Do you think the lockdown curfew serves a purpose?

[konfab]

How is it a sorce of income though? It's not as if they get paid per arrest or get a bigger budget if they make more arrests. If that were true, Llandudno SAPS would be bankrupt.

Braaaaaaaaaaaibes
|

 

[Jola]

IMO, if the cops were doing their jobs, it should reduce crime, especially burglaries, hijackings and house invasions at night.

WRT Covid19, IMO people get a lot less responsible with late night drinking, so it could also have a positive effect there.

And of course, drunk driving and consequent road accidents should be reduced.

So, all in all, less pressure on medical facilities.

I don't have a major problem with the curfew, sure it is sometimes inconvenient, but there are benefits. But mainly if the cops do their jobs responsibly, which they often don't.

 

[Cammie]

If it's the only way to keep alcohol sales open, wine estates and breweries alive, and treasury ticking over, then hell yes!

 

[Shopgirl]

I think it's great, reduces crime because police can stop people out after curfew more easily as most law abiding citizens will be home unless for work or medical reasons.

 

[Pattisk]

If a purpose is about being useful or to have function then the intention was probably to keep most people home for a few hours, the virus is there 24/7/365, it serves no purpose.

 

[aybbleek]

Yes, the virus wakes up at 22:00 and goes to sleep at 04:00

 

[alanB]

I used to run a bar. And here's the thing. The guys who are reasonable, responsible persons leave the restaurant / bar before 10 anyway. It's the alcoholics and the uselessly drunk drivers that stick around until midnight, 1am, 2am, 3am, until the poor bartender has to chuck them out or in most cases, drag them out by their feet. And one thing is a cash-in-the-till fact. You do not make that much money at a bar or restaurant after, say 12 midnight, anyway. Maybe 10% of your daily take.
Also, when you speak to the actual people who deal with it, the paramedics, the Trauma room nurses, the ER surgeons, they ALL agree with the curfew. It literally saves thousands of lives. I for one would not be opposed to a permanent "if not for work purposes" curfew after say, midnight. Anybody who is out at that time for any purpose other than work or an emergency is likely doing so completely unnecessy, needlessly exposing themselves to the rigors of driving tired and also exposing yourself to way more tired drivers and drunk drivers. Of course, there are exceptions to that, but be honest, how often do you have to go out after 11 for a non-emergency or non-work reason?

While I am sure everything you say is true, I cannot agree that any of that is grounds for a nationally imposed curfew where ordinary people can be arrested for being out and about at certain times of the night.

That is the definition of a totalitarian state police state!

This idea that EVERYONE should be subject to group control, justified by the problems caused by a few people (or even a lot of people) is just morally wrong - right down to it's very core IMO.

The reason why I say that is, the implicit assumption hidden deep within this type of thinking is that we all are "allowed" to do absolutely nothing! We are only "allowed" to do what group control explicitly gives us permission to do - everything else is verbotten! This shifts the responsibility from the individual (because we are assumed to be too stupid, too useless etc) to take responsibility for ourselves, or be held accountable for our own behaviour, and abdicates that responsibility to the group, which needs to impose controls upon us all, to protect us all from ourselves. It treats society at large as if we are all troublesome infants, who cannot be held responsible for our own stupid unruly actions, and who need to be protected from ourselves.

This is the exact converse of the thinking that we are all born free, and are by default free to do anything, unless there are specific laws against that. We should each take responsibility for ourselves and be held accountable accordingly.

In your specific example, if the patrons of your pub tended to become troublesome after say 22:00, why not just have a policy of closing at that time every night?

 

[ShaunSA]

I think it's great, reduces crime because police can stop people out after curfew more easily as most law abiding citizens will be home unless for work or medical reasons.

Imagine if we had a 24 hour curfew. Crime will disappear overnight

 

[zirkr2011]

Its actually heart broken to only have a curfew when there's a pandemic...but it's OK for farm murders NO mention from our PRESIDENT

 

[supersunbird]

While I am sure everything you say is true, I cannot agree that any of that is grounds for a nationally imposed curfew where ordinary people can be arrested for being out and about at certain times of the night.

