Local lockdown in Greater Manchester, East Lancashire and parts of West Yorkshire - Discussion

[takno]

Oh I'm sure it wasn't racially motivated, but given the timing was clearly aimed at the Muslim communities in these areas. And that will and is leading to other people drawing their own conclusions & fuelling some people's prejudices, something that the government must surely have been aware of.

The trouble with these 10pm "emergency" announcements is that nobody apart from the assorted idiots in cabinet and at "gold command" will have see it. The whole announcement wouldn't have survived 20 seconds oversight from the actual PR team, let alone proper review from a legal department or policy unit.

 

[Camden]

It's on BBC news?

Again, people shouldn't have to be told to keep up to date with events, requirements and advice during a national emergency. It's your responsibility.

At this stage, I'm wondering who some people would choose to blame if they pooped themselves. And who they'd expect to come and clean them up.

 

[Scrotnig]

What annoys me about all of this is that I have completely adhered to what has been said, but because of the selfishness of others I now have to cancel a meal I had planned with my mum on Sunday because she lives in a separate household.

Quite frankly, if that were me I'd still go ahead with that. I am sick of being punished for the actions of others and I firmly believe the government is now drunk on power and is enjoying manipluating people to show who's boss.

 

[Scrotnig]

Again, people shouldn't have to be told to keep up to date with events, requirements and advice during a national emergency. It's your responsibility.

All of this was announced on Twitter at 9:15 at night to take effect inside three hours and with almost no detail provided.

A lot of that detail is still missing.

Twitter should NOT be used as a platform to announce new criminal offences on.

 

[AdamWW]

Quite frankly, if that were me I'd still go ahead with that. I am sick of being punished for the actions of others and

And if enough people do that, we will all be punished for their actions, using "punished" in the sense you're using it (which I'm not sure is correct).

I firmly believe the government is now drunk on power and is enjoying manipluating people to show who's boss.

So just to be clear - you don't think the government is trying to prevent a "second wave" - you think they've just arbitrarily told a huge fraction of the population to change their behaviour because the government think it's fun to be able to tell people what to do?

I'm not convinced that the government is doing as good as job as others are at dealing with this, but....good grief!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not convinced that the government is doing as good as job as others are at dealing with this, but....good grief!

I would agree with you that the conspiracy theories are misplaced, and that they are just a bit incompetent but well-meaning.

 

[AdamWW]

Its the typical classroom scenario - one naughty child misbehaves so the rest of the class gets punished.

I appreciate the frustration (where I live it still hasn't become legal again to visit people in their homes).

But no, it really isn't.

It's more like when a child in the class is diagnosed with a serious infectious disease and the rest of the class are put in quarantine.

 

[takno]

It's on BBC news?

Again, people shouldn't have to be told to keep up to date with events, requirements and advice during a national emergency. It's your responsibility.

At this stage, I'm wondering who some people would choose to blame if they pooped themselves. And who they'd expect to come and clean them up.

It's not a national emergency, or at least hasn't been declared as one. Sure, people probably are checking news rather more often than they'd like, but this made the news after bedtime for a lot of people. By doing this with less than 48 hours notice you are just setting a trap for people.

So just to be clear - you don't think the government is trying to prevent a "second wave" - you think they've just arbitrarily told a huge fraction of the population to change their behaviour because the government think it's fun to be able to tell people what to do?

I'm not convinced that the government is doing as good as job as others are at dealing with this, but....good grief!

I think the government has stopped being able to tell the difference. I doubt they're finding it much fun, but they've clearly lost all sense of perspective and realism in their actions. They are fast approaching the level of sitting in a bunker pushing around imaginary armies, while the rest of the country just has to muddle through doing whatever seems sensible

 

[Andyh82]

All of this was announced on Twitter at 9:15 at night to take effect inside three hours and with almost no detail provided.

A lot of that detail is still missing.

Twitter should NOT be used as a platform to announce new criminal offences on.

It wasn't announced "on twitter"

The BBC News alert went off on my phone, it was all over the 10 O'Clock News programmes and on the news channels and websites

The exact info with all the loopholes "can I see 100 people 10 feet across the county boundary whilst hoping on one leg on a Tuesday" was not available, but the spirit clearly was, and thats all most people need

They could have announced it as coming in in a few days time, but when they did this on face masks, there was outrage "they've been slow on lockdown, slow on... etc"

 

[Scrotnig]

It wasn't announced "on twitter"

Yes it was. Matt Hancock announced it on twitter.

BBC News picking it up and reporting on it doesn't count as "announcing" it since they cannot speak for the government. There should have been a public statement from the government, like there usually is.

All this reinforces my belief that the government think Twitter reflects public opinion, which explains why so many policy decisions during this crisis appear to have been acceding to the shrieking hysterical Twitter mob.

 

[Scrotnig]

Additionally - the Twitter announcement said "you cannot meet others indoors" when it fact what is actually happening is "you cannot meet others indoors or outdoors".

It's a complete farce and good luck to them trying to get anyone prosecuted based on the ludicrous standard of communication so far.

