Holiday Sentences.

HAYSIE

HAYSIE

Don't book ANY holiday - foreign OR domestic: Shapps ends any hope of a break this year amid backlash at Hancock's 10-year jail term for travellers who lie about visiting Red List countries - as critics say you 'get less for sex attacks'



Lord Sumption (right) has said moving Health Secretary Matt Hancock (left) to a different Government department 'would do him and us a power of good,' after Mr Hancock announced new border measures. From Monday, all arrivals from those countries will have to pay £1,750 to quarantine for 10 days in Government-designated hotels. The Health Secretary said those caught lying about their movements could be fined £10,000 or be jailed for 10 years. In a comment piece published yesterday, Lord Sumption wrote: 'Does Mr Hancock really think that non-disclosure of a visit to Portugal is worse than the large number of violent firearms offences or sexual offences involving minors, for which the maximum is seven years?'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9243979/Lord-Sumption-blasts-inhumane-10-year-jail-terms-travellers.html

HAYSIE

HAYSIE

HAYSIE

STEPHEN GLOVER: A decade in prison for lying about where you travelled? It's laughable. Some have served less for murder


STEPHEN GLOVER: Think back to before the pandemic. If you had been told that travellers might be sentenced to ten years in prison for lying about where they visited, you wouldn't have believed it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9247183/STEPHEN-GLOVER-decade-prison-lying-travelled-laughable.html

HAYSIE

What a stupid thing to say': Tory MP launches stinging attack on Matt Hancock over travel jail terms


A Tory MP has launched a stinging attack on Matt Hancock, branding his warning thatpeople who lie over their travel history could be jailed for 10 years “a stupid thing to say”.

Sir Charles Walker, a former chair of the House of Commons Procedure Committee, said the health secretary’s warning as he announced new measures on people travelling to England was an "utterly ridiculous thing to say", adding that it demeaned Hancock’s office.

Sir Charles, who is MP for Broxbourne, made the comments as part of wider criticism over the reticence to ease lockdown restrictions.

Speaking to Sky News, he said: “We have the vaccines. We were told they are the way out of this. So we vaccinate the population but you’re still in lockdown – people are going to start scratching their heads and start wondering what on earth is this all about.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-tory-mp-stinging-attack-matt-hancock-100950293.html

TheEdge949

But heres the question.

Why would you lie in the first place? Unless you know you've been where you shouldn't.

If thats the case then you are deliberately and knowingly putting lives at risk.

Is that any different than blindly firing a weapon into a public area? You might hit someone, you might miss, you may injure them , you might not, they may die, they might live.

Most people would argue that would warrant a 10 stretch.

Liberal, snowflakes its over to you.

hhyftrftdr

TheEdge949 said:

But heres the question.

Why would you lie in the first place? Unless you know you've been where you shouldn't.

If thats the case then you are deliberately and knowingly putting lives at risk.

Is that any different than blindly firing a weapon into a public area? You might hit someone, you might miss, you may injure them , you might not, they may die, they might live.

Most people would argue that would warrant a 10 stretch.

Liberal, snowflakes its over to you.

You're not actually comparing someone telling a porky on a form to blindly shooting a gun in a public area?

One has an inherently higher risk than the other.

Whilst there absolutely should be a deterrent, 10 years is clearly excessive; people get less for rape, manslaughter, death by dangerous driving etc

But if we're gonna go down that route, then people attending all these illegal indoor parties/gatherings and whatnot should also be slapped with 10 years in jail. They are also knowingly and deliberately putting lives at risk so the same should apply?

HAYSIE

Lawyers’ disdain for plans
Dominic Grieve, the former Tory Attorney General, said 10-year jail terms are a “mistake” and the courts are “simply not going to impose it”. He said: “This is a regulatory offence, and no regulatory offence I can think of attracts a 10-year sentence.”

The former Supreme Court justice Lord Sumption asked: “Does Mr Hancock really think that non-disclosure of a visit to Portugal is worse than the large number of violent firearms offences or sexual offences involving minors, for which the maximum is seven years?”

