Reduction in social gatherings.

[Huntergreed]

I’ve felt passionate about many things during this pandemic, but THIS is, for me, a tipping point. The government have absolutely NO right to do this given the statistics and evidence at this point, and quite frankly I think this is a loss of democracy and an example of pure authoritarianism. I’m certainly not going to let this one slide without being vocal. I’m sure there’ll be a petition and/or protests (which, by themselves, are illegal in groups more than 6 from Monday), which I will actively be promoting. I can let masks slide to a degree (I’m not happy about them, but I accept their reasoning to SOME degree), but this, this is just too far.

I also fear this will be the cue for Sturgeon to take it a step further up here as she usually does (6 from only 2 households, 4 people, something like that)

 

[DB]

And presumably this will be introduced in a few weeks - during which time they could discuss it in parliament, but won't do so and will shove it through as "emergency" legislation a day or two before it actually comes into force, thereby avoiding any scrutiny. As they have done repeatedly already.

And one other reason the police might want it - to avoid protests and/or give them an immediate excuse to clamp down on any sort of rally.

 

[Huntergreed]

And presumably this will be introduced in a few weeks - during which time they could discuss it in parliament, but won't do so and will shove it through as "emergency" legislation a day or two before it actually comes into force, thereby avoiding any scrutiny. As they have done repeatedly already.

It comes into force on Monday, after going through the emergency legislation, bypassing the opportunity for scrutiny, as usual.

 

[thejuggler]

Its a mess. What does a group of 6 in a pub mean? If I go to my rugby club with family we are less than 6, but I will know most of the 100+ people who are also there!

 

[DB]

If Labour doesn't kick up a fuss about this, then they won't deserve anyone's vote...

 

[Huntergreed]

If Labour doesn't kick up a fuss about this, then they won't deserve anyone's vote...

I imagine, as usual, they’ll do their usual useless “we support the government as they tackle this rise in cases, and whilst we will scrutinise their approach, we realise the need to continue to fight this virus in the interests of public health”. Awful there’s no strong political opposition to any of this, and any public opposition is simply labelled “conspiracy”, this is not good.

 

[py_megapixel]

The government have absolutely NO right to do this given the statistics and evidence at this point,

There has been quite a significant spike in cases, in case you hadn't realised. (That said I do still think it's a bit extreme to reduce to 6 - 10 or 15 might make sense possibly)

and quite frankly I think this is a loss of democracy and an example of pure authoritarianism.

I don't quite agree with that argument. I'd argue that more than authoritarianism it's an example of incompetence and indecision. They can't make up their mind what they want, and keep rushing different things through to pander to different people. There's no cohesive strategy and no consideration for multiple factors anymore...

Not that this makes a huge difference to the impact on society.

If Labour doesn't kick up a fuss about this, then they won't deserve anyone's vote...

I imagine, as usual, they’ll do their usual useless “we support the government as they tackle this rise in cases, and whilst we will scrutinise their approach, we realise the need to continue to fight this virus in the interests of public health”. Awful there’s no strong political opposition to any of this, and any public opposition is simply labelled “conspiracy”, this is not good.

You're not suggesting that the Tories deserve anyone's vote either are you...? Because I think the pandemic has been an excellent illustration of just how pathetic their leadership has been recently. They don't seem to have a clue what they're doing.

 

[NorthOxonian]

And presumably this will be introduced in a few weeks - during which time they could discuss it in parliament, but won't do so and will shove it through as "emergency" legislation a day or two before it actually comes into force, thereby avoiding any scrutiny. As they have done repeatedly already.

And one other reason the police might want it - to avoid protests and/or give them an immediate excuse to clamp down on any sort of rally.

Even if it could be "discussed" in parliament, no party is going to seriously come out and oppose it, as usual. If any party even gave the impression of opposition, they'd win my support, but they all seem too scared of being labelled as granny killers.

 

[DB]

You're not suggesting that the Tories deserve anyone's vote either are you...? Because I think the pandemic has been an excellent illustration of just how pathetic their leadership has been recently. They don't seem to have a clue what they're doing.

No, they certainly don't deserve a vote either! And this is the problem - in England we have effectively a two-party FTPT system where a significant proportion of the population are likely to be thoroughly disenchanted with both of the major parties.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

I suppose this puts the nail in the coffin for crowds at sporting events also? Edit: Organised sport also exempt.