 

[AdamWW]

I think the government has stopped being able to tell the difference. I doubt they're finding it much fun, but they've clearly lost all sense of perspective and realism in their actions. They are fast approaching the level of sitting in a bunker pushing around imaginary armies, while the rest of the country just has to muddle through doing whatever seems sensible

Actually I think many of the people on this forum don't have the right sense of perspective - the overwhelming evidence suggests to me that there is a strong risk of infections spiralling out of control if the right action isn't taken but this appears to be a minority view here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Additionally - the Twitter announcement said "you cannot meet others indoors" when it fact what is actually happening is "you cannot meet others indoors or outdoors".

It's a complete farce and good luck to them trying to get anyone prosecuted based on the ludicrous standard of communication so far.

The communication is poor. It seems that there is a review each Thursday, so there should, for example, be an 8pm press conference every Thursday, led by Matt Hancock and Boris, where measures are properly communicated.

Actually I think many of the people on this forum don't have the right sense of perspective - the overwhelming evidence suggests to me that there is a strong risk of infections spiralling out of control if the right action isn't taken but this appears to be a minority view here.

Agreed, this is very much the concern, we are on a knife-edge of a second wave and need to be very careful.

 

[AdamWW]

It's not a national emergency, or at least hasn't been declared as one. Sure, people probably are checking news rather more often than they'd like, but this made the news after bedtime for a lot of people. By doing this with less than 48 hours notice you are just setting a trap for people.

Well if they are planning sending the police round to fine or arrest people breaking the new regulations, then you could view it as a trap.

But I don't expect that's the case.

If the police are going to get involved, they'll explain to people they are breaking the regulations, ask them to leave, and only take further action if they refuse to. Unless there has been a sudden change in policy.

 

[takno]

Actually I think many of the people on this forum don't have the right sense of perspective - the overwhelming evidence suggests to me that there is a strong risk of infections spiralling out of control if the right action isn't taken but this appears to be a minority view here.

I tend not to demand a sense of perspective from people posting on a forum in the same way that I do from the government. In a more general sense I don't see any evidence of "infections spiralling out of control" when the numbers aren't even rising in a third of the local authorities targeted. If you find the weak indications that numbers might be rising a bit "overwhelming", then I suspect you have a problematic relationship with stats and might be best to lay off them for a bit

 

[Yew]

Well those who have been following the rules, will continue to follow the new rules

And those who haven’t been following the rules, who are the reason for these new measures, won’t follow these either

I don't think it's entirely that certain, I think a number of people will be less willing to follow a tightening of restrictions again. For the most part, Leicester was a delay in opening, whereas this is a different beast.

 

[Mojo]

They don't come into the category of indoors, it's just that they are included in the definition of "private dwelling" (assuming these new Regulations use the same definition as all previous ones).

BBC News first line of the story up until about halfhour ago is that you should not be meeting indoors. The pooled videoclip and Tweets from Matt Handcock last night say that you should not meet indoors.

 

[AdamWW]

I tend not to demand a sense of perspective from people posting on a forum in the same way that I do from the government. In a more general sense I don't see any evidence of "infections spiralling out of control" when the numbers aren't even rising in a third of the local authorities targeted. If you find the weak indications that numbers might be rising a bit "overwhelming", then I suspect you have a problematic relationship with stats and might be best to lay off them for a bit

Eh? Who said that? Not me.

"the overwhelming evidence suggests...there is a strong risk of infections spiralling out of control"

 

[Huntergreed]

Were these, once again, pushed through the emergency legislation powers bypassing the need for any scrutiny?

If so, was this really necessary? I note that Keir Starmer seems to support the restrictions and the way in which they have been imposed! If we have both sides of the house in support of laws bypassing scrutiny and being announced on twitter 3 hours before they come into force, then there’s a bit of a problem.

 

[adc82140]

The communication is poor. It seems that there is a review each Thursday, so there should, for example, be an 8pm press conference every Thursday, led by Matt Hancock and Boris, where measures are properly communicated.



Agreed, this is very much the concern, we are on a knife-edge of a second wave and need to be very careful.

Just because the media says we're on the edge of a second wave, it doesn't mean that we are. The figures say differently, the decline in cases has tailed off, but I don't see a spike.

 

[Bantamzen]

Just because the media says we're on the edge of a second wave, it doesn't mean that we are. The figures say differently, the decline in cases has tailed off, but I don't see a spike.

Over on the media page I've noted that the BBC is now starting to talk in terms of a 3rd wave!

 

[AdamWW]

Just because the media says we're on the edge of a second wave, it doesn't mean that we are. The figures say differently, the decline in cases has tailed off, but I don't see a spike.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my views are not based on headlines I read.

They're based on looking at the evidence from round the world, which is that this is a disease that given the chances takes off very quickly.

I don't think there's any evidence yet that a spike has started. That's not the same as saying that it won't if we're not careful.

 

[takno]

Were these, once again, pushed through the emergency legislation powers bypassing the need for any scrutiny?

If so, was this really necessary? I note that Keir Starmer seems to support the restrictions and the way in which they have been imposed! If we have both sides of the house in support of laws bypassing scrutiny and being announced on twitter 3 hours before they come into force, then there’s a bit of a problem.

