It's about using common sense to assess risk for me Phil. Take that BBC article for instance. There were 3 cases described in it, 2 of which completely flouted social distancing rules. But it is the guy who wanted to see a meteorite shower that seems to have been picked on for attention, despite this breaking no rules other than non essential travel. Plus being at night he was hardly going to set any sort of precedent. These guys may be avid stargazers and this could have been a once in a lifetime opportunity for them. There was practically no risk of their actions aiding the spread of the virus so I really don't see the problem with what they've done. But of the 3 it get's highlighted for criticism, probably because it was the most wacky of the 3 cases.
I don't see it where I am, but you see and hear stories of gangs of youths roaming around cities, and I am convinced that get together's in peoples homes are common place amongst both family and friends. It's my brothers birthday today, the one having treatment for leukaemia , and I texted him before to wish him happy birthday, and he's round at his daughters house ffs. He's meant to be self isolating for 12 weeks. I've just texted him back to call him a 'kin idiot.
I agree with the point you make about precedent mate, I just think this was a bad example of it. But notwithstanding that, I still believe there are occasions when some low risk non compliance of the shutdown rules should be looked upon more leniently than others.
The zero tolerance I was referring to by the way was more about some of the posters in here.
I think because the other two are pretty clear cut that people don't question them: it's a clear and cut breach which the mainstay of the population will agree with.
Also, there is some sense of that they've accepted guilt that their actions and wrong, and hopefully (who knows...) they won't act in such a way again.
The final example is the more questionable decision, hence why it's more likely to be discussed, plus they show no real signs of guilt or realising that it is a breach:
"
I can understand their argument but to deny us the right to exercise seems overzealous.
It starts to become a night curfew..." It's nothing to do with the time.
Driving a distances as a group to star gaze, especially when they're openly carrying a telescope, is not exercise and nor is it an essential journey as per guidance.
I have sympathy because they may not have done any harm, but in my opinion (purely subjective) I get the feeling that they'll probably flout the guidelines again.
Most people abide by the rules and the majority of the rest will take guidance correctly; others, if you give them an inch then they will take a mile.
In reality, it is difficult for cops to act on people flouting the rules with out the information/intelligence to support them, so stops like this become the mainstay.
