Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, BenFairfax said:

If adopt say policy of Jersey, Guernsey, San Marino etc then reasonable expect similar outcomes (in broad sense at least, we never will be identical since different customs etc) Would suggest you need to weigh number of likely cases against prevalence of infection from areas from which travelers are arriving. As I said before Jersey's going to get shock when wave gets to London. I say shock but maybe they as a community are happy to continue on their present trajectory.... But whatever others are doing we are IoM community and we follow policies which balance views and interests of our local community within our traditions. CM been clear in that a tradition here is to preserve life over economy.

Following from that, Jersey appears to be going through a bad spell at the moment, with over 100 active cases, and they are getting close to having their own lockdown.

https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2020/11/07/islanders-warned-that-jersey-could-be-heading-for-another-lockdown-as-active-cases-top-100/

They have also shown that they are prepared to be tough on anyone who willfully flaunts the regulations.

https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2020/11/03/visitor-fined-59k-for-going-on-a-pub-crawl-instead-of-self-isolating/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 30.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Banker

    2287

  • TheTeapot

    1329

  • Gladys

    1178

  • horatiotheturd

    1015

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

OK. For what it's worth I'm going to try and explain why genomics is important in a ssRNA virus epidemic. No doubt it will end up being recited badly at a briefing, but, well, whatever. You read it he

Rachel has tried every which way to re-offer her services. This last tweet wasn't the first time she's reached out. Government has made it very clear they do not want her to be involved. I want h

I think you'll find most so called anti-government rhetoric is focused on government-stupidity and government-selfishness. In recent times - under Brown, Bell and now Quayle - all too many govern

Posted Images

12 minutes ago, monasqueen said:

Following from that, Jersey appears to be going through a bad spell at the moment, with over 100 active cases, and they are getting close to having their own lockdown.

https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2020/11/07/islanders-warned-that-jersey-could-be-heading-for-another-lockdown-as-active-cases-top-100/

They have also shown that they are prepared to be tough on anyone who willfully flaunts the regulations.

https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2020/11/03/visitor-fined-59k-for-going-on-a-pub-crawl-instead-of-self-isolating/

But as people keep pointing out, at least Jersey has a strategy. Unfortunately right now that seems to be to copy the UK into lockdown, and copy IOM by sending folk to prison. 
 

Jersey is ace though - can’t say otherwise in this thread. 

  • Like 6
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, monasqueen said:

They have also shown that they are prepared to be tough on anyone who willfully flaunts the regulations.

https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2020/11/03/visitor-fined-59k-for-going-on-a-pub-crawl-instead-of-self-isolating/

Yes but reading that story that guy took the absolute piss and goaded the environmental people, he told them directly he had no intention of self isolating, then he diverted his taxi and told them he was going on a bender. He still only got fined. That is not being like the IOM. Here putting some petrol in your car on an empty forecourt because it was empty gets you four weeks in prison. There is no actual comparison. Jersey is nowhere near as totally fucked up in its covid overreaction as we are. 

Edited by thesultanofsheight
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Yes but reading that story that guy took the absolute piss and goaded the environmental people, he told them directly he had no intention of self isolating, then he diverted his taxi and told them he was going on a bender. He still only got fined. That is not being like the IOM. Here putting some petrol in your car on an empty forecourt because it was empty gets you four weeks in prison. There is no actual comparison. Jersey is nowhere near as totally fucked up in its covid overreaction as we are. 

Not only that, but he did go to prison, for 15 weeks. He wasn’t able to pay the fine.

Guernsey, Jersey and the UK, have all had lots of £10,000 fines. Most can’t afford them. So they end up serving the default prison sentence, which is often much longer than the 4 weeks immediate prison here.

Our system is fairer in some ways. The high fine option discriminates against the less well off and allows the rich to buy their way out of prison. Is that right?

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Not only that, but he did go to prison, for 15 weeks. He wasn’t able to pay the fine.

Guernsey, Jersey and the UK, have all had lots of £10,000 fines. Most can’t afford them. So they end up serving the default prison sentence, which is often much longer than the 4 weeks immediate prison here.

Our system is fairer in some ways. The high fine option discriminates against the less well off and allows the rich to buy their way out of prison. Is that right?

Yes, it is right.

What is the point of working hard and getting a bit of money if you cant make use of it?

 

 

 

 

😁

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich buying themselves out of jail is another subject especially on IoM(eg rich boy gets a fine after driving on wrong side of road and ploughing into a woman on a motorbike and killing her, chief minister's wife gets a fine for fraud etc) but the best place for people who do not comply with these virus emergency measures is properly locked up out the way. They can spend a bit of time in their cells sticking two fingers up to society. 

Edited by Barlow
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Not only that, but he did go to prison, for 15 weeks. He wasn’t able to pay the fine.

But as I said he was massively taking the piss. A prison sentence isn’t unreasonable in this sort of instance where there was a clear and deliberate attempt made to not comply and to goad the authorities into tracking him down. It’s not fleeing a domestic situation or putting fuel in your car or buying a sandwich.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

But as I said he was massively taking the piss. A prison sentence isn’t unreasonable in this sort of instance where there was a clear and deliberate attempt made to not comply and to goad the authorities into tracking him down. It’s not fleeing a domestic situation or putting fuel in your car or buying a sandwich.

But at least two of the Manx cases you refer to were taking the piss. I’m not going to include the woman escaping violence. The no petrol could have topped up at Asda at Whitelund on the way to the ferry, or phoned the emergency services or 111, or a taxi. The rail welders weren’t buying food, but alcohol. Their supervisor was sitting in the car having told them it wasn’t allowed.  That’s blatant disregard, if not taking the piss, in both cases.

