IOM Covid removing restrictions

[John Wright]

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.

[Cambon]

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. 

[thesultanofsheight]

2 minutes ago, Cambon said:

At the end of the day, the best thing to do for the foreseeable is not travel. 

That’s the IOM default answer to everything. The best thing to do is everyone do nothing. Even if that’s for years. 

[thesultanofsheight]

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). 

[John Wright]

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.

[BenFairfax]

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.....  

[thesultanofsheight]

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 November 8, 2020 by thesultanofsheight

[John Wright]

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.

[thesultanofsheight]

6 minutes ago, John Wright said:

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.

She was criminalized for something which is at best poor planning or poor decision making when faced with a situation she probably didn’t anticipate (the fuel light coming on). It’s fine to say if she’d rung the police, if she’d done this, or if she’d done that. But she didn’t probably as she was a bit flustered, or keen to get back home, or really didn’t think the scenario through because her immediate problem was I’m out of fuel and I need to get home ASAP to self isolate. It’s disgusting to criminalize people for things like that. 

[BenFairfax]

10 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.

This in my mind happens quite a bit (and I am no screaming liberal), cannot see what society is trying to achieve by giving juveniles many of who are known by social services and/or CAMHs a criminal record for minor offences. I knew of case 2 years old with Castle Rushen teacher and student who was being seen by CAMHs on 2 weekly basis (i.e. had serious issues). The kid got it into his head that the teacher had it in for him and to get back at him got hold of his CC details, and ordered pizza to be delivered to his house. Naturally, this is not work of master criminal, but even though kids paid back money to teacher, and knew he went too far, and teacher still followed through letter of law and kid got done for fraud and theft. How is society meant to benefit from this..... (If want see endless other similar examples, just visit public gallery one day.)

With convictions in general they will be removed from a criminal record after 5 years (suspended sentences, fines, and community service supplementary to a suspended sentence), 10 years (custodial sentences less than 2 years, community service) or 20 years (custodial sentences between 2–5 years). I would argue that breaking COVID restrictions represents more serious risk to society than kid with issues wanting to eat a pizza in his house to get back at his teacher. IoM courts lot tougher than UK courts, and to me just so sad when hear of individuals who end up in dock who would of not been there with necessary support.

[Rhumsaa]

The petrol one I go back and forth in my mind about but tbf it was a situation of her own making

If you go away and don't ensure you have sufficient food in your house upon your return then go to the shops you can't call mitigation surely?

Even once on the island she had a number of options available to her other than walk in the petrol station herself - she did it because she thought she'd get away with it.

[Rhumsaa]

1 minute ago, thesultanofsheight said:

She was criminalized for something which is at best poor planning or poor decision making when faced with a situation she probably didn’t anticipate (the fuel light coming on). It’s fine to say if she’d rung the police, if she’d done this, or if she’d done that. But she didn’t probably as she was a bit flustered, or keen to get back home, or really didn’t think the scenario through because her immediate problem was I’m out of fuel and I need to get home ASAP to self isolate. It’s disgusting to criminalize people for things like that. 

But it sets a precedent then for an easy excuse for every other person caught breaching the rules?

[thesultanofsheight]

1 minute ago, Rhumsaa said:

But it sets a precedent then for an easy excuse for every other person caught breaching the rules?

Funny then that we’ve jailed now 16 or 17 people for similar ridiculous offenses and yet it’s not stopping anything is it? 

[John Wright]

Just now, thesultanofsheight said:

She was criminalized for something which is at best poor planning or poor decision making when faced with a situation she probably didn’t anticipate (the fuel light coming on). It’s fine to say if she’d rung the police, if she’d done this, or if she’d done that. But she didn’t probably as she was a bit flustered, or keen to get back home, or really didn’t think the scenario through because her immediate problem was I’m out of fuel and I need to get home ASAP to self isolate. It’s disgusting to criminalize people for things like that. 

Yes, hard cases make bad law. And I’m not in favour of prison for 90% of those who get sent there by the courts. I’m not defending prison, or, particularly, her sentence. I’m pointing out that your stance doesn’t hold water. You overstate your case to make a confused point. It doesn’t work.

Yes, the directions and warnings should be better, stronger, worded.

Yes, we should have border testing.

Yes we should have geo locator tagging.

Yes, for most people they shouldn’t be in prison, but need support and in many cases mental health input.

But having chosen the policy our politicians have, vis a vis borders, the sentences are the logical foreseeable consequence.

[John Wright]

3 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Funny then that we’ve jailed now 16 or 17 people for similar ridiculous offenses and yet it’s not stopping anything is it? 

Maybe the clue is in the fact that the very abnormal quarantine, and earlier lock down, has only resulted in so few breaches getting to court and prison.