Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Are we know in a totalitarian regime or something?

347 replies

Lastfreakinglegs · 09/02/2021 21:37

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

OP posts:
Alonelonelyloner · 10/02/2021 12:45

It's really upset me. I live outside the UK and now if I have to in an emergency visit my young adult kids, I either won't be able to afford it to stay in the secure hotel or I could risk imprisonment.
I feel like I can't come home anymore.
I cried last night thinking that if one of my babies got sick I wouldn't be there for them.

Hotcuppatea · 10/02/2021 12:50

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.

EvilPea · 10/02/2021 12:57

I already know people who have spent the past year finding loop holes to getting in and out the country, pay as you go phones, buying extra tickets to different places. Flying into different airports or countries to get round it.

Honestly a jail sentence (arguably any jail time) would be enough to put them off. Fines aren’t enough of a deterrent. Even those skiers who went on the run when asked to quarantine. They may have thought twice if there’s jail time threatened.

Although it’s all completely pointless given I also know people who have been in and out the country with zero checks. Even from red zone countries with new variants.

rawalpindithelabrador · 10/02/2021 12:57

@FromEden

There is no way most people could afford the fees, so will either lie, or be stuck watching all the politicians and rich people enjoying holidays then self isolating in luxury hotels on the way home

If its anything like Australia, if you're a rich celebrity like Nicole Kidman or Matt damon you get to isolate in your own home or a luxury air bnb. None of those rules for those people.

Exactly!
ancientgran · 10/02/2021 13:01

I thought you only had to do the hotel quarantine if you were coming from a red list country, there are still plenty of other places to visit.

Followthelarch · 10/02/2021 13:03

God knows what people who actually live in totalitarian regimes would make of some of the comments on this thread

Totally agree, but then of course they wouldn't be allowed to access any of this let alone comment on it would they 😶

WouldBeGood · 10/02/2021 13:05

@ancientgran in Scotland it’s all countries

unmarkedbythat · 10/02/2021 13:07

DH grew up in a former bloc country and does not think the current situation here is like that. Bit of anecdata to counter that given by others.

GreenlandTheMovie · 10/02/2021 13:10

@Followthelarch

God knows what people who actually live in totalitarian regimes would make of some of the comments on this thread

Totally agree, but then of course they wouldn't be allowed to access any of this let alone comment on it would they 😶

Well, we are seeing the sidelining of experts in relevant fields who don't agree with the Government. Sir Hugh Pennington is based at Aberdeen University in Scotland and is one of the most eminent viriologists in the world, but he has been entirely ignored by the Scottish Government. Whose Chief Medical Officer is a dentist.

Sir Hugh Pennington would be closer to Anders Tegnell than Van Tam and Whitty in a more moderated approach to Covid and isn't an SNP supporter, so he has obviously been sidelined for not supporting the ruling party/very strict continual lockdown.

There are probably many more examples of experts in relevant fields who could make valuable input being sidelined. Imperial College and Neil Ferguson's worst case scenario models are clearly very much in favour, obvs.

ChestnutStuffing · 10/02/2021 13:12

All the evidence is that the virus mutates readily. Which should be no surprise. If people are depending on the idea that somehow that wil be avoided they are going to be disappointed. Similarly if they are expecting the virus to be wiped out - they haven't managed that even with viruses like the measles, it's just not going to happen. It's a very rare accomplishment, it's only ever happened once with a human infection.

It makes sense to restrict travel, but there is such a thing as proportionality. If it was just this one thing that was concerning, people would be more likely to see it as just a dumb error, but people tend to see things as a totality and are becoming concerned with the larger picture as far as government restrictions and actions. We all know that it is not at all unheard of for a state to take on powers that are meant to be temporary but become permanent. I hope we are all aware that totalitarian regimes don't always start full bore, but as a trickle of seemingly worthwhile measures.

It's important to keep a close eye on these things, maintain a clear view of good policy and governance, and talk about whether the direction of travel meets those standards.

