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

[quote Lastfreakinglegs]@Jackieweaver2024 but what if someone made a genuine mistake on their form. What if someone misinterpreted the rules. The possibility of injustice is extensive.[/quote]
Isn't it just a question on where you have been in a given time period?
How can that be misinterpreted?

@EllaBel that’s awful, such a worry

But be found with thousands of child abuse images including in the worst category sbd go down for six months...

@bellinisurge

Having actually lived in a totalitarian regime, we aren't in one. Fraud has this level of punishment generally. In a totalitarian country, if you asked your MP (or equivalent) about inconsistency in sentencing you might find yourself in serious trouble for doing so. Please spend some time educating yourself about what "totalitarian" actually means.

This is a good point, but it doesnt mean that we shouldn't critique the erosion of protective democratic norms, such as proportionality. The singling out of specific crimes for draconian sentences is associated with totalitarian regimes - it is one of the standard recognised features - and may indicate a creeping tendency that needs to be safeguarded against.

Just be aise a system doesnt have all the features that are associated with totalitarian regimes doesn't excuse it. Poland for INSTANCE, an EU member, has been forcibly retiring its independent judges and replacing them with government supporting judges who are much less qualified and experienced. Hence we have quickly seen the erosion of human rights there, including the ban on abortion, backed up by draconian penalties.

When a country is dependent on the independence of judges not to make full use of sentencing powers, that indicates a very precarious foundation of judicial protection and enforcement.

That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn't even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn't even an enemy you could put your finger on

You don’t see the difference between “suspending the constitution” and putting a particularly harsh legal penalty in place for those who deliberately evade quarantine? Interesting.

Last year the government did the equivalent of “suspending the constitution” in some areas - they made EHCPs, the crucial documents for the most vulnerable disabled children, completely unenforceable. Despite the fact this is now over, many are still fighting for provisions to be reinstated. Significantly more concerning than any threat of a sentence for those breaking the law, and yet I didn’t see many MNers reacting this way. They also basically removed legal right to social care support for the most vulnerable adults and children. Again, I didn’t hear much outcry about that.

Like I said, not even in the top five worst things the government have done in the last year, let alone the last decade. It’s fascinating to me that this is what is apparently beyond the pale, especially when all of us can avoid it completely either by not travelling, or by being honest about where we have been.

What do people suggest? A fine is nothing to some people no matter the amount. If it were five years or three years, would that be okay? People are simultaneously bemoaning the rubbish sentences for other crimes and complaining that this is disproportionate.

You can’t compare it to the actual sentence handed down for various crimes when most of those crimes have a higher maximum sentence, just as this is the maximum sentence. Prisons are close to bursting, they won’t be throwing huge numbers of people in jail for a decade, but are giving the option of a maximum sentence for some cases.

I don’t understand comments about this placing the blame on individuals - if individuals are travelling from countries deemed high risk, they should take responsibility for that. Who else could take that responsibility? The government can’t afford to fund quarantine for anyone choosing to travel. I do believe it should be funded in limited circumstances for those who must travel but there are few circumstances where travel is absolutely essential.

As for previous comments about care homes etc, this is mostly the fault of the government - if individuals deliberately subvert the law when they had an alternative then there should be accountability for that. The problem early last year was lack of available tests, lack of preparation within the system for this eventuality and therefore a lack of beds to isolate positive patients. If someone was negligent - had proper access to testing and just decided not to test and discharge a positive patient to a care home rather than keep them in hospital, or knowingly discharging a positive patient when there were other options, there should be accountability. It seems highly unlikely that many did make those decisions in this way however.

Diverting through another country and then lying about where you’ve been to avoid quarantine is clearly wrong and indefensible.

It’s looking pretty close, particularly in Scotland. Any questioning shot down as selfish and wicked. Obey the rules, do as you’re told.

@EmptyOrchestra

That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn't even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn't even an enemy you could put your finger on

You don’t see the difference between “suspending the constitution” and putting a particularly harsh legal penalty in place for those who deliberately evade quarantine? Interesting.

Last year the government did the equivalent of “suspending the constitution” in some areas - they made EHCPs, the crucial documents for the most vulnerable disabled children, completely unenforceable. Despite the fact this is now over, many are still fighting for provisions to be reinstated. Significantly more concerning than any threat of a sentence for those breaking the law, and yet I didn’t see many MNers reacting this way. They also basically removed legal right to social care support for the most vulnerable adults and children. Again, I didn’t hear much outcry about that.