Keir Starmer explicitly said that announcements on Twitter a couple of hours ahead of implementation was no way to announce a law. In terms of whether he supports the restrictions or not, he'd already been rather boxed in by the idiot Burnham who they wouldn't want to contradict in public. The trouble is that you can't mount a stronger response because the lack of clarity in the government statement means they could just change the details under you, or suddenly produce some actual evidence that they've been holding back as a trap.

 

[adc82140]

Over on the media page I've noted that the BBC is now starting to talk in terms of a 3rd wave!

The official stance from the WHO is that a second wave only occurs when your infection rate drops to near zero, then jumps up again. Nowhere in Europe fits this definition. It's one of those phrases that sounds all big and scary, so the gutter press pick up on it.

All of the cases in the Western French spike are attributed to asymptomatic young people, at least the French government can understand the implications of this, which are that they have all been picked up at track and trace, and tbey are not unduly alarmed.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Is their anything that defines in law what constitutes a garden, for the purpose of these instructions?

Is a garden with a public right of way through it a private garden?
According to the dictionary a garden is a place for primarily growing fruit, vegetables and flowers, therefore if you only have non flowering plants, is it a garden?
Is a driveway a garden?
Is a yard with no greenery a garden?
Can non residents enter a communal garden?
Is an unfenced front garden a private garden?
If a gathering takes place where one household is in their garden and another is on the pavement is that ok,?

I know all these are against the spirit of the rules, but that doesnt mean anything to some politicians or their advisors so I'm sure there are plenty of loopholes.

The definition of private dwelling has so far included:

any garden, yard, passage, stair, outhouse or other appurtenance of the dwelling

I'd be extremely surprised if the Government Legal Service that drafts the GM etc. Regulations uses any other definition. So I would take that to mean that any land that is on the same Land Registry title as a private dwelling would be within that definition. Unfortunately it's not an easy one to find a loophole for!

BBC News first line of the story up until about halfhour ago is that you should not be meeting indoors. The pooled videoclip and Tweets from Matt Handcock last night say that you should not meet indoors.

Confusion reigns supreme because they haven't bothered to publish the Regulations before commencing them, but I'd be surprised if the restriction isn't that you can't have gatherings on private dwellings (see above definition).

 

[AdamWW]

The definition of private dwelling has so far included:

I'd be extremely surprised if the Government Legal Service that drafts the GM etc. Regulations uses any other definition. So I would take that to mean that any land that is on the same Land Registry title as a private dwelling would be within that definition. Unfortunately it's not an easy one to find a loophole for!


Confusion reigns supreme because they haven't bothered to publish the Regulations before commencing them, but I'd be surprised if the restriction isn't that you can't have gatherings on private dwellings (see above definition).

I wonder if it would be useful it things looked a bit less as if they were being done on the fly?

Maybe we could have some pre-determined scheme for bringing in local restrictions which could be discussed in advance.

Then if they announced that a certain area was - say - moving to level 2 restrictions people would already know the impact.

Maybe we could even have some triggers for this to happen? (Though that can then only be reactive and not taking into account upcoming events such as Eid or Christmas).

 

[adc82140]

In addition, we were told last night that areas covered by the local Leicester lockdown were following suit. But this morning the residents of Leicester suburbs Oadsby and Wigton were told that lockdown had been released entirely to the level of the rest of England. If you live in one of those two places you were given polar opposite regulations in an 8 hour period. What a farce.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I wonder if it would be useful it things looked a bit less as if they were being done on the fly?

Maybe we could have some pre-determined scheme for bringing in local restrictions which could be discussed in advance.

Then if they announced that a certain area was - say - moving to level 2 restrictions people would already know the impact.

Maybe we could even have some triggers for this to happen? (Though that can then only be reactive and not taking into account upcoming events such as Eid or Christmas).

This is the way that most sensible countries have done things. Of course, that's far too sensible for us.

Several key things are missing in the coronavirus restrictions response of the government. Firstly, there is no national map or postcode checker you can use to see what the current restrictions are in a given place. Such a tool should easily summarise restrictions in terms of a yellow/red/green who you can meet, where, and what's open.

Furthermore there needs to be a defined level of restrictions like you state, on a scale of say 1 to 5, the level of which is subject to review each week based on the number of cases. Such restrictions should apply ward by ward if at all possible, otherwise by parliamentary constituency or similar grouping of a smaller number of people than the massive areas like Greater Manchester.

As others have said, restricting people from Appley Bridge meeting up with their parents is ludicrous and is the kind of thing that breeds resentment and non-compliance, when the problem is in certain areas like Rochdale.

 

[Huntergreed]

From what Matt Hancock said on BBC Breakfast the strategy is crystal clear.

View attachment 81537

My head hurts trying to make sense of that! Given this is the man in charge of the whole lockdown, it doesn’t fill me with much confidence!

 

[AdamWW]

My head hurts trying to make sense of that! Given this is the man in charge of the whole lockdown, it doesn’t fill me with much confidence!

Though to be fair writing down a speech verbatim generally looks much worse than hearing it, which is why generally the media don't do so.