Are we know in a totalitarian regime or something?

[Lastfreakinglegs]

10 years in prison for a lie. Of course a lie a out this is reprehensible, but..... Wtf.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/covid-travel-rules-red-list-prison-b1799698.html

Speeding fines and others do take into account a person's means already. A guideline fine is set and then decided by the salary and income. So that already happens. Plenty of wealthy people that live in the UK would not bat an eyelid at a fine regardless of its size, and would probably take up in the courts anyway with a shit hot lawyer that will plead exceptional circumstances.

Here you go. From a very well educated man.

Sumption may be well educated but hardly well respected. My DH worked with him a couple of times, while he was still a QC, and assured me he wasn’t exactly universally respected then and definitely isn’t now.

He is the very same man that thinks a stage 4 woman with cancer is not as 'valuable' as someone younger and healthier

Thanks but I will take advice and words of wisdom from someone that actually values human life in all its forms last

I think Lord Sumption talks a lot of sense

@snowydaysandholidays and even he with that moral framework, thinks we're in trouble democratically.

It's a deterrent - necessary because unfortunately it's become clear that a small but significant minority don't give a shit about others. If it saves a life it'll be worth it.

@Scbchl

Considering paedophiles get lesser sentences I think its bloody shocking.

I used to know someone (NC now, obviously) who got a job working with children. Turned out he only did it so he could rape one of his most vulnerable male pupils.

He only got 8 years in prison, and was out in 4.

@Hotcuppatea

Some people have lost their fucking minds. Lots of people don't get 10 years for actually killing someone, never mind possibly potentially passing on a virus that may kill someone, but probably won't.

But they could!! Jesus, why don't the people complaining about it being higher than other crimes get it. Maximum sentence for killing someone - life without parole. Very, very few get anything like this. Same true for paedophilia. Or any other crime. It’ll be the same for this one. People won’t get 10 years as a rule, like people who kill people don’t get life without parole routinely.

It’ll be the same for this one. People won’t get 10 years as a rule, like people who kill people don’t get life without parole routinely.

I think the difference is that no one is ever going to get 10 years for this, or even likely a jail term. It's not even within the realm of reasonable.

@teezletangler

It’ll be the same for this one. People won’t get 10 years as a rule, like people who kill people don’t get life without parole routinely.

I think the difference is that no one is ever going to get 10 years for this, or even likely a jail term. It's not even within the realm of reasonable.

What characterises the British justice system is one or two people receiving a disproportionately long sentence, to make a point, and many others getting off lightly. Its piecemeal justice, and its not satisfactory.

It doesn't really matter if the maximum sentence is never used, that isn't satisfactory from a rule of law perspective. And there is never any guarantee on abuse of power in the future. If you create the sentence, you create the potential.

Maybe I'm missing the point or am even a bit thick but how on earth can a law stating that 'if you go overseas & then come back & lie about where you have been to avoid quarantine, and then are found to be lying & could face a massive fine and/or up to 10 years in prison, make us a totalitarian state or starting to turn into one?
It may have escaped some peoples notice than we are in a middle of a pandemic that has killed a disproportionate amount of people.
These are not normal times.

During an earlier 'not normal times' i.e WW1 emergency laws were passed: www.iwm.org.uk/history/10-surprising-laws-passed-during-the-first-world-war

Most of them were repealed/abandoned after the war ended. I think we only kept limited pub opening times (that was completely abolished by 2005 with the advent of 24hr licensing) & British Summer Time.

A Totalitarian state is China not the UK.

@GreenlandTheMovie excellent points regarding precedent . I'm dumbfounded that our standard of education is so low that nobody sees the issue with this. In that case, exactly the same logic can be applied to create laws which prosecute me for leaving my house with flu.
I'm sure most of the posters on this thread would also see no issue if there was a proposal for the Health Secretary to decide on prosecutions.

There are a number of countries you can look at to really understand a totalitarian regime, we really are not in such a regime and tbh it is quite ridiculous to suggest that a harder approach to one activity which could ultimately cause a further infection of other varients, cause new lockdowns, fuck more livelihoods and kill more people and totally undermine all our efforts and the vaccination is in any way close to a totalitarian regime. Tbh what the fuck anyone is doing travelling anywhere is the most ridiculous thing in this.

Also worth pointing out to those saying the legislation has a sunset clause - yes, the covid legislation does, but most of the most controversial restrictions are enacted under the public health act, which has no sunset clause and requires zero parliamentary debate or voting. Does everyone still not think it's worth a certain degree of scrutiny?

What's a bit strange about the UK is that the restrictions on human rights are getting ever more draconian, while elsewhere they are reducing. France recently rejected another lock down, and French people can, and currently are, travelling to French ski resorts. The Dutch rioted in the streets when a 3 week lockdown was announced, but internal travel still isn't banned.

Meanwhile, Britons are prevented from travelling 20 miles to their nearest country park. We have been under strict lockdown since the beginning of November, and under stricter lockdown all the summer preceding that.

I don't know what's going on. I have no imagination, I can only comment on things that are happening. I don't therefore hold any trick with conspiracy theories. I do think it's fairly likely that this givernmentv"team" is out of its depth and slightly incompetent. That, coupled with the totalitarian leaning Drakeford in Wales, Sturgeon in Scotland and the prevailing anti British view in Europe which embarrasses the British Government in the international covid death league (the UK also reports deaths more consistently) and we have no one in power willing to put their neck on the line to stand up for personal freedoms.

