Now illegal to have sex with partner you don't live with?

[Sueannnnna]

Lots of newspapers/online articles announcing this today.
Being in a private place with partner and having sex can lead to a £100 fine if i've read correctly.

The world is going cuckoo.
But who cares about seeing my boyfriend, at least I can go shopping in Primark and go sit on a packed train (sarcasm)

@Inappropriatefemale

Isn’t this a polite way to say that it’s sex workers that will be fined? How the hell would the police know who is having sex with who? and where?

It won't be policed heavily but it's relying on people following the rules.

People didn't go 5-6 years without a shag during the war, there was plenty of gi babies, infidelity, back street abortions and general debauchery....they just didn't talk about it. Reproduction didn't grind to a halt surprisingly in WW2. My own grandmother was born on 1943!

It's funny, as if you posted on here normally that you were moving your partner in for convenience you'd be flamed as a terrible irresponsible parent/person.

Well it was a bit different because there wasnt a pandemic and not everyone was married.

What I meant was many waited for their husbands for years in the 40s.

Stupid AF rule and unless your caught having a shag outside or you have neighbours who are that pathetic that they would call the police on you, then nobody will know, daftest thing I’ve ever heard.

@Floatyboat

OP epitomises what's wrong with our society, all for saying that something must be done... just so long as it doesn't impact them.

Well said. I honestly think lots of people think personal hardship is for other people. They are as bad as Dominic Cummings and it stinks.

Absolutely.

Why don't people think through the consequences of actions.

Economically this country, and many individuals, are on their knees. People have lost jobs, businesses are closing. Young people leaving education can't get jobs. Children have missed months of schooling. Healthcare workers are exhausted and traumatised. Most medical treatment has been cancelled or postponed causing suffering to many. We need to start moving forward. We need to keep the virus suppressed so that elements of life can return. Do you think the country can afford another lengthy lockdown? Do you think people can mentally face another lockdown? From what I read on MN the answer is no. In order to avoid it we have to accept restrictions on our personal freedoms. We just do. This is a virus spread by human contact and so the only way to stop it is to limit human contact. You are getting more freedoms now than you have had. Can't you enjoy those for now and see that you are moving towards being able to be with partners? Why do you all want to jeopardise the fragile recovery by bending and breaking the rules? I just don't get it, I really don't.

The government's risk chart says that shielding can't be lifted until R is at 2. If they stick to that people that are shielding have no prospect of even getting the freedoms that you've all had since the start of this, let alone those you have now, but that isn't enough for some of you. Some of you just want everything your own way now, regardless of the impact that will have on the country and everyone else living here.

No wonder they have actually had to make it illegal. Some people have proved that they are just incapable of seeing the bigger picture or of considering anyone else but themselves.

hearhooves. The government didn’t say that those shielding had to do so until the R is 2. I think you might have meant the alert level? They did say that, and then lifted the restrictions on Monday anyway - those shielding no longer need to do so according to the government. And the legal restrictions (which is what this thread is discussing) on those shielding have never been greater than for non shielders.

I think your hyperbolic rant about totalitarian regimes and fundamental removal of rights and freedoms is perhaps a tad misplaced

But we have had our rights and freedoms removed. Why? Because of the virus per se? No, but because the government have told us it’s necessary. And we’ve just all rolled over and accepted it. You carry on being blind to it all though and what it really means, and willingly just give up all your rights to save the lives of at absolute best some of 0.5% the population. I’ve been happy to comply with the measures thus far, but they are so close to being completely disproportionate to the threat of the virus it’s ridiculous.

@Overrunwithlego

hearhooves. The government didn’t say that those shielding had to do so until the R is 2. I think you might have meant the alert level? They did say that, and then lifted the restrictions on Monday anyway - those shielding no longer need to do so according to the government. And the legal restrictions (which is what this thread is discussing) on those shielding have never been greater than for non shielders.

Yes that's what I said - the government's risk chart - the silly "Nandos scale". And shielding hasn't been lifted. It's all still in place other than being allowed out for a walk once a day, all other shielding restrictions remain, but how come when the alert level chart says schools won't open until alert level is 3 and shielding won't be lifted until it's 2,? We are currently at 4 which according to their chart means lockdown.

