Draconian measures

[kez19]

Well, not really. They should only contest it if they believe they are not guilty of the offence. If they are, clearly they should take their punishment, just the same as if it were doled out by a Court.

The question of what the penalty for that offence is is a totally separate one; I believe someone pointed out above that there is just one penalty for this offence so a Court can't reduce it, it would only decide on the question of guilt.

Yet an MP can walk onto a train with symptoms, yet nothing happens and is still in a job! Pity we can't have more MP's in court over wrongs but hey its the public lets get more money out of them! The whole thing has became a money racket scheme, if it was so serious you expect then the same punishment dealt with the politicians but of course it doesn't happen!

Or lets say this a bit differently its all fine and dandy fining people for offences but when it comes to the MP's its a slapped wrist approach - no fine or anything why? Surely in this case the police could have just gave the party a warning instead? Or was the point of it was to go in full force and fine the party 4 grand for the sake of it? Just done a simple maths 4 grand dished out to 30 people, so each individual has been fined £130? so £130 for making a racket, I wonder what the police could have caught in that time? Maybe an armed criminal, a speeder or a drug dealer but nah lets crash a party!

Court fines just go into the public purse, don't they? Which is no bad thing; it means at least some of the judicial system's huge cost is funded by, er, its "customers".

Yet thinking of all the money wasted on taxpayers/courts time over it. Seems more wastage.

 

[221129]

Or was the point of it was to go in full force and fine the party 4 grand for the sake of it? Just done a simple maths 4 grand dished out to 30 people, so each individual has been fined £130?

You've missed something along the way. The 4 organisers were fined £10,000 each for a total of £40k.

 

[johnnychips]

I do remember a case Bill Bryson reported - unfortunately I can’t remember which book - where a legislator demanded life imprisonment for drug dealers, and it may have even been enacted in that state. However, when her son got done for dealing LSD, he was not sentenced thus.

 

[takno]

I find the posts by @Bletchleyite to be too irritating to reply to, but to answer everyone else: yes I find it extremely worrying.

I'm sure there's a heart of gold down there somewhere. Sometimes it's just very very deeply hidden

 

[Bantamzen]

No you're not the only person worried.

That said, in the case of this student party, wasn't it more the size of the fine that could be said to be disproportionate, rather thanthe enforcement draconian ?

No its definitely draconian, today its fines that the government know can't be paid. Tomorrow its jail, and the day after who knows what? We sleepwalking into an authoritarian regime, with some people even cheering it on.

 

[yorksrob]

No its definitely draconian, today its fines that the government know can't be paid. Tomorrow its jail, and the day after who knows what? We sleepwalking into an authoritarian regime, with some people even cheering it on.

Well, I certainly think that the current Government will be forever tainted by this authoritarianism and will need to seek alternative careers once this crisis is over.

 

[Bantamzen]

Well, I certainly think that the current Government will be forever tainted by this authoritarianism and will need to seek alternative careers once this crisis is over.

Indeed, I would also suggest they find alternative countries to live in because an awful lot of people are not going to be happy to see them enjoying their lives after wreaking so many others.

 

[birchesgreen]

It is nice to think people will face the consequences but in reality they'll get knighthoods or elevated to the house of Lords and get some nice comfy seats on boards of companies and/or Quangos.

 

[DustyBin]

This news report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-54643652 prompted a Facebook discussion between me and some of my old uni mates.

It's just round the corner from when we used to live whilst at uni. I made a comment "welcome to the police state" when it was posted on Facebook. "But they broke the law". Well yes they did, but £10k summary fines are an egregious abuse of the Fixed Penalty system, which has not right of appeal. I also pointed out that presumably the four people fined are the four residents, and I would be very surprised if the police had collected evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" that all four had been "organisers". I can see this going to court and at least three of them getting off, probably all of them.
Then someone said:
"But the police are duty bound to enforce the law made by a democratically elected parliament". Which prompted me to muse that the government is using an enabling act to create law without any checks and balances, and that much the same could have been said of the police in Nazi Germany, certainly up to 1933.

What's next? We've already seen fines increased dramatically. Where does it stop? Who's to say the next stop isn't 30 days in the clink with no right of appeal just because a police constable thinks you've broken a law made up on the hoof yesterday?

What if the government decides all this criticism of it's policies is reducing compliance, and therefore damaging public health. Might they outlaw public criticism of their COVID policies, using "emergency" legislation?

Am I the only person worried that we are slowly sliding further into an authoritarian state that could be difficult to extricate ourselves from?