Also, could people please stop using what happened in WW2 to justify thus. The ECHR was brought in to prevent the harm that mass loss of human rights tend to cause, and to prevent it occurring in the west. There is always a presumption against loss of human rights, because history shows us that it strongly associates with mass loss of life and significant reduction in living standards for various reasons. We know that what is happening in the UK goes well beyond the Article 15 ECHR derogation, which allow for suspension of human rights where the safety of the entire population is under imminent risk, eg wartime, severe terror threats. Suspension of human rights is supposed to be as short term as possible, and we have to say that after nearly a year of their loss, the UK no longer considers itself bound by the ECHR, and because the ECHR forms part of the British Constitution, the constitution has been changed with remarkably little effort.

Apologies for the technical detail. This stuff is what I write about and it comes easily to me, but it should be part of normal discussion as it is in most other European countries, where knowledge of constitutions and rights is much more widespread.

@Radio4Rocks

There are rich fuckers who would happily pay the hefty fine just so they could travel.

Prison may make them think twice.

Because we all know that rich people and poor people regularly get similar sentences for committing the same 'crimes'...

Honestly anyone who thinks some rich traveller is going to spend a day in prison under this legislation is kidding themselves.
I'd bet all my money on the first person getting a hefty prison sentence being a) poor b) not a British citizen or c)a refugee.

We're fairly predictable after all.

I agree, it is excessive. I'm not defending people who lie about their travel history, but punishments need to be in proportion to the crime. To put it into perspective, the maximum sentences for child cruelty, possession of child pornography and sexual assault are also 10 years!

And since when have we prosecuted people based on what might have happened? If I drove drunk last night, I might have killed someone, but unless I actually did, I'll only be sentenced for drink driving. I won't be sentenced for manslaughter. This is a case of emotions and collective outrage getting in the way of good sense and actual justice.

user Your post is not actually true, you could also be charged with dangerous driving and that carries a custodial sentence.

Everyone seems to think this is new legislation, it is not. It is a very old piece of legislation used with forgery. It has not been used before with travel documents, but for the purposes of keeping people safe and alive, I think it is okay in the short term. I would entirely agree that this needs to be dropped as soon as the immediate risk to life is lifted. I too would have a real problem is this continued beyond the emergency situation we find ourselves in now.

I do feel Matt Hancock is very trigger happy when it comes to reeling off punishments, a definite sense of a jumped up jobsworth.

For now we need deterrents, whether you agree with this their form or not - we can't deny that it will most likely work at least. No one wants to be in prison for ten years for a week in Dubai.

My understanding is that the 10 years comes from the use of existing forgery legislation. So requires the CPS to want to prosecute (not certain especially if it is deemed 'not to be in the public interest') and then the courts if found guilty to impose the maximum sentence (very unlikely). I am sure anyone brought before the court would plead a sob story, and probably if they had no previous convictions (likely) have a suspended sentence at worst.

If Matt Hancock had said that there is existing forgery legislation in place to use, no-one would be talking about this very much, and the government would not look even more unreasonable than they already do.

It's easy - don't lie!

Rather than think we live in a totalarian state for punishments for lying think lying is wrong and I would t do it so the punishment is irrelevant.

peak In making the decision regarding sentencing, and whether a suspended sentence would be appropriate. It would depend on the person's previous good character, criminal convictions and other factors. It would also depend on harm, if it were to be proved they indeed infected others directly then I think they can expect the full range to be considered.

Courts would be under considerable pressure to make an example of cases too.

Put it this way, it is not something I would want to do. It can entirely wreck your life having a criminal record for forgery even if you don't end up festering in prison. Probably not worth it, all said and done.

@GreenlandTheMovie I grew up in Germany. I am struggling also to get my head around the complacency. We had this stuff drummed into us all the way through school, we were given copies of the constitution and had whole terms devoted to the separation of powers. Germany has also enacted plenty of covid legislation, but nearly all of it under state law, because the government does not have the constitutional power to do so. I have written to my MP to point out that at no point has Germany suspended the right to protest. We have. That single fact is the one i find by far the most worrying. I also think its mainly a function of a weak government, not some grand plan, but that's almost worse.

@itsgettingwierd

It's easy - don't lie!

Rather than think we live in a totalarian state for punishments for lying think lying is wrong and I would t do it so the punishment is irrelevant.

So in that case what if laws came in to play that said -

If you lied about smoking - you can get a jail sentence

If you lied about having that extra glass of wine - you’d get a jail sentence

Jail sentences should not be given out on the bases of lie. They should be given out of evidence of a crime.

@sadpapercourtesan

No. We're not in a totalitarian regime. We're in a global pandemic.

Honestly, I understand why people are freaked out by the strength of the measures needed to control this virus - for most of us, a pandemic is pretty much the ONLY circumstance in which we'd countenance our civil liberties being limited in this way, and none of us thought we'd actually see one.

But it's happening, and we all need to do our part. Whining about totalitarianism and conspiracy theories aren't helping.

I doubt the additional surveillance and limitations on our civil liberties will stop once deaths have decreased. I mean they have decreased, but we’re still in lockdown.

There’s already talks of forced vaccinations, which means we don’t have consent over our own bodies (I say forced as in our movement maybe limited if we don’t want the vaccine). There are anal swabs and swabs shoved high up people's noses. People are dying or having severe reactions to the different vaccines, but we’re still told it’s “safe.”

We’re not allowed to protest. The media and social media is censored. People who want to debate are blocked from social media. The media promotes a divided society and fear, encouraging snitches.

This is how a totalitarian regime starts. Fear and power.