I have complied with the rules fully and will continue to do so - for the time being. But I’m beginning to struggle to see how it’s my civic duty to accept being plunged into hardship, mental illness, unemployment to “protect the NHS” I didn’t fuck over in the first place. How long is this going to be our job? It’s getting to be ridiculous.

@SudokuBook

I have complied with the rules fully and will continue to do so - for the time being. But I’m beginning to struggle to see how it’s my civic duty to accept being plunged into hardship, mental illness, unemployment to “protect the NHS” I didn’t fuck over in the first place. How long is this going to be our job? It’s getting to be ridiculous.

It will be our responsibility for as long as is necessary because the NHS isn't a separate being. It's made up of individuals and it serves individuals. Why can't people see this? We aren't being punished. What do you think will happen if the government just say "go for.it. do what you want"? Did you see Panorama last night? It showed what happened in New York - undertakers were overwhelmed with the number of dead bodies so they were kept in refrigerated trucks on the side of the road, until people complained about the smell. Is that what you want? Yes, the mortality rate is about 1% but 1% of 60 million people is a lot of deaths. Not to mention all of the young, healthy people who will die because hospitals will be over run with Covid patients so young people having car accidents, heart attacks, asthma attacks, strokes, accidents at home, anaphylaxis etc will also die because there won't be room in hospital to treat them. Can you not all see that? Hospital.beds are a finite resource. If you fill them with Covid patients there won't be room for anyone else. It's bad enough now, during lockdown, that many treatments have been cancelled can you imagine how bad it would be without lockdown? If you all get what you want don't be coming back here to complain that someone close to you died of something else because they couldn't get treatment. The NHS is not.limitless. it's already had to shut down many services to cope with the number of Covid patients and that was during the lockdown where we tried to stop the spread yet you're all arguing to give that up? What do you think will happen?

It seems some people on this thread are being purposely small-minded.

For those saying 'just move your partner in'.
Let's use an extreme example.

*made up names and made up scenario

Jenny has been with Luke for just under a year and they are very much in love.
Luke seems perfect but Jenny has 2 toddler children so doesn't quite want Luke to move in yet as it doesn't fit her dynamics. Jenny thinks Luke is great with the kids but she still thinks it's too soon.
Anyway, pandemic hits and Jenny quickly rushes Luke to move in.
Jenny and Luke soon realised they rushed in as tensions rise pretty soon. Luke is not used to having children running around his house.
Arguments start. Luke gets stressed. Jenny gets stressed. Luke then loses control one day and hits one of Jenny's kids as a punishment for being 'naughty'. Jenny doesn't like this.

The end may be extreme but it does happen. And if posters in March were posting 'should I move my boyfriend in with the kids?'
many would be responding with 'think of your children!' etc.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras the virus is not going anywhere. Do you expect people to live like this for a vaccine that might not even come for 2 years, if that

@SudokuBook

I think your hyperbolic rant about totalitarian regimes and fundamental removal of rights and freedoms is perhaps a tad misplaced

But we have had our rights and freedoms removed. Why? Because of the virus per se? No, but because the government have told us it’s necessary. And we’ve just all rolled over and accepted it. You carry on being blind to it all though and what it really means, and willingly just give up all your rights to save the lives of at absolute best some of 0.5% the population. I’ve been happy to comply with the measures thus far, but they are so close to being completely disproportionate to the threat of the virus it’s ridiculous.

@SudokuBook

Go on then, what does it all “really mean”?

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

The bizarre Nando’s alert level and the R are different things, and your post did say the R level, but I understand what you mean. And I completely agree that the government are lifting the legal restrictions quicker than they said they would.

But fundamentally this thread has been about the law and the shielding guidance is just that - guidance. There is nothing in the Coronavirus Act that legally limits the movements and activities of those who are shielding to a greater extent that those who aren’t.

