Why Waverley?

[Newchodge]

London and most of the South East are in tier 4. But not Waverley in Surrey.

I was told that the main reason why very rural areas of the north east were in Tier 3 was the danger of people traveling to them from higher tier areas. That make sense, I suppose?

But why is Waverley not included in Tier 4? It is not even in Tier 3! Yet Aldershot is immediately outside its boundary. Are the people of Aldershot (some of whom are members of a special army regiment) unlikely to travel over the border to visit a pub?

 

[Mr D]

As you say no apparent reason why certain exemptions have been given (there's more than one).
Can understand naming counties, naming areas to be in tier 4. That is logical, not nice but expected. But somehow the science excludes particular small areas....?

Ups the pressure on other small areas that are lower infection rate currently to push for dropping a tier or two.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Dunno

We now have 2 serious clusters in Cornwall. Both in villages just over the border from Devon. Both with pubs.

 

[thetiger2015]

Do MPs get much say in the restrictions? Perhaps some have more sway than others and provide evidence for their own area to try and resist tier increases?

 

[bodgitt&scarperLTD]

It couldn't *possibly* be because it's Jeremy Hunt's home turf, could it?

 

[Annoying Donkey]

It couldn't *possibly* be because it's Jeremy Hunt's home turf, could it?

I reckon it's because I live there...

 

[Mark T Jones]

In a nutshell, when you create bounadaries you always create exceptios & anomalies.

I suspect the good people of Portsmouth are busy asking 'why us, but not the rest of Hampshire?'

 

[MichelleB-UK]

Posh folk In all fairness I am 100% in agreement with the local lockdowns vs national, geographic areas or counties - East Sussex is a good example, 2 weeks ago Hastings went into tier 3 with rates of 500 cases per 100,000 but Brighton was only 59 cases per 100000 which is much lower than the national average at 200 per 100,000. Although cases have now risen to 98 per 100,000 in Brighton, it is still half the national average so why close the local card shops, gift shops etc here just because things are bad in a neighboring town - if cases keep continuing to rise here then yes, we should move up to the next tier but local lockdowns are the best way to minimise the economic damage.

 

[Mr D]

Posh folk In all fairness I am 100% in agreement with the local lockdowns vs national, geographic areas or counties - East Sussex is a good example, 2 weeks ago Hastings went into tier 3 with rates of 500 cases per 100,000 but Brighton was only 59 cases per 100000 which is much lower than the national average at 200 per 100,000. Although cases have now risen to 98 per 100,000 in Brighton, it is still half the national average so why close the local card shops, gift shops etc here just because things are bad in a neighboring town - if cases keep continuing to rise here then yes, we should move up to the next tier but local lockdowns are the best way to minimise the economic damage.

Then you know what happens when one area is open near another area that is closed?
People travel.
The 98 per 100,000 would soon go above national average. Not by anything the locals do but by those who bring the virus with them.

The advantage of national lockdown is it removes temptation.
It is brutal, don't think anyone would disagree with that.

It does work however.

This occasion, a few hours notice that xxxx area of England will be put into lockdown?
Of course people reacted. Going away early, escaping the place they were in, crowding into trains etc.
Because they had somewhere to go that wasn't in lockdown.

 

[MichelleB-UK]

Then you know what happens when one area is open near another area that is closed?
People travel.
The 98 per 100,000 would soon go above national average. Not by anything the locals do but by those who bring the virus with them.

The advantage of national lockdown is it removes temptation.
It is brutal, don't think anyone would disagree with that.

It does work however.

This occasion, a few hours notice that xxxx area of England will be put into lockdown?
Of course people reacted. Going away early, escaping the place they were in, crowding into trains etc.
Because they had somewhere to go that wasn't in lockdown.

I agree national lockdowns work and yes inevitably cases will rise in neighbouring towns and you're right, people are the real problem but better to keep some of the country running where it's safe while you can rather than shutting down everything. You can't blame the government for taking swift action, the facts only came to light Friday afternoon.