No you’re definitely not alone. The only people not concerned are the blissfully ignorant, naive and those who rather fancy a career in said authoritarian state. It’s deeply disturbing that the government is ruling by emergency legislation, arguably in the absence of a substantive emergency.

I notice the mask announcements on some trains (I'm thinking Avanti) now warn of "up to £3,200" fines - without adding that that would be after numerous previous offences.

And we wonder why people are staying at home.

I was at Bromley South a few weeks ago and a member of staff repeatedly announced that people not wearing a face covering over their nose and mouth WILL be fined £3,200. No mention of exemptions either.

 

[AM9]

I think that the fines in this instance are slightly inappropriate as the rule was I trounced to deal with large 'commercial' violations of the rules such as raves. £10000 is not an unreasonable penalty to deter illegal business practices. But this violation was not even justifiable on the basis of hardship or any concept of 'need', it was a party, hardly an essential event considering the scale of it. And we're not talking about poor, uninformed people here, - they are supposed to be at the top of our education system and they would have no excuse of 'not understanding the rules', - they showed a degree of arrogance, thinking that they could get away with it. They should be made an example of it. The fact that some high profile MPs have broken the law doesn't alter the students guilt so a participnat's penalty would probably be more appropriate.
Maybe it's just a coincidence that Nottinghamshire is now a COVID-19 hotspot now, but such an event certainly didn't help the situation.

 

[duncanp]

I think that the fines in this instance are slightly inappropriate as the rule was I trounced to deal with large 'commercial' violations of the rules such as raves. £10000 is not an unreasonable penalty to deter illegal business practices. But this violation was not even justifiable on the basis of hardship or any concept of 'need', it was a party, hardly an essential event considering the scale of it. And we're not talking about poor, uninformed people here, - they are supposed to be at the top of our education system and they would have no excuse of 'not understanding the rules', - they showed a degree of arrogance, thinking that they could get away with it. They should be made an example of it. The fact that some high profile MPs have broken the law doesn't alter the students guilt so a participnat's penalty would probably be more appropriate.
Maybe it's just a coincidence that Nottinghamshire is now a COVID-19 hotspot now, but such an event certainly didn't help the situation.

I don't dispute that all those at the party, not just the organisers, should be fined, but I think that £40,000 is excessive.

Perhaps something like a £100 fine for each individual there should be enough to make them think twice next time.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think that the fines in this instance are slightly inappropriate as the rule was I trounced to deal with large 'commercial' violations of the rules such as raves. £10000 is not an unreasonable penalty to deter illegal business practices. But this violation was not even justifiable on the basis of hardship or any concept of 'need', it was a party, hardly an essential event considering the scale of it. And we're not talking about poor, uninformed people here, - they are supposed to be at the top of our education system and they would have no excuse of 'not understanding the rules', - they showed a degree of arrogance, thinking that they could get away with it. They should be made an example of it. The fact that some high profile MPs have broken the law doesn't alter the students guilt so a participnat's penalty would probably be more appropriate.
Maybe it's just a coincidence that Nottinghamshire is now a COVID-19 hotspot now, but such an event certainly didn't help the situation.

I think the point of this thread is not about how much the fines are, but the fact they exist without having been debated and scrutinised.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure there's a heart of gold down there somewhere. Sometimes it's just very very deeply hidden

I think that was uncalled-for and actually quite offensive. I don't like to see suffering, I just happen to believe, unlike many here, that strong (but not excessively strong[1]) measures, will cause the least overall amount of suffering in society from this pandemic. In essence, we disagree on whether the treatment is better or worse than the disease. It is impossible for it to cause no suffering; that it exists means there will be suffering. It's in essence very much like the "points problem" - do you allow the train to carry on and kill the person on one track, or do you change the points and allow it to kill someone else. Which of those is better is the subject of very, very difficult debate.

[1] I've actually had a falling out with my PHE "contact", as he strongly believes that a several month full lockdown to bring levels down much more quickly is the only option; I think that's ridiculous and think we need to continue with variants of the "hammer and the dance" while opening public and Parliamentary debate on a range of "what ifs" and told him so, and the outcome was me being semi-blocked (set "public posts only") on his Facebook and him ignoring me on Messenger. What he proposes *is* a Draconian measure. What I propose is actually very middle-of-the-road.

 

[AM9]

I think the point of this thread is not about how much the fines are, but the fact they exist without having been debated and scrutinised.