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/tory-backlash-over-threat-to-jail-quarantine-tourists-for-10-years-for-lying-over-where-they-have-travelled/ar-BB1dzqaX?MSCC=1604110081

TheEdge949

HAYSIE said:

Lawyers’ disdain for plans
Dominic Grieve, the former Tory Attorney General, said 10-year jail terms are a “mistake” and the courts are “simply not going to impose it”. He said: “This is a regulatory offence, and no regulatory offence I can think of attracts a 10-year sentence.”

The former Supreme Court justice Lord Sumption asked: “Does Mr Hancock really think that non-disclosure of a visit to Portugal is worse than the large number of violent firearms offences or sexual offences involving minors, for which the maximum is seven years?”

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/tory-backlash-over-threat-to-jail-quarantine-tourists-for-10-years-for-lying-over-where-they-have-travelled/ar-BB1dzqaX?MSCC=1604110081

Firearms Max of 14 years,

TheEdge949

hhyftrftdr said:

TheEdge949 said:

But heres the question.

Why would you lie in the first place? Unless you know you've been where you shouldn't.

If thats the case then you are deliberately and knowingly putting lives at risk.

Is that any different than blindly firing a weapon into a public area? You might hit someone, you might miss, you may injure them , you might not, they may die, they might live.

Most people would argue that would warrant a 10 stretch.

Liberal, snowflakes its over to you.

You're not actually comparing someone telling a porky on a form to blindly shooting a gun in a public area?

One has an inherently higher risk than the other.

Whilst there absolutely should be a deterrent, 10 years is clearly excessive; people get less for rape, manslaughter, death by dangerous driving etc

But if we're gonna go down that route, then people attending all these illegal indoor parties/gatherings and whatnot should also be slapped with 10 years in jail. They are also knowingly and deliberately putting lives at risk so the same should apply?

Right there is the problem. Knowingly hiding the fact you may be infectious is as big a threat as a random stranger with a gun. You can see a gun so technically its not a hidden danger.

As long as people think its only a fib on a form they are marginalising and lessening the huge importance of adhering to the rules.

Liberal whinging snowflake darlings. "It was only 1 lie, its not really a serious crime I didnt mean to infect 20 people and cause 3 deaths. I'm sorry, can I go now.?"
"I wont do it again honest. I was confused by the rules. Blah blah".

So to answer your questions. Yes and yes.

VespaPX

Will the jail sentence apply to someone coming across the channel in a boat and refusing to say where they have come from?

TheEdge949

VespaPX said:

Will the jail sentence apply to someone coming across the channel in a boat and refusing to say where they have come from?

Hmmm not sure seeking asylum or fleeing persecution is the same thing.

There are already systems in place that screen and test migrants who are found coming ashore.

Rinkhals

I love how you all missed the point that the government was trying to see just how far it could push it's ill thought out draconian plans.

TheEdge949

Rinkhals said:

I love how you all missed the point that the government was trying to see just how far it could push it's ill thought out draconian plans.

If morons obeyed the rules they wouldnt have to. It's all down to the inability of Joe Public to stay home.

hhyftrftdr

TheEdge949 said:

hhyftrftdr said:

TheEdge949 said:

But heres the question.

Why would you lie in the first place? Unless you know you've been where you shouldn't.

If thats the case then you are deliberately and knowingly putting lives at risk.

Is that any different than blindly firing a weapon into a public area? You might hit someone, you might miss, you may injure them , you might not, they may die, they might live.

Most people would argue that would warrant a 10 stretch.

Liberal, snowflakes its over to you.

You're not actually comparing someone telling a porky on a form to blindly shooting a gun in a public area?

One has an inherently higher risk than the other.

Whilst there absolutely should be a deterrent, 10 years is clearly excessive; people get less for rape, manslaughter, death by dangerous driving etc

But if we're gonna go down that route, then people attending all these illegal indoor parties/gatherings and whatnot should also be slapped with 10 years in jail. They are also knowingly and deliberately putting lives at risk so the same should apply?

Right there is the problem. Knowingly hiding the fact you may be infectious is as big a threat as a random stranger with a gun. You can see a gun so technically its not a hidden danger.

