When will there be a backlash against these rule breakers?

[annabel85]

We know the government made errors back in March. They should have locked down quicker and messed up with care homes. However, the issue now is people not following rules. House parties, raves, mixing in big groups. People are blaming the government for the new rule of 6 and not the shameless delinquents who have been breaking rules.

The government have issued a clear warning to people with the new legislation. Follow the rules or cases will get worse and further restrictions will come. How long till people snap at those who aren't taking this seriously? The tolerance of the law abiding majority can only stretch so far.

PS - leave Cummings out of it. This is about the here and now.

Illegal raves etc. might be a contributor to the spread but it seems like a bit of a scapegoat to me. It's not surprising that there is more spread amongst the young anyway because they are more likely to be out at work etc. and less likely than older people to be effectively shielding.

I think we also have to recognise that the rules are much harder for some people to follow than others - I've just had a baby so don't want to go to an illegal rave anyway but asking an eighteen year old to give up their social life for a year or more is a different proposition. Equally, most of the activities which are allowed now are paid for - e.g. I can socialise by paying to attend a baby group but meeting 3 mums and their babies in a park is illegal. Luckily I can afford to attend a (currently very expensive) baby group but if I couldn't I might be more inclined to break the rules.

But my main point is let's say we do crack down on the rule breakers and this gets infections right down, what then? There seems to be a view that if we comply with the rules for a few more months we will save lives and that the rule breakers are therefore killing people but we won't have solved the underlying problem. If, as Chris Whitty said a few weeks ago, we have opened up as far as possible already, we just have to stay like this indefinitely with the current approach.

@gamerchick

And we can’t leave Cummings out of it. He destroyed people’s respect for the regulations. The effect of that is ongoing

This. As soon as this happened and the fucker got away with it, it was all downhill. People simply don't believe it anymore. Nobody likes getting their noses rubbed into a one rule for is and another for them. Even if they're consciously aware of it or not.

Rubbish, plenty of people started taking the piss before that story broke.

But the government have been clear. If we want a normal Christmas we need to behave now and not break the rules.

Oh, we need to behave do we?
What a funny choice of words.

‘Behave; comply; don’t question.’
Perhaps that can be their new mantra? It’s as snappy as ‘face, space, whatever’.

I think that the police will have better things to do with their time than to bust 4 adults and their offspring who illegally met up to play in the park. Particularly when the significantly higher risk activity of meeting up with 5 friends (from different households) around a table inside a pub is legal. Or in a few months, volunteering/ running parkrun with a few hundred runners.

Am I special. Not at all. My family of two adults, two children is very, very average which is why it is such a bad law to prohibit an average sized family from seeing another family be it family or friends.
I don't begrudge the clarity for couples/ singles. An exemption for u16s under supervision of adults would massively increase my tespect for this particular piece of law that is incredibly exclusionary to most family structures.

I've already endured 6 months. I try to endure masks and generally avoid indoor spaces other than having to buy food. My family and friends finally had the confidence to meet up with another household within the last month. I am not quietly lying down and succumbing to crushing lonliness.

@Batshitbeautycosmeticsltd

Personally I’m appalled by the attitudes of so many who seem to think it doesn’t matter if anyone over the age of 70 or with a pre existing health condition dies, as long as they can keep up their social life.

It's not just social lives, it's entire industries due to the knock on effect it's all had. It's worsening unemployment and poverty and soon, homelessness. People become unwilling to compromise when their own livelihoods, homes, children's well-beings are at stake. And no government can afford to have more and more people sat at home collecting expensive furlough or propping up industries than simply cannot survive with these social restrictions; there were already far too many who were economically active for many years before this with these higher life expectancies and early retirements and hence a serious social care problem before Covid.

What do you suggest? The government magic up money (they can't borrow much more, they can't afford to service the debt and they don't look like a good debtor due to the real possibility of no deal Brexit) to pay for a two-tiered society of those lucky enough to be sat at home and those who have to do the work to keep society running? What if there is never a vaccine? What if it's full of side effects and people don't take it up?

Yes you are right about the economy. I have no problem with people wanting to support the economy but many people on Mumsnet are arguing against restrictions from a purely social perspective , including breaking rules to see people at home. It is possible to follow the rules and support the economy. That’s why pubs are still open but only groups of 6 can meet at home.

Yeah I do think MN can be a bit of a bubble. There's seething anger out there at rule breakers.

Good job I’ve never given a toss about what others think. Be as angry as you like op.

Well if there’s ‘seething anger’ out there at ‘rulebreakers’ I’m yet to see it. Jesus, what happened to this website.

@Chessie678

Illegal raves etc. might be a contributor to the spread but it seems like a bit of a scapegoat to me. It's not surprising that there is more spread amongst the young anyway because they are more likely to be out at work etc. and less likely than older people to be effectively shielding.