 

[Mr D]

I agree national lockdowns work and yes inevitably cases will rise in neighbouring towns and you're right, people are the real problem but better to keep some of the country running where it's safe while you can rather than shutting down everything. You can't blame the government for taking swift action, the facts only came to light Friday afternoon.

By the sound of it the trouble then moves from the area it was concentrated to other areas.
Very much a human reaction - go now while you can.

Just knock on effect may cause a much bigger spread than previously.

I am hoping Brum does not go into tier 4 before I finish my Christmas shopping on Thursday.
But may well go into tier 4 next week.

 

[Talay]

Waverly is in Tier 2 but actually, my house is in Tier 0 as it is all Covidbollocks and we don't play to the tune of irrational fear round my way.

I shall tell Jeremy so when I next see him

 

[bodgitt&scarperLTD]

I agree national lockdowns work and yes inevitably cases will rise ... You can't blame the government for taking swift action, the facts only came to light Friday afternoon.

You can, however, blame them for a kneejerk reaction based upon data from a compulsive attention seeker who has been wrong by a country mile on similar scenarios going way back to BSE.

 

[Mark T Jones]

Sorted now.

 

[Alan]

Waverly is in Tier 2 but actually, my house is in Tier 0 as it is all Covidbollocks and we don't play to the tune of irrational fear round my way.

Last bullet point. Just my opinion.

Murder is an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to cause either death or serious injury unlawfully. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought, although it required neither malice nor premeditation. Baker (Glanville Williams Textbook of Criminal Law; London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2015), chapter 14 states that many killings done with a high degree of subjective recklessness were treated as murder from the 12th century right through until the 1974 decision in DPP v Hyam.

Because murder is generally defined in law as an intent to cause serious harm or injury (alone or with others), combined with a death arising from that intention, there are certain circumstances where a death will be treated as murder even if the defendant did not wish to kill the actual victim. This is called "transferred malice", and arises in two common cases:

• The defendant intended serious harm to one or more persons, but an unintended other person dies as a result;
• Several people share an intent to do serious harm, and the victim dies because of the action of any of those involved (for example, if another person goes "further than expected" or performs an unexpectedly lethal action).

 

[Mr D]

Last bullet point. Just my opinion.

Murder is an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to cause either death or serious injury unlawfully. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought, although it required neither malice nor premeditation. Baker (Glanville Williams Textbook of Criminal Law; London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2015), chapter 14 states that many killings done with a high degree of subjective recklessness were treated as murder from the 12th century right through until the 1974 decision in DPP v Hyam.

Because murder is generally defined in law as an intent to cause serious harm or injury (alone or with others), combined with a death arising from that intention, there are certain circumstances where a death will be treated as murder even if the defendant did not wish to kill the actual victim. This is called "transferred malice", and arises in two common cases:

• The defendant intended serious harm to one or more persons, but an unintended other person dies as a result;
• Several people share an intent to do serious harm, and the victim dies because of the action of any of those involved (for example, if another person goes "further than expected" or performs an unexpectedly lethal action).

Be interesting in years to come if transferred malice is made to stick to people regarding covid. Can think of a few instances it could be tried.

 

[alan1302]

https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/mgMemberIndexMP.aspx

Why have you provided that link?

 

[Talay]

Last bullet point. Just my opinion.

Murder is an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to cause either death or serious injury unlawfully. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought, although it required neither malice nor premeditation. Baker (Glanville Williams Textbook of Criminal Law; London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2015), chapter 14 states that many killings done with a high degree of subjective recklessness were treated as murder from the 12th century right through until the 1974 decision in DPP v Hyam.

Because murder is generally defined in law as an intent to cause serious harm or injury (alone or with others), combined with a death arising from that intention, there are certain circumstances where a death will be treated as murder even if the defendant did not wish to kill the actual victim. This is called "transferred malice", and arises in two common cases:

• The defendant intended serious harm to one or more persons, but an unintended other person dies as a result;
• Several people share an intent to do serious harm, and the victim dies because of the action of any of those involved (for example, if another person goes "further than expected" or performs an unexpectedly lethal action).

Send it on. What crap.