BoroFur
Well-known member
More melodrama. Why don't you start a thread with a poll just to satisfy yourself?I think that's what some want on here, a Police state.
They'd have loved living in East Germany or the like.
More melodrama. Why don't you start a thread with a poll just to satisfy yourself?I think that's what some want on here, a Police state.
They'd have loved living in East Germany or the like.
I'm keeping you entertained today my dearMore melodrama. Why don't you start a thread with a poll just to satisfy yourself?
For those not old enough to remember East Germany it's often used as a point of reference in order to compare what was termed Communist state coercion of an eastern bloc nation to the freedom of a capitalist country such as Myanmar.I think that's what some want on here, a Police state.
They'd have loved living in East Germany or the like.
That sounds like something from a 1930s communist speechStatistically you would be increasing the risk but bottom line is, the rules are there, they are not for individual interpretation, that creates anarchy.
No. It doesn't.That sounds like something from a 1930s communist speech
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 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?
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.
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.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?
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.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.
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 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.
Without police state repression - as I said from the beginning.So you've sort of clarified you were wrong to say the laws were impossible to follow.
So following the law isn't impossible.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.
You're doing it again.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.
The same reasoning followed by every council in the country, as all parks have remained open.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.
Using this logic, I'd estimate it at about 65 million selfish people in the UK. Plus a few holy souls.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.
Nonsense.I'd estimate it at about 65 million selfish people in the UK. Plus a few holy souls.
You're talking like there are two equally valid arguments on each side when that just isn't the case.Both sides are never going to agree.
Let's just move on.
I wonder what the topic of argument will be come june/ July?
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?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.