Wildswim · 10/02/2021 13:17

Lord Sumption and Dominic Grieve - both very senior lawyers and one a former Supreme Court judge - have criticised this sentence and called it completely disproportionate.

rawalpindithelabrador · 10/02/2021 13:17

@ancientgran

I thought you only had to do the hotel quarantine if you were coming from a red list country, there are still plenty of other places to visit.
You're falling for that? The goal is to get people, other than the rich of course, to not make any plans out of fear because you just know they'll chop and change what a red list country is as the whim strikes them, like a puppeteer pulling strings.
Anniegetyourgun · 10/02/2021 13:20

The government is telling us what to do? Oh noes! That's new.

OK, some of this stuff is new. And a lot of the new stuff has unarguably been handled clumsily at best and venally in parts. (I'm still sizzling over the Cummings business.) But it's also currently rather important. I could not give a pair of fingers if some people believe viruses ought to be allowed to sweep through the population, mutating at will, killing off the elderly and vulnerable and a few who are neither, leaving others potentially crippled for months, years or life; I don't. I would rather they kept their nasty diseases to themselves, thanks very much, and if some liberties must be suspended temporarily to get this ghastly disease under control, that's what must happen. A lot of the liberty we take for granted is in fact only possible because of restrictions on others. (Think of all the restrictions on driving for example!)

Yes, as a population we need to keep an eye on creeping authoritarianism (totalitarianism is a long way off, but we can do without its lesser manifestations too), and be prepared to man the barricades at the first whiff of the government hanging onto controls unnecessarily. I'll be right there with you. But swanning off to and back from other parts of the world is a luxury (for most, of course there are exceptions) that we can all perfectly well live without, and indeed the environment, on which, may I remind you, we depend for our very existence, will thank us for doing a lot less of it even in non-pandemic times. In fact the proposals being challenged on this thread don't even stop you going wherever you want to; they just set conditions. 10 years does sound way over the top, to be fair, and I agree that there is no point making a sentence tariff available if it is never intended to be used. But if people will not otherwise do what is right, sensible and safe without a deterrent, a deterrent has to be brought in and that's an end to it. I repeat, there are loads of laws we just accept because we're used to them which prevent us every day from doing things we might just feel like but which would have an adverse impact on other people or on society as a whole if we didn't.

It's a matter of balance. Too much freedom can be as dangerous as too little.

Too long already, but I just feel compelled to add that just because other people seem to be getting away with something, other antisocial behaviours are inconsistently punished, or the government are a bunch of muppets does not mean all restrictions are rubbish and can safely be dispensed with. As long as most people drive carefully the odd speeding maniac can probably manage to zigzag between other vehicles without actually killing anyone, although he still might. But when the rest of us think hey, I'm in a hurry too, I'll just do my thing like Mr Cool, that's when the really horrible pile-ups happen. As long as most of us get our offspring vaccinated, the few who can't or won't are very much less likely to catch those dreadful diseases, but once we all stop bothering, mumps and measles will be free to do their worst again. And COVID... well, you get the picture. It is nasty, and sometimes fatal. 2% is a small percentage but it's still a feckload of human beings. Do you really want to be one of them or do you just assume it only happens to people who aren't like you?

ChestnutStuffing · 10/02/2021 13:21

@Alonelonelyloner

It's really upset me. I live outside the UK and now if I have to in an emergency visit my young adult kids, I either won't be able to afford it to stay in the secure hotel or I could risk imprisonment. I feel like I can't come home anymore. I cried last night thinking that if one of my babies got sick I wouldn't be there for them.
This must be hard when you don't expect this kind of scenario.

However, I think that the past 50 years have been a bit of an aberration when it comes to expectations around international travel. It's become cheap and easy and people would move away from family with an expectation that they could visit easily, and it's been encouraged by various governments and the job market too, as it is good for things like GDP.

But even before the pandemic, I think the writing was on the wall that the era of cheap and easy travel was going to be limited and people would have to begin to think more carefully about how far they really wanted to be from family. The pandemic has just emphasised sooner that distance really is meaningful and globalism hasn't actually changed that.