Like I said, not even in the top five worst things the government have done in the last year, let alone the last decade. It’s fascinating to me that this is what is apparently beyond the pale, especially when all of us can avoid it completely either by not travelling, or by being honest about where we have been.

What do people suggest? A fine is nothing to some people no matter the amount. If it were five years or three years, would that be okay? People are simultaneously bemoaning the rubbish sentences for other crimes and complaining that this is disproportionate.

You can’t compare it to the actual sentence handed down for various crimes when most of those crimes have a higher maximum sentence, just as this is the maximum sentence. Prisons are close to bursting, they won’t be throwing huge numbers of people in jail for a decade, but are giving the option of a maximum sentence for some cases.

I don’t understand comments about this placing the blame on individuals - if individuals are travelling from countries deemed high risk, they should take responsibility for that. Who else could take that responsibility? The government can’t afford to fund quarantine for anyone choosing to travel. I do believe it should be funded in limited circumstances for those who must travel but there are few circumstances where travel is absolutely essential.

As for previous comments about care homes etc, this is mostly the fault of the government - if individuals deliberately subvert the law when they had an alternative then there should be accountability for that. The problem early last year was lack of available tests, lack of preparation within the system for this eventuality and therefore a lack of beds to isolate positive patients. If someone was negligent - had proper access to testing and just decided not to test and discharge a positive patient to a care home rather than keep them in hospital, or knowingly discharging a positive patient when there were other options, there should be accountability. It seems highly unlikely that many did make those decisions in this way however.

Diverting through another country and then lying about where you’ve been to avoid quarantine is clearly wrong and indefensible.

Lord Sumption suggests a 2 year maximum jail sentence for this offence, not 10 years, and goes on to point out that criminalising such behaviour with the the of a jail sentence at all is likely to be extremely effective. He criticises the use of exaggerated penalties by grandstanding politucians and says the law shouldn't be used by politucians in this way (to make themselves look more popular).

I agree, the claims about totalitarian state/ police /nazi state etc are extreme, and this is not the "slippery slope" towards that. We are lucky in that we absolutely do not live in that kind of society.

Are we able to freely and publicly argue with and about the measure? Yes.

Therefore we are not in a totalitarian regime.

Hope that helps.

The 'constitution' has not been suspended.

There is emergency legislation in place, with a sunset clause, and also not all it's possible powers are in force at any one time, because it is still subject to scrutiny and formal review. And measures can only be used proportionately.

Nothing like totalitarianism

@EllaBel

Not yet in a red zone country (as in it isn't on the current list) but my husband has just lost his job and is working out his notice, at which point we will have to repatriate. We have no choice about that as they will cancel our visas. We are a family of 5 returning, with no income, to an economy where jobs are few and far between. Are we refugees? If our country is added we will have to pay 4,475 minmimum for quarantine hotels.

Sorry to hear that and hope it works out OK for you eventually...hope you back into the UK alright.

Sadly yours is a classic example of "essential" travel that gets ignored by those that think everybody seen at airports is travelling for frivolous reasons...if only it was so.

Good Luck.

@bellinisurge

Having actually lived in a totalitarian regime, we aren't in one. Fraud has this level of punishment generally. In a totalitarian country, if you asked your MP (or equivalent) about inconsistency in sentencing you might find yourself in serious trouble for doing so. Please spend some time educating yourself about what "totalitarian" actually means.

This. For those claiming we are living in a totalitarian regime maybe ask some defectors from North Korea what living in a totalitarian regime is like.

@echt

I do wish posters would actually look up what totalitarian means, or in what ways "The Handmaid's Tale" and Nineteen Eighty-Four' have anything to do with the way the pandemic is being: "managed".

Hyperbole much?

Indeed.

If you want to make a relevant comparison to the Handmaid's Tale you could look at the way women's rights are being eroded. Many women are unaware of what's happening and even support it, which is truly chilling.

No, we are not in a totalitarian regime.

Some of you are really ignorant people.

As for people saying it's a disease with only 98% fatality if you was given a bowl with 100 say m&m' s and told 2 are poisonous they'll kill you would you still take one?
It really annoys me when people state about the fatality and do their best to bend and defy the lock down measures they're why we are in this mess now. I know neighbours what have had friends and family round throughout the year, others what have been all over country when in tiers. Ive worked throughout and am fed up and exhausted. Ive had to come off social media.

The irony is that if we lived in a totalitarian regime we would not have the current rates of infection we have.

