Christmas rule breaking and policing

[BuffaloCauliflower]

This isn’t a debate about what rules there should be or not be at Christmas, and whether or not people should or shouldn’t break them, but let’s assume that it’s likely we’ll be back to some form of ‘the rule of 6’ for Christmas, maybe not including children in the number, maybe it’ll be 8 instead of 6, who knows, but its unlikely to be the normal course of events.

In practice, many people will break these rules to at least some extent, and is there really any chance of it being policed anyway? The police literally won’t have the resources to go and check all the houses that may have too many people in them and it would be a waste of their time And resources anyway when I’m sure they’ll be needed more elsewhere. Perhaps if there’s a massive party somewhere it might be worth it. But ultimately there will be no policing of the rules so it’ll be up to each person/household what they choose to do anyway surely?

@EleanorShell people who celebrate different religious occasions to Christmas will no doubt take their own risks like most will at Christmas. I don’t believe that the PM will scrap restrictions for Christmas Day, they are fully aware that the majority will not comply anyway.

An aside but does a judge or court need to sign or okay a warrant? Sorry to be thick!

@LindaEllen I’m not saying I think it’s a good idea - but I’m saying that it’s what I imagine may happen. I’m already planning for a day with jist DH and I - I wouldn’t take the risk, but for families where you’ve say already got a family of 2 adults and 3 kids who want to see their young ish parents - I imagine many will do it regardless

Christmas Day itself they'll look the other way and rely on people to use a bit of sense.

But then it can be argued that that's unfair to those of us working Christmas Day, and who can't (and never have been able to because someone's always at work!) Actually meet family on Christmas Day.
I'm pretty "It is what it is" about it all from a personal view, but I'd be pissed off to receive a fine on say, the 27th for having 7 people round, when my neighbour did the same on the 25th and authorities looked the other way and they didn't, because I was at work on the 25th and they weren't.

[quote BuffaloCauliflower]@IceCreamAndCandyfloss financial incentives for dobbing in your neighbours is a disgusting police state suggestion and I don’t want to live in that country[/quote]
We don’t enough police or army to do it so it would be using resources we have to hand. What other ways could it be done?

Something will need to be done regardless as people can’t risk asses this for themselves unless they see no one at all for two weeks after so all those that follow the law will be at risk from those who don’t.

Not sure why anyone would want to risk their loved ones. If they fall ill or worse it’s something that people will have to live with and be reminded of every Christmas.

It’s just one year and we have so many ways of keeping in touch it’s not like we can’t talk to people on the actual day.

[quote BuffaloCauliflower]@IceCreamAndCandyfloss financial incentives for dobbing in your neighbours is a disgusting police state suggestion and I don’t want to live in that country[/quote]
You already do. Judging by the many thousands of reports police and local councils already get, and the numbered of anonymous tip lines that have been set up, a good number of people don't need a financial incentive.

We don’t enough police or army to do it so it would be using resources we have to hand. What other ways could it be done?

You clearly think being paid to dob in your neighbours for having family around on Xmas Day is a fab idea. What would you yourself consider appropriate financial reward for this act? Then again, perhaps you'd be more than happy to do it for free?

@RegularHumanBartender

I can't even find the words for the poster above who is suggesting that people be paid to report others for having their family in their own home.

Absolutely this

Not sure how to enforce, maybe larger fines and the person reporting gets part of it? Army help?

So pay people to report others? Jesus Christ, is there no end to people's madness!

There is no way they would give part of the fine to a person reporting, the government need all the money they can get.

@PhilCornwall1

Not sure how to enforce, maybe larger fines and the person reporting gets part of it? Army help?

So pay people to report others? Jesus Christ, is there no end to people's madness!

There is no way they would give part of the fine to a person reporting, the government need all the money they can get.

Plus, it's surely illegal for the taxpayer funded police forces to reward neighbourhood vigilantes, isn't it?

I think threads like this should be preserved in MN Classics. Otherwise, nobody would believe the utter insanity of this period in time.

It's really very straight forward, here is a cunning plan! The authorities simply need to contact the major supermarkets, especially M&S and Waitrose, and a get lists of people who have ordered large turkeys or vast quanities of 'entertaining' food. They will then know which houses to monitor and visit. Simple and much more effective than our world beating track and trace app. You read here first folks !

I think threads like this should be preserved in MN Classics. Otherwise, nobody would believe the utter insanity of this period in time.

This place is full of insanity. It does make for great entertainment though!!

