knowingly took the p1ss are not deserving of sympathy in my book.

I have never accused you of being obsessed with Covid, although you are further on the cautious side than I am based on what I perceive to be the present levels of risk, but it is a bit inconsistent that you want more severe restrictions now than most do when fatalities are much lower, but you don’t think enforcement of the restrictions we had when fatalities were much higher are appropriate.
 
Back
Top