Gatherings of 6+ for work or education are exempt, Sky News has also confirmed.

 

[Huntergreed]

There has been quite a significant spike in cases, in case you hadn't realised. (That said I do still think it's a bit extreme to reduce to 6 - 10 or 15 might make sense possibly)

With little to no increase in hospital admissions or deaths. Whilst I appreciate these lag behind, there is no justification (at least in my opinion) for such drastic action at this point. If hospital admissions start to noticeably rise, then I accept the need for action, but this is just an overreaction/pathetic government pandering.

I don't quite agree with that argument. I'd argue that more than authoritarianism it's an example of incompetence and indecision. They can't make up their mind what they want, and keep rushing different things through to pander to different people. There's no cohesive strategy and no consideration for multiple factors anymore...

Not that this makes a huge difference to the impact on society.

Sorry, but I completely disagree. Making it illegal (ie, people can be fined and arrested) for meeting more than 5 others is a perfect example of authoritarianism and it has no place in a modern democracy unless completely neccessary to protect public health (which, with the current statistics, I don't believe it is)

You're not suggesting that the Tories deserve anyone's vote either are you...? Because I think the pandemic has been an excellent illustration of just how pathetic their leadership has been recently. They don't seem to have a clue what they're doing.

Oh no, not at all. What angers me, though, is that nobody is providing a sufficient opposition to any of this (and until they do, things won't change)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2020 ==

Gatherings of 6+ for work or education are exempt, Sky News has also confirmed.

Good to know that I'm allowed to attend university tutorials, but it's illegal for me to walk to them with my friends or go for a coffee afterwards.

 

[PTR 444]

I presume this new 6 person limit on gatherings won’t apply to schools and universities, otherwise how are they going to factor in extra classes to keep students apart???

 

[Huntergreed]

I presume this new 6 person limit on gatherings won’t apply to schools and universities, otherwise how are they going to factor in extra classes to keep students apart???

That's correct, workplaces and education settings are exempt

 

[johntea]

Get back to work on tubes / trains with 600 strangers (Boris silently dropped that push it seems!) but don't bother trying to go to the pub with 6 of your friends!

 

[ABB125]

Selfishly, I'm glad the changes don't take effect until Monday, as hopefully I will be able to go on the Settle-Carlisle charter train on Saturday as planned (I booked it literally two hours ago!).
On the whole, though, it doesn't really affect me, but I would think 10 or even 8 would be better. Or perhaps a system of 6 from over two households/bubbles, or 10 from two households/bubbles to allow family gatherings, but prevent parties etc.

 

[PTR 444]

Whilst I Good to know that I'm allowed to attend university tutorials, but it's illegal for me to walk to them with my friends or go for a coffee afterwards.

I know it’s absolutely ludicrous right! That’ll probably be the nail in the coffin for most uni societies too.

 

[brad465]

I hate to bring this subject into play, but part of me thinks this announcement, and at such a late hour, is in part a dead cat over the international law fiasco going on, with the subject bill to be introduced tomorrow.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Hot of the presses:

Nationwide restrictions on gatherings over 6 to be introduced

Article (behind the paywall) in The Torygraph:

By Gordon Rayner,

Political Editor ; Christopher Hope, Chief Political Correspondent and Laura Donnelly, Health Editor 8 September 2020 • 10:17pm


Social gatherings of seven or more to be made illegal as fears of second wave grow

Boris Johnson to unveil tough new measures to combat sharp rise in coronavirus infection rates

Social gatherings of more than six people are to be made illegal, Boris Johnson will announce on Wednesday after a sudden surge in coronavirus cases prompted fears of a second wave....

Hope you enjoyed your summer of sun, fun and freedom.

 

[BrianW]

Doubt many will take notice of restrictions anyway.

Best book that eye test trip to Barnard Castle soon now ... Cheers.
At least it's ok to break the law now, if you are in government ... as long as you don't like Granny anyway ... Don't panic, Boris; Dom Cummings has taken back control.

I hate to bring this subject into play, but part of me thinks this announcement, and at such a late hour, is in part a dead cat over the international law fiasco going on, with the subject bill to be introduced tomorrow.

