bear66
Well-known member
So which laws are consistently impossible to adhere to?You missed the word “consistently“.
So which laws are consistently impossible to adhere to?You missed the word “consistently“.
Taken from the most recent 'lockdown' regulations;Define how local is local
‘You have no excuse to drive for exercise’Not looking down on anyone, just following the rules.
You've re-worded the sentence. "Which of the laws are impossible to adhere to consistently?" would be better, and my answer would be, almost all.So which laws are consistently impossible to adhere to?
Why?You've re-worded the sentence. "Which of the laws are impossible to adhere to consistently?" would be better, and my answer would be, almost all.
The answer is actually none.You've re-worded the sentence. "Which of the laws are impossible to adhere to consistently?" would be better, and my answer would be, almost all.
Taken from the most recent 'lockdown' regulations;
"Travel
You must not leave your home unless you have a reasonable excuse (for example, for work or education purposes).
If you need to travel you should stay local. This means you should avoid travelling outside of your village, town or the part of a city where you live. You should reduce the number of journeys you make overall".
So travelling to Preston Park for exercise, I would suggest 'local' is anyone who lives in Eaglescliffe/Egglescliffe/ Preston on Tees.
The government is expecting each and everyone of us to stick to the guidelines and interpret them.
We are in a lockdown, still.
Do you have an example?You've re-worded the sentence. "Which of the laws are impossible to adhere to consistently?" would be better, and my answer would be, almost all.
This seems to be the crux of the matter. On the few occasions I've been into my office, I have never seen anyone, bar a few homeless people maskless, even my walk across Central Park. We went for brunch in Astoria yesterday to meet my daughter and son-in-law. Masks required, no exceptions and they took temperature and Name, address and phone number for one of the party. It is slightly more relaxed on Long Island, but infection rates and hospitalisations are both going down.Why?
I've been shielding for a year and have followed all of the rules, why can't others?
The example set by the man heading the team that penned the open ended regulations was 7 miles out of his area for a bike ride with a posse of bodyguards.Taken from the most recent 'lockdown' regulations;
"Travel
You must not leave your home unless you have a reasonable excuse (for example, for work or education purposes).
If you need to travel you should stay local. This means you should avoid travelling outside of your village, town or the part of a city where you live. You should reduce the number of journeys you make overall".
So travelling to Preston Park for exercise, I would suggest 'local' is anyone who lives in Eaglescliffe/Egglescliffe/ Preston on Tees.
The government is expecting each and everyone of us to stick to the guidelines and interpret them.
We are in a lockdown, still.
In my own experience - had the no-mask policy (of up to 6,400 fine) been enforced, there would be thousands severely out of pocket. Simply hasn't happened.Do you have an example?
There are so many reasons other people could have broken some of the rules it wouldn't be possible to list them all here.Why?
I've been shielding for a year and have followed all of the rules, why can't others?
If this were the case, an awful lot of the population would be out of pocket right now.The answer is actually none.
The example set by the man heading the team that penned the open ended regulations was 7 miles out of his area for a bike ride with a posse of bodyguards.
For many in Teesside 7 miles gets you a walk on the coast which can be done socially distanced with no chance of spreading the disease.
The people penning those loose regulations are now buying newspaper space letting everyone know that the virus is on the wane and how well they've done.
Little wonder people are going out into the fresh air and getting a breather, space for their kids in a safe environment with a chance to exercise.
Mixed messaging for a year, I can't believe how rigorous the population have stuck to the lockdown considering the antics of those writing the rules.
You're moving the goalposts.If this were the case, an awful lot of the population would be out of pocket right now.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, just as the proof of drafting and enacting legislation is in how feasibly it can be consistently adhered to by the majority of the population.You're moving the goalposts.
Just because something hasn't been enforced properly (as referenced by the lack of fines) doesn't mean it was impossible for the population to follow.
Give three examples of the rules that have been, to use your words, impossible to follow consistently.
I think that's what some want on here, a Police state.The proof of the pudding is in the eating, just as the proof of drafting and enacting legislation is in how feasibly it can be consistently adhered to by the majority of the population.
As I said in my original post, these laws have been impossible to follow consistently without turning the UK into a police state. As has been proven (at least in my own experience observing society).
Until we have police state conditions, these laws won't be followed consistently, by the majority of the population - because the level of intrusion correlates with the necessary level of enforcement for consistent adherence.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, just as the proof of drafting and enacting legislation is in how feasibly it can be consistently adhered to by the majority of the population.
As I said in my original post, these laws have been impossible to enforce consistently without turning the UK into a police state. As has been proven (at least in my own experience observing society).
Until we have police state conditions, these laws won't be enforced consistently on the majority of the population - because the level of intrusion correlates with the necessary level of enforcement for consistent adherence.
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.The proof of the pudding is in the eating, just as the proof of drafting and enacting legislation is in how feasibly it can be consistently adhered to by the majority of the population.
As I said in my original post, these laws have been impossible to follow consistently without turning the UK into a police state. As has been proven (at least in my own experience observing society).
Until we have police state conditions, these laws won't be followed consistently, by the majority of the population - because the level of intrusion correlates with the necessary level of enforcement for consistent adherence.
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?In my own experience - had the no-mask policy (of up to 6,400 fine) been enforced, there would be thousands severely out of pocket. Simply hasn't happened.
Likewise with shielding, quarantining after coming back from abroad, 2 metres etc. They simply haven't been able to be followed across the board by the majority of the population.
There are so many reasons other people could have broken some of the rules it wouldn't be possible to list them all here.
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?