In an ideal world, every offence could be challenged and contested in open court. We have not had such a world ever, so just as with many misdemeanours, summary convictions with a right to accept or challenge in court is just as compatible with any other fixed penalty sentence. The fact is that wilfully breaking the current restrictions is effectively an offence for which the perpetrator has strict liability, just like speeding or failing to present a valid ticket for travel. Even though the courts are brimming with cases, those wishing to protest their innocence still have the opportunity to do so.
As far as scrutiny is concerned, is anybody claiming that their party was an accident or that 30 people were there for some other legal purpose?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that the fines in this instance are slightly inappropriate as the rule was I trounced to deal with large 'commercial' violations of the rules such as raves. £10000 is not an unreasonable penalty to deter illegal business practices. But this violation was not even justifiable on the basis of hardship or any concept of 'need', it was a party, hardly an essential event considering the scale of it. And we're not talking about poor, uninformed people here, - they are supposed to be at the top of our education system and they would have no excuse of 'not understanding the rules', - they showed a degree of arrogance, thinking that they could get away with it. They should be made an example of it. The fact that some high profile MPs have broken the law doesn't alter the students guilt so a participnat's penalty would probably be more appropriate.
Maybe it's just a coincidence that Nottinghamshire is now a COVID-19 hotspot now, but such an event certainly didn't help the situation.

Exactly. There is no excuse for not knowing that a large party is not a thing to do, either legally or morally. Even if you didn't know the precise nature of the law, anyone of sound mind would know it's not on. We're not talking them having invited 7 mates round, we're talking a massive violation. They were utterly, utterly stupid to even think for a second they would get away with it. It was wilful and idiotic in the extreme. It wasn't doing 80mph on the M1, it was doing 180mph past a school in a 20 limit in a supercar and expecting to keep your licence.

I do accept that some will slightly breach the rule of 6, e.g. perhaps have a family gathering of 8. I'm not, on balance, in favour of people doing this, however it is not something I would report as it's decidedly de-minimis (and say 8 from 3 households may cause less spread than 6 from 6 households, given that if it gets in a household it will get around). But over 40 is seriously taking the mick, and if one of them had it, that would certainly mean another 39 cases. This is not what we need.

People need to use perspective on the different situations here. I wouldn't, if it did get reported, think a group of 8 should mean anything more than a Police Officer politely asking that 2 could finish their cup of tea and head home, provided they didn't get gobby over it in which case the attitude test was failed and a lowest-level FPN should be imposed. But a group of 40? Seriously? How stupid can you be?

Back in last October I had a large house party for about 40 people for my birthday. It was seriously crammed-in, even given that it could spill out into the garden as the weather was good. There is literally no chance that, post COVID, that wouldn't have caused spread, and it's inconceivable that it could possibly be the right thing to do post-March.

 

[Bantamzen]

In an ideal world, every offence could be challenged and contested in open court. We have not had such a world ever, so just as with many misdemeanours, summary convictions with a right to accept or challenge in court is just as compatible with any other fixed penalty sentence. The fact is that wilfully breaking the current restrictions is effectively an offence for which the perpetrator has strict liability, just like speeding or failing to present a valid ticket for travel. Even though the courts are brimming with cases, those wishing to protest their innocence still have the opportunity to do so.
As far as scrutiny is concerned, is anybody claiming that their party was an accident or that 30 people were there for some other legal purpose?

Still not the point though. Today it is laws against people partying & socialising, tomorrow it could be laws that impact you.

 

[C J Snarzell]

The students in Nottingham should have been fined but not a whopping £10,000 each. £100 or £200 yes, and this would have been perfectly sufficient to hammer home the message.

As someone has pointed out, do any of us on here seriously think the full £40,000 will be paid? And in my opinion, Mummy & Daddy will be the ones punished because they will undoubtedly pay the fine for their off spring.

As its already been highlighted - student digs in private addresses are made up of individual rooms and some of these people have probably only known one another for a month since term resumed. The potential unfairness to this is that you may have three seemingly quite introvert students living there and one complete idiot who has decided to invite people over without even letting the housemates know. Because of social media and word of mouth - an invite of a few people turns into 30+ and the three 'innocent' students are seemingly powerless to stop it. Where's the fairness to that?

Also, why are the party goers not being fined? The police seem to target the occupants and not the 'outsiders'? Again is this really fair? I've been out of the police two years now so I don't know the powers or legislation for demanding names & addresses in this scenario, or whether there is a power of arrest for people who refuse to co-operate.

Generally, I do think this incident has sent a firm message to students across the country to maybe have a think about their actions before deciding to gatecrash someone's flat with a box of Budwieser.