I think we also have to recognise that the rules are much harder for some people to follow than others - I've just had a baby so don't want to go to an illegal rave anyway but asking an eighteen year old to give up their social life for a year or more is a different proposition. Equally, most of the activities which are allowed now are paid for - e.g. I can socialise by paying to attend a baby group but meeting 3 mums and their babies in a park is illegal. Luckily I can afford to attend a (currently very expensive) baby group but if I couldn't I might be more inclined to break the rules.

But my main point is let's say we do crack down on the rule breakers and this gets infections right down, what then? There seems to be a view that if we comply with the rules for a few more months we will save lives and that the rule breakers are therefore killing people but we won't have solved the underlying problem. If, as Chris Whitty said a few weeks ago, we have opened up as far as possible already, we just have to stay like this indefinitely with the current approach.

Baby groups... There have been lots of new families meeting responsibly in parks in the absence of baby groups.

While they are authorised at last, the reality is that many of the less formal community groups are not starting up again, either because the volunteers are risk adverse, or venues (with generally older committees) are risk adverse or logistically struggling to meet or because life changes and you've lost the natural progression of leaders as toddlers grow up and families move on to school. There is more success with the more formal franchises with a chain of structure to deal with policy, but many mothers can't afford these.

Meeting people should have been allowed in low risk, public spaces. I can understand deterring on private property as it is too easy to head indoors in poor weather and distancing can be tricky. But by basically allowing parents with children to only socialise in a formal setting, that's a massive disadvantage to people on lower incomes.

The reality is many people will now be driven to hiding inside, and if child 7 pushes you beyond the law, you may as well have family 3 or 4 over as well... (I am not planning on doing this, but thousands will)

More harm will probably be done from this because the law overlooks families and those who can't manage risk managed indoor spaces than if the rules were a little bit more sensible.

including breaking rules to see people at home. It is possible to follow the rules and support the economy. That’s why pubs are still open but only groups of 6 can meet at home.

Pubs are open because the government doesn't give a shiny shit about the life of you, me or anyone else besides themselves and their cronies. Don't delude yourself. And 'social life' is vital to many who cannot get out to pubs or restaurants or cafes, who have been locked away from their families for months. Now it's just the preserve of those who are able and wealthy enough to see their loved ones? Yeah, right.

@BogRollBOGOF

Agreed. I was meeting a few mums plus babies in a park. It has really helped get me through the last few months while so many other services for new mums have been shut. Now we can only legally meet if we exclude someone which we don’t want to do. We can also pay to attend a class together. As you say, these are formal franchised groups and are very expensive. If we meet in a park anyway we will be on edge in case we are accosted by the police or more likely a member of the public and that does make it tempting to meet inside.

I understand that the law has to cover everyone and that the government needs it to be simple in order to be enforceable but it is very difficult to feel respect for it when it bans such an innocuous activity. If it makes criminals of people who aren’t doing anything risky and disproportionately affects disadvantaged or vulnerable groups I think it will be harder to sustain public cooperation.

I doubt the covid marshalls will be working on Christmas Day

I think there will continue to be a backlash against large gatherings.

I don't think most people will bother if you go over the 6 rule to see another household, meeting with my sister and family would mean 8 of us are together.

I don't think people will follow the rules properly.

I have said this on a previous thread but it’s about time the government allowed people to make their own risk assessments. The virus is mild in most people in some they don’t even know they have it or have had it. Let the people that they are trying to protect (the over 70’s, medically vulnerable) to make their own decisions about what risks they are willing to take. My Mil and Fil, in there 80’s made their own decision to override their children during lockdown and decided they would go out and do their own shopping and wanted us to visit them in their home. It was their decision to make not ours and we respected it. We will continue to be guided by them as they are the ones that are most at risk. In the words of my Fil “ we have had a good life and we will likely die in the next 5-10 years anyway and I would rather enjoy the time I have left with my family with a good bottle of red than spend it in isolation losing my marbles”

it is such a bad law to prohibit an average sized family from seeing another family

I agree with that. Presumably that's part of the number choice, but it's not fair for lots of people.

Do you mean a backlash against our rule breaking government OP?

If that is what you mean - then I think the backlash has already started.

How is Germany keeping there numbers so low? We need to follow what they are doing, as clearly it's working. (I suspect they have a much better health service and much higher taxes?)

@caughtalightsneeze

I have stuck to the rules all along and will continue to. It's no skin off my nose because I'm a homebody anyway.

But it's perfectly reasonable to point out that the hypocrisy of the government when it comes to Dominic Cummings. Essentially what they were saying is that the rules apply to you, the ordinary people, but not to everyone. If you're important enough, the rules don't apply.