I reckon it'll be back to the rule of 6. They know people will stretch it and they would rather ppl stretch 6 to 7 or 8 than 8 to 10 etc.

I hope personally they take children out of the equation like the other nations have but I don't see that happening.

I really can't with the "call the army out" people. The last time the army were deployed to police civilians in the UK was Northern Ireland and that wasn't exactly a roaring success.

Yes Christmas is going to be a mess from a Covid restrictions POV. People are increasingly exhausted with it all anyway & have missed out on so much this year, so losing Christmas is very hard to face. Personally I'm finding that even hitherto very observant friends are being really open about their non-compliant Christmas plans. On the other hand we don't - thankfully - live in an authoritarian state, so we don't have the coercive resources or the collective inclination to stop Tim & Karen two doors down having eight people over on Christmas Day. So the police aren't going to bother with anything less than truly massive & blatant rule-breaking. TBH I think the government will accept a fait accompli and relax the rules for a few days to save face. And yes we'll get a spike in infections afterwards.

Also can you just imagine the sort of person who has nothing better to do over the festive season than reporting said Tim & Karen???

@EleanorShell I keep hearing this argument but it doesn’t hold, we were in full lockdown for Easter which from a religious perspective is much more important to Christians than Christmas. We Christians also missed our festival. Christmas is a bit different, it’s not religious to many perhaps most people, and is also celebrated in some way by people of many different religions. My Hindu family members celebrate Christmas. Plus less than 10% of the country are a religion that’s not Christian so it’s a very different scale of impact.

Are you saying that police could randomly turn up and arrest your family for being in your house at Christmas, or tell them to move on? Do you think this is likely to be a free service, or will you have to pay? And will I need to book?

[quote BuffaloCauliflower]@MoodieMare I agree I think the exact number becomes too much of a focus, when people’s potential for transmission to others isn’t all the same. For example, DH is working from home, I’m
on maternity, getting everything delivered, if we see family and then go home there’s not much chance of further spread. Someone who needs to travel on public transport to work every day there is. I think this is why people want to do more individual risk assessing about things like Christmas gatherings. But I also get the logic of a clear number rather than lots of varied rules, it’s been confusing enough in many ways.[/quote]
Oh the ‘I’m alright hack’ attitude. It comes across as though you are saying we are low risks so should be able to spend Christmas with other low risk people. But you key workers who are taking more of a risk by providing services should keep to yourself and have different rules.

Let’s not forgot Muslim families were given a few hours when they had to cancel their Eid celebrations.

We are either all in this together or not.

All those people saying they should be able to ‘risk assess’ for themselves, need to realise that’s their risk assessments aren’t taken in isolation.

I’m hoping they will allow you to meet one other household rather than a set number. It would mean we could see my parents and my brothers could go to their in Laws.

@RaspberryCoulis

I will, because we have three kids. Me, DH, the three kids and my parents makes 7.

So if it's the rule of 6 yes I'd break it and no I wouldn't feel guilty in the slightest.

I expect you will still want a hospital bed though when your children pass to your Dp’s though.

I expect you will still want a hospital bed though when your children pass to your Dp’s though.

God are people still trotting out this bollocks?

All those people saying they should be able to ‘risk assess’ for themselves, need to realise that’s their risk assessments aren’t taken in isolation.

Yes, risk assessments identify everyone who could be affected by the hazard and the measures put in place to reduce or eliminate those risks.
For the record my pov is that there's so many people that are openly saying they're going to break the rules regardless, and the following of the rules isn't the ultimate goal, the control of transmission is, and I think that by (factoring in non compliance on any level) having slightly more relaxed rules, mixing will be overall lower than having stringent rules that will encourage people to 'make it worthwhile' to break them and mix to a greater degree.

@Freddiefox that’s literally not what I said at all. I said how I can see how people think they should be able to risk assess for themselves due to different circumstances, not that we SHOULD do this. Too many variables. Someone I know recently tested positive despite living alone and had only been out to do their Tesco shop.

But when you keep seeing ‘well what if you give it to your elderly nan and they die, how would you feel’ and your family has no elderly Nan’s, were clearly not all going to see Christmas gatherings in quite the same way.

I’m hoping they will allow you to meet one other household rather than a set number. It would mean we could see my parents and my brothers could go to their in Laws.

This I think would be a good way to deal with it. No numbers but quite simple, two households allowed to mix over the Christmas period. Allows for all family sizes then and means single people can mix with a family/other single person.

I expect you will still want a hospital bed though when your children pass to your Dp’s though

Oh change the bloody record will you.