I do think all these rules and regulations are Draconian and yes I don't agree with what the government are doing. It is what it is unfortunately, but if people tow the line maybe the Tier restrictions will not last too long. However, the behaviour of the Nottingham students is just prolonging the misery for the rest of us.

CJ

 

[Bletchleyite]

Still not the point though. Today it is laws against people partying & socialising, tomorrow it could be laws that impact you.

The laws do impact me; I've not been able to have a birthday party, for instance, and there's a fair chance our usual family Christmas won't be possible. I just accept that they are necessary.

The students in Nottingham should have been fined but not a whopping £10,000 each. £100 or £200 yes, and this would have been perfectly sufficient to hammer home the message.

I'd probably have gone £1-2K to be honest. It needs to hurt. £100 or £200 is low enough that many people would consider it a reasonable price for having a party. Ten grand is a bit much, but equally they were utterly stupid and I have no sympathy at all.

As someone has pointed out, do any of us on here seriously think the full £40,000 will be paid? And in my opinion, Mummy & Daddy will be the ones punished because they will undoubtedly pay the fine for their off spring.

I don't suppose there's a lot can be done about that (beyond giving a prison sentence or community service instead), but hopefully they will ensure it is repaid.

As its already been highlighted - student digs in private addresses are made up of individual rooms and some of these people have probably only known one another for a month since term resumed. The potential unfairness to this is that you may have three seemingly quite introvert students living there and one complete idiot who has decided to invite people over without even letting the housemates know. Because of social media and word of mouth - an invite of a few people turns into 30+ and the three 'innocent' students are seemingly powerless to stop it. Where's the fairness to that?

That's very, very unlikely. Generally speaking, and I know it's not completely universal, students stay in halls in their first year, during which time they get to know others they might like to live with, and then they go and get a house together for the second and possibly third year (some go back into halls in the final year as I did). So there won't be many students renting in private houses that haven't known each other for a good while.

Also, why are the party goers not being fined? The police seem to target the occupants and not the 'outsiders'? Again is this really fair?

Do we know they weren't issued £100 FPNs each? I do agree that this, in addition to the fines for the organisers, should have been imposed. They clearly all knew it was wrong and against the law for them to be there. They couldn't possibly not have known.

Generally, I do think this incident has sent a firm message to students across the country to maybe have a think about their actions before deciding to gatecrash someone's flat with a box of Budwieser.

The fine should be doubled for drinking Budweiser, unless it's the proper Czech version...but yes

I do think all these rules and regulations are Draconian and yes I don't agree with what the government are doing. It is what it is unfortunately, but if people tow the line maybe the Tier restrictions will not last too long. However, the behaviour of the Nottingham students is just prolonging the misery for the rest of us.

I don't know if it will prolong things or not, as the end point isn't clear. What it will do, though, is result in tighter rules, which is to the disadvantage to those of us who like to comply to the law. If everyone complied to the law, then the measures could be much weaker.

 

[Bantamzen]

The laws do impact me; I've not been able to have a birthday party, for instance, and there's a fair chance our usual family Christmas won't be possible. I just accept that they are necessary.

Have you lost your job, your income, your means to sustain yourself? Have you got people demanding that you workplace be closed down to protect others? Are you anxiously trying to work out how to pay next month's mortgage or energy bills? Have you got children falling dramatically behind at school? Do you have a business that is going down the pan through no fault of your own? If the answer is no to all these then you have not felt the full impact of it. However if you argue that these are necessary measures to protect you others, then you are not seeing the bigger picture.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have you lost your job, your income, your means to sustain yourself? Have you got people demanding that you workplace be closed down to protect others? Are you anxiously trying to work out how to pay next month's mortgage or energy bills? Have you got children falling dramatically behind at school? Do you have a business that is going down the pan through no fault of your own? If the answer is no to all these then you have not felt the full impact of it. However if you argue that these are necessary measures to protect you others, then you are not seeing the bigger picture.

I recognise these are issues, but my view is that they are a reason to improve the financial support packages, not a reason not to have the measures.

It'd be a great opportunity to "keep it simple" and try something really radical, like a form of UBI.

 

[221129]

I recognise these are issues, but my view is that they are a reason to improve the financial support packages, not a reason not to have the measures.

But where does all this extra financial support come from? Or are you going to throw the younger generations under the bus (yet again) to make us pay for it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But where does all this extra financial support come from? Or are you going to throw the younger generations under the bus (yet again) to make us pay for it.

