Just drove past a packed Preston Park

There is no definition of local, so you can't be guilty of breaking a law if you are' local'. Local might be their village to some, it might be the area to others. If someone has to drive 10 miles to a supermarket does that then make it ok for someone to drive 9 miles for a walk on a beach?
If you don't live beside the seaside then you don't travel. If you live in the sticks and have to travel to the supermarket then you travel(or have your stuff delivered). The idea Is to stop people gathering in large numbers, and to stay in the area where they live to stop the 'potential' spread of the virus.
 
There are some frankly ridiculous arguments and accusations being put forward on this thread about lockdown loving, ageism, high horses, police states or even the semantics of phrases.
I work with a wide range of ages, backgrounds and ethnicities and can tell you that there are all sorts of things being done that are creating potential virus transmission situations, be they people going on Tinder dates, meeting up in houses for drinking sessions, car sharing and lots of other situations. No doubt some are inadvertent, some deliberate and some even based on flawed logic that 'it can't hurt'. Lockdown fatigue might have led people to weigh up the risks as may financial pressures too, but all of the above has continued to allow the virus to circulate.
These things have been going on within the wider population since the start of the pandemic and the death and infection figures stand as evidence that this is the case. Packed parks on a nice weekend might not be super spreading events, but they are an indication of the lack of compliance with the guidelines which has seen us have not one but two deadly peaks and resulted in 135k deaths so far.
You can argue all you like about the government's handling of things, the rules or their interpretation, but it must be apparent to everyone that 4 million plus infections show that people haven't been as diligent as they could have been in avoiding situations where they could catch the virus, be that lack of hygiene or not avoiding close contact with others.
Carrying on arguing of the small stuff.
 
Fixed it for you.

Just because something is difficult to enforce doesn't make it impossible to follow. That's where personal responsibility comes in. People have chosen not to follow the rules, not because they are impossible to follow, but because they feel inconvenienced.
You're not missing anything, because he's not answering the question, and deliberately interchanging following with enforcing when they are clearly not the same thing.
They haven’t BEEN ABLE to have been followed or the HAVEN’T been followed? I agree with the latter but it’s still not clear which of the new rules it’s not possible to consistently stick to? What am I missing?
Laws cannot be based purely on aspiration of how it is wished for the public to behave - there has to be some feasibility studies conducted across the general population. These laws have all been brought in on the hoof, backed up by stickers and electronic adverts, without any feasibility studies conducted - and the level to which they have been broken reflects that.

We could pass a law mandating that people eat 5 fruit and veg a day. Would it be good if people followed it? Yes. Would it ever be followed consistently across the population? No, not without some kind of police state repressions.

The point I am making is, these laws have (I would imagine) been the most widely broken in living memory. They don't work (and can't be consistently followed) without police state repression. So what do we want - repression or realistic laws? I know what I'd prefer.
 
Laws cannot be based purely on aspiration of how it is wished for the public to behave - there has to be some feasibility studies conducted across the general population. These laws have all been brought in on the hoof, backed up by stickers and electronic adverts, without any feasibility studies conducted - and the level to which they have been broken reflects that.

We could pass a law mandating that people eat 5 fruit and veg a day. Would it be good if people followed it? Yes. Would it ever be followed consistently across the population? No, not without some kind of police state repressions.

The point I am making is, these laws have (I would imagine) been the most widely broken in living memory. They don't work (and can't be consistently followed) without police state repression. So what do we want - repression or realistic laws? I know what I'd prefer.
So you've sort of clarified you were wrong to say the laws were impossible to follow. Thank god for that! Well done for backpedaling too.
 
So we can get rid of speeding as an offence as over 50% of drivers regularly break the speed limit? Hardly any of them had an accident whilst speeding.

There isn't one covid law impossible to follow.
No comparison to be made between speeding laws and diktats about what reason you can leave the house, and what you must wear in public. The level of public intrusion just doesn't compare.
 
No comparison to be made between speeding laws and diktats about what reason you can leave the house, and what you must wear in public. The level of public intrusion just doesn't compare.
So following the law isn't impossible.

I have had to wear a motorcycle helmet for about 50 years. I never wore one before that. Similarly with seat belts.
 
During the first lockdown Preston Park was closed, strange this time it wasn't. I wonder what Stockton B. C reasoning is for this. Unless it was a recognition by government that these places are needed for the well being of the local populous.
 
The point I am making is, these laws have (I would imagine) been the most widely broken in living memory. They don't work (and can't be consistently followed) without police state repression. So what do we want - repression or realistic laws? I know what I'd prefer.
You're doing it again.

Of course they can be consistently followed. There is not a single covid law that can't be followed easily enough if people choose to comply.

Unfortunately, as this thread demonstrates so clearly, there are far too many selfish people who choose not to comply, and far too many others that then make excuses for them.
 
During the first lockdown Preston Park was closed, strange this time it wasn't. I wonder what Stockton B. C reasoning is for this. Unless it was a recognition by government that these places are needed for the well being of the local populous.
The same reasoning followed by every council in the country, as all parks have remained open.
 
You're doing it again.

Of course they can be consistently followed. There is not a single covid law that can't be followed easily enough if people choose to comply.

Unfortunately, as this thread demonstrates so clearly, there are far too many selfish people who choose not to comply, and far too many others that then make excuses for them.
Using this logic, I'd estimate it at about 65 million selfish people in the UK. Plus a few holy souls.
 
Last edited:
Both sides are never going to agree.

Let's just move on.

I wonder what the topic of argument will be come june/ July? 🤔
You're talking like there are two equally valid arguments on each side when that just isn't the case.

There are those following the law as it stands at any given time. They are right.

There are those who think the law as it stands doesn't apply to them, and also those who make excuses for those people. They are wrong.

It's as simple as that.
 
You're talking like there are two equally valid arguments on each side when that just isn't the case.

There are those following the law as it stands at any given time. They are right.

There are those who think the law as it stands doesn't apply to them, and also those who make excuses for those people. They are wrong.

It's as simple as that.
So do you think the people should have any discretion in the matter? Or are they right to follow laws regardless of how intrusive they are?
 
Back
Top