I see the reasons for imposing this prison sentence, but in reality it would never be practicable. Right now we are at peak Covid panic, understandably. In 6 months there's a very strong likelihood that we'll be approaching normality again, deaths and hospitalizations will have reduced right down and the public will, in the main, not really see Corona as a threat any more. Yet we will simultaneously have people in prison with 9 years 6 months left to serve on their sentence? It works as a "stick" now but would never work in practice.

@AuntieStella

The 'constitution' has not been suspended.

There is emergency legislation in place, with a sunset clause, and also not all it's possible powers are in force at any one time, because it is still subject to scrutiny and formal review. And measures can only be used proportionately.

Nothing like totalitarianism

Which is a partial suspension of the constitution.

I am sure if you are able to use 0hrases such as "sunset clause", you are aware that in the UK we have a piecemeal, political and legal constitution backed up by a relatively weak seperation of powers. In other words, our constitution is partly formed by political policy and decision making. It is highly populist in nature and subject to frequent change.

The ongoing suspension of human rights, far exceeding the derogations forseen in Article 15 ECHR or the Syraceuse Principles, is a marker of a totalitarian regime. As I say, it's a marker. No, we aren't living in a completely totalitarian regime, but because human rights form part of our piecemeal constitution, you have to say that the UK now does have certain features commonly associated with totalitarian regimes.

You cannot deny that our most basic freedoms have been removed and that there is no concern from government as to when we will get them back. A sunset clause creates the possibility of the extension of the enabling legislation being renewed. Or indeed replaced.

What concerns me is how far the restrictions in the UK go and how long they have been in place. The internal travel ban, where people are under fear of driving to their nearest national park for a socially isolated walk, has been in place for far too long now. Holland, Switzerland, Germany, etc are not doing this. Its an abuse of political power for grandstanding purposes. Fine to have restrictions and lockdowns, but keep them proportionate and limited to what is really necessary

Such drama!

2% mortality doesn’t sound too bad does it until you realise there’s been over 100 million cases and over 2 million deaths worldwide.

There have been 50-108 deaths of people under 60 every day of 2021. Between April and November last year, this was mostly a single digit number, sometimes 0, but always fewer than 20.

That’s about 2150 deaths under 60 just since the 1st of January

coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=nation%26areaName=England#card-deaths_within_28_days_of_positive_test_by_date_of_death_age_demographics_-_above_and_below_60

I’d imagine the other concern is it’s currently got a 2% mortality. But we need people to quarantine in case a new more deadly strain emerges. If the NHS is struggling at 2%, imagine 2.5/3%.

So the choices are carrot or stick.
They’ve gone stick to try and prevent people travelling unless totally necessary (or your rich).

People seem to forget that covid in the UK started with just a handful of infected people travelling/returning here. A year later and there's been over 100,000 deaths.

I'd say that if you travel to and/or from a red zone area and then deliberately avoid the control measures put in place, potentially starting the spread again, a 10 year sentence would be more than justified, especially if it could be proven you were covid positive.

@Lastfreakinglegs

Honestly I feel no connection with half the baying British population anymore. Where's the sense.

and your not alone in that , all these plums on here saying we are not sliding into a totalitarian regime are deluded ,and really need to read the reply on here from a poster who grew up in the soviet union . but oh yes of course our goverment only want the best for us and are trying to protect us , its all for the greater good , i wonder how much longer people are going to be saying or believing this shit if we are still in the same restrictions , still having freedoms controlled , getting told what to do , all the rules we must obey say in a years time .

It is not just a lie. It is, at the very least, fraud (i.e. lying to obtain the advantage of not having to go through quarantine), which can already carry a 10 year sentence.

I'd say that it goes even further and deliberately endangers other people's lives.

And to those who say that manslaughter/sex assault (etc) don't carry those sentences, yes they do. The maximum sentence for any offence is only applied in the most egregious circumstances. Most sentences will be lower than 10 years (or whatever else the maximum is).

@QueenCoconut

I grew up in the former Soviet Union. The current situation here is not much different, sadly. Fear, separation, isolation, living under threat, neighbours watching each other, punishment not for something you have done (actually infected x number of people) but for something you may cause. Regimes like this always tell people that any restrictions are for their own good, for a ‘bigger’ case , uniting people against a common imaginary enemy but at the same time setting them off against each other. .. People in North Korea are indoctrinated to believe that their isolation from the rest of the world is for their national and individual safety. It’s when people stop questioning and challenging these rule-makers that the situation becomes very serious. When they tell you ‘just follow the rules’ and you won’t get fined/ punished, your family will be safe if you just obey. I think people could benefit from some independent critical thinking , no Government is always right. Laws need to be questioned.

Totally agree.