 

[yorkie]

Presumably this doesn't affect playing sports such as football as that is not a 'social gathering', correct?

 

[ChrisC]

I’m also pleased that this doesn’t come into place until Monday. Friday is the date of an annual meet up of friends from college. There are about 10 of us meeting up in a park in Derbyshire. We usually meet at someone’s house or in a restaurant. The venue is only 20 miles for me to travel but people are coming from all over the country and some have booked accommodation. We were together at teacher training college in the 1970’s. I’m pleased the weather forecast isn’t too bad for this outdoor meet as last year there was torrential rain. I really can’t see how 10 people meeting for a socially distanced picnic and a chat whilst walking around a park on a weekday afternoon would spread the virus.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Presumably this doesn't affect playing sports such as football as that is not a 'social gathering', correct?

Don't know. I can't read the full article.

I'm sure all will be clear as mud when President BJ comes on TV tomorrow with his clown act. Which to watch first, the fortnightly bin collection or the prime minister. Decisions, decisions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Presumably this doesn't affect playing sports such as football as that is not a 'social gathering', correct?

It appears that it indeed does not.

 

[brad465]

Best book that eye test trip to Barnard Castle soon now ... Cheers.
At least it's ok to break the law now, if you are in government ... as long as you don't like Granny anyway ... Don't panic, Boris; Dom Cummings has taken back control.

Half the newspapers have this story on their front pages tomorrow, which pretty much backs up my dead cat theory.

 

[bramling]

Quite. It's also self-defeating because if people can't meet in groups of more than six in public, they will do so in private (i.e. indoors), where there is actually more chance of it spreading, but they are less likely to be noticed.

Does Hancock actually think people are taking much notice of the finer points of these sorts of restrictions anyway?

It does give a convenient way of blaming people of course, to add to the young and care home managements who have also been on the receiving end of blame at various times!

Unfortunately it’s also a golden one for snitching. “Hello police, my neighbour has seven people in their garden”.

 

[alex397]

Forgive me if im being a bit thick, but would this mean that pubs and cafes etc would only be able to have 6 people inside them? I presume not, but having 15 people in a pub, who are socially distancing but all quite close to speak to each other, could be a 'social gathering'.
It is common in pubs for strangers to talk to each other. What if someone went over and sat down to talk to a group of 6? I'm sure common sense would prevail and nothing would come of it, but still...

 

[DB]

Forgive me if im being a bit thick, but would this mean that pubs and cafes etc would only be able to have 6 people inside them? I presume not, but having 15 people in a pub, who are socially distancing but all quite close to speak to each other, could be a 'social gathering'.
It is common in pubs for strangers to talk to each other. What if someone went over and sat down to talk to a group of 6? I'm sure common sense would prevail and nothing would come of it, but still...

It's almost as if these are knee-jerk reactions which haven't been thought through at all. Of course, that couldn't be the problem because our wonderful government would never do that!

 

[bramling]

I hate to bring this subject into play, but part of me thinks this announcement, and at such a late hour, is in part a dead cat over the international law fiasco going on, with the subject bill to be introduced tomorrow.

Wouldn’t be surprised to be honest. Under normality that would be a pretty major and nasty story.

 

[adc82140]

Presumably this doesn't affect playing sports such as football as that is not a 'social gathering', correct?

It appears that it indeed does not.

Easy then. Meet your mates in the park, but remember to bring a football. If a policeman comes along, you can argue it's half time

In reality I agree this is ill thought out, as usual. A gathering of more than 6 in a park is liable to be broken up, even though it's low risk, but it's highly unlikely anyone will notice 7 or 8 people in a house where the risk of transmission is high.

 

[brad465]

Wouldn’t be surprised to be honest. Under normality that would be a pretty major and nasty story.

Yes for all the faults of their handling of the pandemic, every announcement in easing/adding restrictions, national or local will be big news and acts as good cover. Easing restrictions probably played a part in trying to get Cummings' Barnard Castle business out of the news as quickly as possible.

Today Bolton's local "lockdown" and now this story will do as theorised, especially as many newspaper front pages have gone for the gatherings restriction over the international law issues. It also explains they're announcing it now almost a week in advance.