The guidance around shielding has now changed - it now states that those who were shielding can go outside. It states that you can meet up with one other person and that ideally it should be the same person as opposed to different people each time. But that is guidance. Legally there is nothing to stop someone who has been shielding from nipping down to the park today and meeting up in a group of 6. And legally they don’t have to stay 2m apart either - because that is also only guidance as opposed to in legislation.

[quote Sueannnnna]@Hearhoovesthinkzebras the virus is not going anywhere. Do you expect people to live like this for a vaccine that might not even come for 2 years, if that[/quote]
@Sueannnnna

Why do you think these restrictions are going to last 2 years? As has repeatedly been said, the changes yesterday to the SI removed a whole swathe of restrictions despite there being no vaccine. What makes you think the remaining restriction on meeting people from outside your household in your own home will have to wait for a vaccine?

@ItsGoingTibiaK i'm not saying they will last 2 years. People would not comply anyway. But the virus is not going anyway. So what difference is me seeing my partner now and me seeing him in his house a month or 2 going to make? The virus will still be here.
We're just waiting for "permission" of the government. A government that sees opening non-essential shops over loved ones.
No thank you. If I can go shopping in Primark or Ikea or have a teenage boy make my Mcdonalds food, then I will see my boyfriend.

I find it awful that some people have the mindset of - "it's okay to open non-essential shops because they pay taxes and NI so help our economy but you seeing your partner doesn't help anybody"

I'm sorry but the virus doesn't discriminite on 'oh Primark is helping the economy, I won't get those people they pay NI. Oh look over there, there's a couple kissing. They both havent really left their house in 2 months but they don't live together, let me infect them"

[quote Sueannnnna]@Hearhoovesthinkzebras the virus is not going anywhere. Do you expect people to live like this for a vaccine that might not even come for 2 years, if that[/quote]
No I don't expect restrictions to last for two years, although some might have to. Restrictions do need to last until incidents of infection are low enough to be controlled via track, trace and isolate and we just aren't there yet. Scientists have stated that had government waited just another two weeks before lifting lockdown that the outcome would be much better. So, it doesn't need to go on forever but if everyone continues to push against rules then the infection rates will not get low enough to control. Inevitably all you'll achieve is more restrictions for longer.

Do you know what this easing of lockdown means? It means currently there are spare ventilators and ITU beds to treat patients. That's all.

The bizarre Nando’s alert level and the R are different things, and your post did say the R level, but I understand what you mean. And I completely agree that the government are lifting the legal restrictions quicker than they said they would.

I spoke about both, the R level and also the government's risk chart.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras yes the lockdown was to stop the NHS getting overwhelmed. Nightingale hospital hasn't even been used properly yet (despite the scare.mongering!)

If you want to say cooped up until a vaccine is created then that's your life. But I think a lot of humans will learn to live with it as i think most would rather take the risk and live life than be stuck between four wallks for a year or more, only being out to shop or work.

People can die of.many things. Should we just stop crossing roads incase a car hits us?
Fatty foods and cigarettes are awful for us but do humans stop eating them?

In life, there is always a risk.

If anything, this virus will lead to increased anxiety, germaphobes, OCD

So what difference is me seeing my partner now and me seeing him in his house a month or 2 going to make? The virus will still be here.

It's all to do with the amount of circulating virus and the chance of contracting it. So now it's estimated that 1:1000 people has it. If you wait two weeks and that drops to 1:2000 then your chance of catching it is lower. Maybe two weeks after that it's 1:4000. So, yes, the virus will be there still but the chance of an individual catching it or it spreading exponentially are much, much lower.

Imagine if someone said your chance of being shot when you go.outside is 1:50 but if you wait unti next week it will be 1:100 or the week after it will be 1:1000 when would you go.outside? The risk will still be there but you're likely to wait until the odds are better right?

*not eat cigarrettes, smoke them
But you get my gist

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras i followed the rules strictly from March until last week. Didn't see my boyfriend until last Wednesday.
So yes now I feel safe to see him.

If it was so important to you OP then you and DP should have moved in together at the start of lockdown, problem solved!

I feel sorry for all those working tirelessly in the hospital coming across threads like these