Greater Manchester Police broke up a child’s birthday party

[Redolent]

They’ve been busy recently...

#UPDATE | Officers attended a property in #Swinton where 3 families were celebrating a child's birthday in a private garden. The homeowner has been issued with a fixed penalty notice.

——

The rest of their Twitter exploits:

mobile.twitter.com/gmpolice

Draconian or justified?

If you took the data since lockdown that would be the pattern.

However ,the local lockdown was based on test and trace data when both were happened. Funny how now that people are less likely to go round each others houses and being fined for birthday parties the cases are going down.

Chief of GMP explained the position on the child's birthday party... ...because it was less about a couple of young children having jelly and ice cream outside in the afternoon, with adults maintaining distance, but an excuse for a gathering that went on late, involved alcohol and meant adults were not minimising any risk. He explained that another example involved a terminally ill child, which was treated completely differently

Visiting someone who is terminally ill is exempt so why GMP thought is was appropriate to mention they'd had a 'quiet word' I'm not sure.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't see any mention of alcohol either.

@walksen

If you took the data since lockdown that would be the pattern.

However ,the local lockdown was based on test and trace data when both were happened. Funny how now that people are less likely to go round each others houses and being fined for birthday parties the cases are going down.

However ,the local lockdown was based on test and trace data when both were happened.

How many people were visiting pubs at this time? How many were living in houses? Does the data indicate that transmission is more likely in houses than pubs when the groups using either are of equal numbers?

Funny how now that people are less likely to go round each others houses and being fined for birthday parties the cases are going down.

You seem to think I am arguing that people don't transmit the virus in private houses, so let me make it really clear for you- I am not.

I have family in Hyndburn and as far as I can tell from their FB, they’re completely ignoring the local lockdown rules. I suspect a lot of people are.

How many people were visiting pubs at this time? How many were living in houses? Does the data indicate that transmission is more likely in houses than pubs when the groups using either are of equal numbers?

Go find out! After all you were the one who stated you couldn't catch the virus in a pub!

Im happy enough that if pubs caused the spike they would have been closed. They weren't because they didn't. Most cases were traced to people visiting each others houses and the authorities acted accordingly.

unmarkedbythat
You can see the number of incidents of clusters in the government stats.

Care homes are highest for clusters
Work places are second - but people need to keep working or we are all screwed
Then it's "other" which appears to include visits to homes. They are also the second highest group in track and trace contacts, after family members/household (see screenshot).

@walksen
It's not about courage it is what can be achieved

Well they either enforce the big groups and if they don't they have no right to enforce small groups.

How is is right a small group can get fined but a big group doesnt a police force shouldn't be using selective policing.

There is lots of incidences of small groups getting targeted but big ones not , do you think that's right.?

And is it effective? Seems like a fairly clear message that the larger the gathering the less likely you are to get a visit from GMP.

And is it effective? Seems like a fairly clear message that the larger the gathering the less likely you are to get a visit from GMP.

Clearly that is true. If you have football matches there are specific numbers of officers or wardens needed. Any situation with a large crowd of thousands of people need probably hundreds of officers to deal with. If a crowd is big enough there is not much the police can do. Don't we remember the mark duggan riots?

@walksen

And is it effective? Seems like a fairly clear message that the larger the gathering the less likely you are to get a visit from GMP.

Clearly that is true. If you have football matches there are specific numbers of officers or wardens needed. Any situation with a large crowd of thousands of people need probably hundreds of officers to deal with. If a crowd is big enough there is not much the police can do. Don't we remember the mark duggan riots?

Ah well that's totally fine then. Bully weak people because you can, don't bother with actual crime.

"don't bother with actual crime"

They did bother with an actual crime!

@walksen

"don't bother with actual crime"

They did bother with an actual crime!

Really so this is comparable with them dealing with a burglary or an assault for example? No it's not.

Jesus what a pointless overreaction. What a waste of police resources.

The police made an informed decision. And decided to deploy their resources accordingly

Of course it is comparable with burglary. for example
Similarities. Both are against the law.
Differences one involves purely financial loss, the other could result in people dying.

I say that as someone who was burgled but the case was closed without investigation btw.