MagicSummer · 10/02/2021 13:21

I do wish people would stop comparing the proposed prison sentence for this transgression to the sentences which paedophiles receive. You cannot compare the two. The aim of the MAXIMUM 10 year prison sentence is to act as a deterrent to make some of these stupid people who absolutely MUST go abroad think twice. I hope they do make an example of a small number of people who break the law - not 10 years but a few months should do the trick - so others don't risk it. We are talking about a danger which could affect a huge number of people, not just one or two.

Wildswim · 10/02/2021 13:24

People who are dismissing the slippery slope argument are incredibly naive.

Totalitarian regimes don't happen overnight.

We need to be constantly vigilant, and never complacent about our civil rights and liberties being removed.

GreenlandTheMovie · 10/02/2021 13:26

@MagicSummer

I do wish people would stop comparing the proposed prison sentence for this transgression to the sentences which paedophiles receive. You cannot compare the two. The aim of the MAXIMUM 10 year prison sentence is to act as a deterrent to make some of these stupid people who absolutely MUST go abroad think twice. I hope they do make an example of a small number of people who break the law - not 10 years but a few months should do the trick - so others don't risk it. We are talking about a danger which could affect a huge number of people, not just one or two.
The thing is that anyone with a decent legal education knows that this sentence doesn't meet the proportionality test and is therefore an indication that something isn't quite right in the way this country is being governed.

The proportionality test involves a bit more than comparing sentences of one offence to another, which is another reason it seems to be a badly thought out, rushed measure.

Its a very basic test of a well balanced legal system, and it isn't being met here.

It doesn't matter what excuses and justifications are brought up. Its a concerning development.

Beaniecats · 10/02/2021 13:49

Exactly this

snowydaysandholidays · 10/02/2021 13:51

I have a different view. If you inadvertently kill someone with covid because you lied, then that is a manslaughter charge. That is what it is. So I can actually see the legal justification for it - and can also see how
one asymptomatic person can go on to kill many people, not just one - not to mention wiping out the protection of the vaccines for many thousands of vulnerable people by introducing new strains of the virus.

So although the ten year custodial sentence does seem very harsh, it is not without good reason. Covid kills people, it is not a fluffy flu that one recovers from. It needs to be treated far more seriously than is currently the case. The countries with the greatest success at stamping out the virus have indeed been the ones with the toughest measures.

I say this as someone with three holidays booked overseas (two carried over from last year) It is a small price to pay though. Asking people to be honest about where they have been probably won't work, and certainly didn't last summer. So we need enforcement.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 10/02/2021 14:03

I was interested in the perspective that one person coming back from a red country and breaking rules could mean 67+million people back into lockdown for a year. So 67million years of freedom, business and leisure, taken away by one person's decision not to follow quarantine rules.

Made me stop and think a bit more about it.

Brefugee · 10/02/2021 14:08

Plus rapists get less as well as manslaughter. Wtf is going on. I'm shocked.

tbh that's nothing to do with the 10 years for "Covid lying" and more to do with the sentencing guidelines for rape and manslaughter, isn't it?

notimagain · 10/02/2021 14:09

If you inadvertently kill someone with covid because you lied, then that is a manslaughter charge.

Out of interest what's the teams thoughts on the following:

Somebody living/working in the UK tests positive for Covid (variant of the teams choice), yet continues to go work and as a result a colleague at the place of work contracts the virus and dies - should the spreader face a manslaughter charge or are we holding people arriving from abroad to a different standard?

snowydaysandholidays · 10/02/2021 14:09

curious Yes if you consider the harm that can be caused, you have to wonder whether the restrictions even go far enough?

It is shocking to us so used to our freedoms and liberties to be told such sentences will now exist, but travelling is not essential, holidays are not essential - a right to life is essential. So it is a no brainer when you get over the shock.

snowydaysandholidays · 10/02/2021 14:15

If it can be proven that you directly infected someone with covid knowingly, then there may be a legal case yes. I am sure there has been a case already of that with an infected tube worker that died in the spring of last year.

snowydaysandholidays · 10/02/2021 14:19

The tube worker's case did not proceed because it was found that the link to the spitting incident did not cause her death, but had it been proved otherwise, then would be possible to bring a criminal case.

Swipe left for the next trending thread