If you paid for it by increasing the higher rates of tax (but not the basic rate) it wouldn't throw the younger generations under the bus.

And tighten up business taxation so companies like Starbucks can't evade it. If the money was taken in the UK, the tax is due in the UK, would be a start. If they withdraw, bully for them, others will set up UK-based, tax-paying replacements. And if Amazon got the hump that's easily replaced, too, it's basically Argos and a bookshop that does delivery.

Similarly, quantitative easing would affect richer but not poorer people, because poorer people tend not to have much in the way of savings, and devaluation of savings is its main effect. Yes, the value of their houses would technically go up, but the value of your house, beyond bleating about it in the Daily Mail, is of no relevance unless you plan to downsize or sell to rent, which most people don't.

 

[Yew]

I do think all these rules and regulations are Draconian and yes I don't agree with what the government are doing. It is what it is unfortunately, but if people tow the line maybe the Tier restrictions will not last too long. However, the behaviour of the Nottingham students is just prolonging the misery for the rest of us.

I think that the goal is fundamentally unachievable, if this was a strain of Flu, with a lower 'natural' IFR, then maybe suppression would be possible; but at the moment we're being asked to do the impossible, and punished with arbitrary and unproven restrictions on the enjoyable parts of life (but you must continue to sell your labour). Thanks to all this, Boris is seeming more like a prison guard, than a prime minister.

If you paid for it by increasing the higher rates of tax (but not the basic rate) it wouldn't throw the younger generations under the bus.

And tighten up business taxation so companies like Starbucks can't evade it. If the money was taken in the UK, the tax is due in the UK, would be a start.

Similarly, quantitative easing would affect richer but not poorer people, because poorer people tend not to have much in the way of savings, and devaluation of savings is its main effect. Yes, the value of their houses would technically go up, but the value of your house, beyond bleating about it in the Daily Mail, is of no relevance unless you plan to downsize or sell to rent, which most people don't.

That still would place the burden of paying for this on those who are younger; and given the massive damage that is being done, it's not a light burden.


QE for operational expenses makes me very nervous, and I say that for someone who is generally pro QE for capital investment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

QE for operational expenses makes me very nervous, and I say that for someone who is generally pro QE for capital investment.

My normal view is that you should borrow (and QE is sort of a form of borrowing in a way) for capex only, but exceptional situations mean exceptional measures. I don't buy my food month to month on a credit card, but if I lost my job I'd imagine I'd have to. Exceptional times mean exceptional measures. And using QE and avoiding touching the basic rate of tax means it doesn't throw the young under the bus - it places the burden mainly on the middle-aged and middle-class, which while the outrage would double the sales of the Daily Mail overnight would seem to me to be reasonably fair, and I say that as a middle-aged higher-rate taxpayer.

And yes, Starbucks, Amazon etc should cough up or get out.

 

[Bantamzen]

I recognise these are issues, but my view is that they are a reason to improve the financial support packages, not a reason not to have the measures.

It'd be a great opportunity to "keep it simple" and try something really radical, like a form of UBI.

Seriously? "Issues"? Not having a job and potentially having to rely on benefits, maybe even losing your home as a result is way more than just an "issue".

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seriously? "Issues"? Not having a job and potentially having to rely on benefits, maybe even losing your home as a result is way more than just an "issue".

And so is dying of COVID-19.

 

[Richard Scott]

My normal view is that you should borrow (and QE is sort of a form of borrowing in a way) for capex only, but exceptional situations mean exceptional measures. I don't buy my food month to month on a credit card, but if I lost my job I'd imagine I'd have to. Exceptional times mean exceptional measures. And using QE and avoiding touching the basic rate of tax means it doesn't throw the young under the bus - it places the burden mainly on the middle-aged and middle-class, which while the outrage would double the sales of the Daily Mail overnight would seem to me to be reasonably fair, and I say that as a middle-aged higher-rate taxpayer.

And yes, Starbucks, Amazon etc should cough up or get out.

I tell you what why don't you run the country, you always have an answer for everything and, apparently, it's always correct. Best put your talents where they're needed, obviously wasted on this forum.

 

[Yew]

And so is dying of COVID-19.

Which is incredibly unlikely for most.

 

[Bantamzen]

And so is dying of COVID-19.

Oh please, put another record on. We both know that the illness is almost certainly going to kill anyone that is not in the vulnerable groups which we now know at most at risk.

 

[102 fan]

And so is dying of COVID-19.

Have you forgotten about cancer, heart disease, stroke, depression ending in suicide, fatal accidents..,?