As long as people think its only a fib on a form they are marginalising and lessening the huge importance of adhering to the rules.

Liberal whinging snowflake darlings. "It was only 1 lie, its not really a serious crime I didnt mean to infect 20 people and cause 3 deaths. I'm sorry, can I go now.?"
"I wont do it again honest. I was confused by the rules. Blah blah".

So to answer your questions. Yes and yes.

I'm glad you have consistency, even though I don't fully agree with you regarding the length of punishment.

I think 10 years is out of proportion when the crimes I mentioned often carry lesser sentences, but of course I think there should be a sizeable deterrent.

And I'm certainly not one to downplay the seriousness of Covid (we've got a Covid hoaxer in the thread, lucky us), and absolutely agree people should be sticking to the rules, otherwise we'll never get out of this mess.
For me though, 10 years feels a tad too much, whether you'd lied on a form or attended a party/gathering. I'm not sure what the 'right' sentence is though; probably shave a couple years off.

hhyftrftdr

VespaPX said:

Will the jail sentence apply to someone coming across the channel in a boat and refusing to say where they have come from?

Evening Nigel.

TheEdge949

hhyftrftdr said:

TheEdge949 said:

hhyftrftdr said:

TheEdge949 said:

But heres the question.

Why would you lie in the first place? Unless you know you've been where you shouldn't.

If thats the case then you are deliberately and knowingly putting lives at risk.

Is that any different than blindly firing a weapon into a public area? You might hit someone, you might miss, you may injure them , you might not, they may die, they might live.

Most people would argue that would warrant a 10 stretch.

Liberal, snowflakes its over to you.

You're not actually comparing someone telling a porky on a form to blindly shooting a gun in a public area?

One has an inherently higher risk than the other.

Whilst there absolutely should be a deterrent, 10 years is clearly excessive; people get less for rape, manslaughter, death by dangerous driving etc

But if we're gonna go down that route, then people attending all these illegal indoor parties/gatherings and whatnot should also be slapped with 10 years in jail. They are also knowingly and deliberately putting lives at risk so the same should apply?

Right there is the problem. Knowingly hiding the fact you may be infectious is as big a threat as a random stranger with a gun. You can see a gun so technically its not a hidden danger.

As long as people think its only a fib on a form they are marginalising and lessening the huge importance of adhering to the rules.

Liberal whinging snowflake darlings. "It was only 1 lie, its not really a serious crime I didnt mean to infect 20 people and cause 3 deaths. I'm sorry, can I go now.?"
"I wont do it again honest. I was confused by the rules. Blah blah".

So to answer your questions. Yes and yes.

I'm glad you have consistency, even though I don't fully agree with you regarding the length of punishment.

I think 10 years is out of proportion when the crimes I mentioned often carry lesser sentences, but of course I think there should be a sizeable deterrent.

And I'm certainly not one to downplay the seriousness of Covid (we've got a Covid hoaxer in the thread, lucky us), and absolutely agree people should be sticking to the rules, otherwise we'll never get out of this mess.
For me though, 10 years feels a tad too much, whether you'd lied on a form or attended a party/gathering. I'm not sure what the 'right' sentence is though; probably shave a couple years off.

OK fair point. Having 10 years as the max simply allows the courts plenty of leeway when sentencing

I feel the courts would probably be more inclined to consider 2 to 3 years as appropriate with the maximum being reserved for those idiots who are willfully trying to deliberately infect people.

There was one during first lockdown who flew home into UK knowing he was a positive Covid carrier who then boasted he was going to "infect the f****** world".

Think he got 2 years which was the maximum allowed at the time.

VespaPX

hhyftrftdr said:

VespaPX said:

Will the jail sentence apply to someone coming across the channel in a boat and refusing to say where they have come from?

Evening Nigel.

Morning Princess

chilling

So, the £75m the government spent on repatriation flights last April makes them complicit?
Lord Sumption is quite clearly a conspiracy theorist.
Ground control to Major Tom. LMFAO.

Ignore media stories, for health reasons, obv.

goldon

Roaming charges......