@walksen

Of course it is comparable with burglary. for example Similarities. Both are against the law. Differences one involves purely financial loss, the other could result in people dying.

I say that as someone who was burgled but the case was closed without investigation btw.

Could result in people dying? Oh fucking seriously. Do you think they should be charged with manslaughter as a precaution then? Get a grip.

Burglary and assault have actual fucking victims.

56k have died of covid do far so of course it is possible it people could die. That's why it is against the law. If it didn't make a difference to anyone it wouldn't be illegal.

Thousands of people in greater manchester cannot visit family elsewhere in the country because of selfish cunts having parties in the back garden/houses.

@walksen

56k have died of covid do far so of course it is possible it people could die. That's why it is against the law. If it didn't make a difference to anyone it wouldn't be illegal.

Thousands of people in greater manchester cannot visit family elsewhere in the country because of selfish cunts having parties in the back garden/houses.

Anything is possible though isn't it? Doesn't mean it's remotely likely.

Thousands of people in greater Manchester can't visit their family elsewhere because the government said so, and then increased testing to prove a point. Nothing to do with the general public, not their decision at all.

"Nothing to do with the general public, not their decision at all."

Of course it was. Actions have consequences lots of people ferl like lockdown rules are the government making a point, it doesn't really matter because it's not burglary or assault. Testing show cases rise and the mayor council and government act accordingly. Testing is then increased to find out the scale of the outbreak where transmission is happening in which is miles better than a total lockdown. This still affects everyone in the community even if you don't believe it does.

The police have to be seen to be enforcing it or it will be more widely ignored. Some people get away with it. Lots of people get away with crime all the time, including the person who burgled my house. That doesn't mean I'm bitter about other crimes being dealt with or ignore the need for them to do so.

@walksen

"Nothing to do with the general public, not their decision at all."

Of course it was. Actions have consequences lots of people ferl like lockdown rules are the government making a point, it doesn't really matter because it's not burglary or assault. Testing show cases rise and the mayor council and government act accordingly. Testing is then increased to find out the scale of the outbreak where transmission is happening in which is miles better than a total lockdown. This still affects everyone in the community even if you don't believe it does.

The police have to be seen to be enforcing it or it will be more widely ignored. Some people get away with it. Lots of people get away with crime all the time, including the person who burgled my house. That doesn't mean I'm bitter about other crimes being dealt with or ignore the need for them to do so.

Actions have consequences. Yeah. The only actions are increased testing.

They're not seen to be enforcing it, they're seen to be bullying. They're picking what they deal with based on how easy it will be for them. That is not a good example of conscientious policing. It's cowardice and possibly even discrimination.

Testing shows nothing but that there is more testing. I mean what did they expect to happen when they encouraged healthy symptomless people to get tested?

"They're not seen to be enforcing it, they're seen to be bullying"

That's how you see it. Others have different perspectives. It would have been just as easy to find the party for the terminal child but they showed some conscience there.

Not sure why you are so anti police but if you are so brave join up and change from within maybe?

@walksen

"They're not seen to be enforcing it, they're seen to be bullying"

That's how you see it. Others have different perspectives. It would have been just as easy to find the party for the terminal child but they showed some conscience there.

Not sure why you are so anti police but if you are so brave join up and change from within maybe?

Why would I join an organisation that is clearly shite? No thanks. I don't work for people like that.

I'm not anti police at all. I have a lot of respect for them when they do their jobs properly. Currently, they're not.

Ffs, this mentality of "well, they're doing it, so i will too" and "but he got away with it!" is pathetic.

Probably because they are understaffed, undermanned and overworked. Same as lots of important professions including social workers nhs etc.

I think they are doing a fantastic job with limited resources.

@walksen

"They're not seen to be enforcing it, they're seen to be bullying"

That's how you see it. Others have different perspectives. It would have been just as easy to find the party for the terminal child but they showed some conscience there.

Not sure why you are so anti police but if you are so brave join up and change from within maybe?

Visiting someone who is terminally ill is a valid exemption. So they'd have looked particularly silly then.

@GabriellaMontez

Visiting someone who is terminally ill is a valid exemption. So they'd have looked particularly silly then.

Visiting, yes. Throwing a party for? I imagine that's very much open to discretion.