Then there have been other cases, key workers who went to the pub(s), locals who had been directed to isolate, went out, been warned once and went out again. Those were taking the piss.

The Jersey guy wasn’t a resident. Any key worker caught here isn’t resident. Any fine would be payable forthwith, before leaving the Island. They’d still end up in prison.

The fact the Jersey guy breached twice, and on the second occasion went to 5 or 6 bars, is reflected in the 15 weeks as opposed to 4.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Banker said:

I think Rachel Glover would disagree as she and others said the testing of 7 days was very useful in building up a picture of where cases were coming from, same as Guernsey are doing now with arrivals

We know where cases are coming from. The uk. When restrictions ease, then we should start testing, maybe after seven days. Maybe after three days and ten days. At the end of the day, the best thing to do for the foreseeable is not travel. 

Testing on arrival is pointless right now as Jersey is finding out and Guernsey will find out if they carry on. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, John Wright said:

i’’m not going to include the woman escaping violence. 

So at least you think that one was wrong then.

On the petrol woman how would calling a taxi have presented less risk to the public in that situation? She’d have been sharing the taxi with the driver so probably would have had a better chance of infecting him if she had anything (which she didn’t) than a garage till worker sat behind a big plastic screen as she paid for her petrol in an empty petrol station (it had just opened). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

1. So at least you think that one was wrong then.

2. On the petrol woman how would calling a taxi have presented less risk to the public in that situation? She’d have been sharing the taxi with the driver so probably would have had a better chance of infecting him if she had anything (which she didn’t) than a garage till worker sat behind a big plastic screen as she paid for her petrol in an empty petrol station (it had just opened). 

1. Don’t know. There should be a fleeing danger exemption. She was able to phone the taxi, once outside, but not the police or 111. Not sure she would have qualified. Don’t know the facts. Some on here infer darkly that there’s more to the story.
 

2. if she’d phoned 999/112 or 111, she’d have been given a direction. Whether she had Covid, or not, is irrelevant. As for taxi the regs allow for prebooking. So as long as she explained it’s no different. The fact that there was no one else there is mitigation. There could have been. It’s breaching the regs and potentially putting others at risk, not having Covid, that’s the offence.

Im just pragmatically pointing out that for many a fine would still end up with prison, longer time in prison than a straightforward immediate prison sentence. But for a few they’d be able to buy themselves out.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thesultanofsheight said:

So at least you think that one was wrong then.

Sad thing in that case is possible, she preferred to be in prison than in her own home. Should also note prison has people in it who really need medical help for mental health conditions. You have people in prison who are just drugged up on sedatives and allowed to sleep all day when underlying mental health issues should tackled. 

 

43 minutes ago, Boris Johnson said:

What is the point of working hard and getting a bit of money if you cant make use of it?

For now if do not want do quaranteen and/or take risk of COVID infection, then holidays are off table. But at least after crisis over we get to keep our hard earnt money rather than likely situation in Jersey, UK and likely most of Europe, who will see increases in taxation and/or austerity is pay for their restrictions on economy necessary after failing to control COVID effectively. Cannot find article, but Treasury Minister said recently COVID had no "marked" effect of our reserves, had got 100M signed off at start from reserves, but I do not think cut much into that money... (Again, why cannot Treasury produce a single side of A4 telling us the plebs what situation is?) Jersey I read somewhere gone through 250M.....  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Im just pragmatically pointing out that for many a fine would still end up with prison, longer time in prison than a straightforward immediate prison sentence. But for a few they’d be able to buy themselves out.

I appreciate that but a fine seems rarely even an option here so we’re deliberately criminalizing people with custodial sentences for no clear benefit to anyone. Automatic imprisonment for filling the tank of your car on an empty forecourt straight off the boat seems to be massively disproportionate to the risk presented to society. Especially when a few weeks before that two key workers that went to the pub to watch the footie got a fine despite the fact they went to three pubs full of people.

Say she just let the car run out of fuel - then the emergency services would have turned up, she’d have to be driven home, the car probably would have to be towed, and she’d have been in contact with 10 times more people than she was. Particularly bearing in mind the petrol station would have had massive plastic screens up to protect people anyway. The risk to the public was absolutely negligible. It’s nuts on just bang someone up for that. In comparison a £1,000 fine might have appeared to be harsh but reasonable. But to give someone a criminal record for that is totally bonkers. 

Edited by thesultanofsheight
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

I appreciate that but a fine seems rarely even an option here so we’re deliberately criminalizing people with custodial sentences for no clear benefit to anyone. Automatic imprisonment for filling the tank of your car on an empty forecourt straight off the boat seems to be massively disproportionate to the risk presented to society. Especially when a few weeks before that two key workers that went to the pub to watch the footie got a fine despite the fact they went to three pubs full of people.

Say she just let the car run out of fuel - then the emergency services would have turned up, she’d have to be driven home, the car probably would have to be towed, and she’d have been in contact with 10 times more people than she was. Particularly bearing in mind the petrol station would have had massive plastic screens up to protect people anyway. The risk to the public was absolutely negligible. It’s nuts on just bang someone up for that. In comparison a £1,000 fine might have appeared to be harsh but reasonable. But to give someone a criminal record for that is totally bonkers. 

You get a criminal record for £1000 fine or 4 weeks in prison. Even for a caution or conditional discharge.

She wasn’t criminalised for filling her car. That’s not an offence. She was criminalised for breaching the regulations, within 15 minutes of arriving on island.

if she’d rung 999 or 111 I’m sure all the consequences you suggest might have happened. Or the emergency services might just have had a Jerry can, filled her up,  and no need for contact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...