People are not petulant teenagers for being angry about this stuff. People up and down the country have faced financial hardship the likes of which they never thought they would see. People who have always worked and always wanted to work being told that it was now illegal for them to operate their businesses and earn money to keep a roof over their head and food on their table. And they did that, for the greater good, only to see their Prime Minister's influential mate piss all over them because he was so much more important. Why the hell would they not be angry? And why would they listen to the rules now when it has been proven that they don't apply to everyone?

I absolutely agree. Johnson year al

Sorry pressed too soon - Johnson et al desperately want us to forget that they treated Dominic Cummings as the special one when everyone else was pretty much compliant. I will be careful and do my bit but stop telling I am not allowed to be angry about Dominic Cummings and the way the govt basically laughed at us because I am still fucking angry

I was on a train in Manchester recently. I didnt want to be but it was unavoidable.
In my carriage were

2 young men, who sat at a table but although all the seats around the table were available, chose to sit near the aisle. When the posters placed everywhere clearly requested everyone try to sit by that window. One had a mask that only covered his mouth, not his nose

2 women, looked like friends returning from a shopping trip, neither of them wearing a mask. Laughing and shrieking loudly

1 young woman, no mask, chatting loudly on her phone to someone in Arabic, pouting, pulling down her top and taking selfies for the whole journey

1 backpacker hippy type bloke, no mask

I honestly don't know why I didn't report them all to the conductor. I wish I had

“ Baby groups... There have been lots of new families meeting responsibly in parks in the absence of baby groups.

While they are authorised at last, the reality is that many of the less formal community groups are not starting up again, either because the volunteers are risk adverse, or venues (with generally older committees) are risk adverse or logistically struggling to meet or because life changes and you've lost the natural progression of leaders as toddlers grow up and families move on to school. There is more success with the more formal franchises with a chain of structure to deal with policy, but many mothers can't afford these.

Meeting people should have been allowed in low risk, public spaces. I can understand deterring on private property as it is too easy to head indoors in poor weather and distancing can be tricky. But by basically allowing parents with children to only socialise in a formal setting, that's a massive disadvantage to people on lower incomes.

The reality is many people will now be driven to hiding inside, and if child 7 pushes you beyond the law, you may as well have family 3 or 4 over as well... (I am not planning on doing this, but thousands will)

More harm will probably be done from this because the law overlooks families and those who can't manage risk managed indoor spaces than if the rules were a little bit more sensible.”

Completely agree with this. I have a baby and toddler and have been meeting friends with similar ages in this way. There is nothing low cost or free suitable for toddlers that is indoors (libraries, swimming pools, museums etc all currently difficult or even banned with this age group).

@Batshitbeautycosmeticsltd

If you can't WFH I would find a way to go on UC until winter has past.

You quit your job and you might likely be ineligible for UC. It takes a minimum of 5 weeks to get any payment and any 'advance' is a loan that is clawed back at quite a steep rate. It does not cover mortgages or interest on mortgages for many weeks so you may be looking at repossession by then with your credit trashed, and good look finding a private landlord who will take it (rent caps are also set by local housing associations and might not cover all the rent, probably won't).

You must also prove you are looking for FT work or face sanctions and you can be put on any 'placement' they deem fit, you can't sit at home because you're afraid of falling ill.

As you probably didn't notice. I was referring to those who were previously on the "highly clinically vulnerable list" in which case there is not a doctor in the country who would not give you a 'fit' note as suffering from extreme stress.and anxiety (how could you not be in the current circumstances?)

Someone either on SSP with UC top up or declared too unwell to work - is not required to look for work.

Rent can be topped up through council discretionary payments.

Yes , credit may be harmed if negotiations cannot be made. However a great credit rating is of no use if you are dead. The exact same dire consequences will prevail if you are lucky enough not to die but nevertheless spend weeks in hospital and months recovering (as many are still doing)

It is pretty clear that there is a much higher degree of 'not wanting to comply' . then previously.

That it appears fairly mild in most.
That there is little appetite for another lockdown whatever the infection rate.

That the general population are just not prepared to protect the vulnerable

Therefore it seems pretty clear that the responsibility to protect people like me, rest solely with ourselves.

Unfortunately- as ever, the collateral will be the elderly with little outside /technological support and will be forced outside for food. (But then again , big saving for the government as pensions cutting short ten years early is probably regarded as a 'net saving ' by this government.

Will the rule breakers seek nhs care and in doing so increase the viral load of others? Plus infect the taxi driver who took the to hospital, and the shop assistant who served them the day before? Plus put the health of their friends and family at risk.
Utterly selfish.

@oldmapie

How is Germany keeping there numbers so low? We need to follow what they are doing, as clearly it's working. (I suspect they have a much better health service and much higher taxes?)

I think it’s because Germans do as they’re told more than us. Happy to hear further scientific explanation though!