That is the definition of a totalitarian state police state!

This idea that EVERYONE should be subject to group control, justified by the problems caused by a few people (or even a lot of people) is just morally wrong - right down to it's very core IMO.

The reason why I say that is, the implicit assumption hidden deep within this type of thinking is that we all are "allowed" to do absolutely nothing! We are only "allowed" to do what group control explicitly gives us permission to do - everything else is verbotten! This shifts the responsibility from the individual (because we are assumed to be too stupid, too useless etc) to take responsibility for ourselves, or be held accountable for our own behaviour, and abdicates that responsibility to the group, which needs to impose controls upon us all, to protect us all from ourselves. It treats society at large as if we are all troublesome infants, who cannot be held responsible for our own stupid unruly actions, and who need to be protected from ourselves.

This is the exact converse of the thinking that we are all born free, and are by default free to do anything, unless there are specific laws against that. We should each take responsibility for ourselves and be held accountable accordingly.

In your specific example, if the patrons of your pub tended to become troublesome after say 22:00, why not just have a policy of closing at that time every night?

Accountable to whom? Probably not the group, since the group seems to be a problem to you, so to whom?

 

[supersunbird]

Imagine if we had a 24 hour curfew. Crime will disappear overnight

Like it did during April? Probably, but the economic collapse would not be worth it. Not that I think SAPS in any way has the capacity to adequately police the current curfew, at least any car that travels is more conspicuous and criminals can't just as easily melt into the crowd.

 

[alanB]

Accountable to whom? Probably not the group, since the group seems to ab a problem to you, so to whom?

Held accountable before the law. Where those laws are based on the sovereignty of the individual.

 

[supersunbird]

Held accountable before the law. Where those laws are based on the sovereignty of the individual.

But the laws are made by the group?

 

[alanB]

But the laws are made by the group?

No they are not, you are missing the part about "sovereignty of the individual".

Group law is mob rule, which is the problem that manifests when the rule of proper law breaks down.

It's what you see everyday on Twitter, the mob tries to force individuals to comply to their control.

Group law is predicated on the idea that no individual has any rights of their own, their duty is to conform to group control. No individual has any responsibility of their own, the group must control every individual. The group has all power, individuals have none.

Sovereignty of the individual is predicated on the idea that every individual is responsible for their own actions and is equal before the law. That was the big break through idea which started when the Magna Carta was signed.

It's the difference between freedom and serfdom.

 

[noxibox]

More like we not children but reserve the right to act like it.

It’s a global problem with modern, lack, of parenting the cause.

By modern you mean since we stopped living in caves? Or is it since we came down from the trees?

 

[jucedupp]

While I am sure everything you say is true, I cannot agree that any of that is grounds for a nationally imposed curfew where ordinary people can be arrested for being out and about at certain times of the night.

That is the definition of a totalitarian state police state!

Ok, please expand on the difference between a police state and a state of emergency. Why would the one have a curfew and not the other?

This idea that EVERYONE should be subject to group control, justified by the problems caused by a few people (or even a lot of people) is just morally wrong - right down to it's very core IMO.

I agree, but that is what we are sitting with - a population whereof 90% is a soft bump on the head away from slobbering idiocy. And in a democracy, what goes for the goose, goes for the gander - how do you suggest we implement a necessary curfew for the idiots, and not for those who are sensible? On what basis are you going to say group X should be curfew-ed but group Y should not? Remember, group X - by not being curfew-ed are killing off group Y. How do we remedy that? We have neither the law enforcement infrastructure to police people individually, or protect sensible people individually, or the court infrastructure to prosecute group X, or the medical infrastructure to cope with he influx of drunk idiots (who harm themselves via drunk driving or drunk violence) or their victims. Nor do we have the political will to change that, and that lack of will extends to group Y as well, who is simply apathetic.

The reason why I say that is, the implicit assumption hidden deep within this type of thinking is that we all are "allowed" to do absolutely nothing! We are only "allowed" to do what group control explicitly gives us permission to do - everything else is verbotten! This shifts the responsibility from the individual (because we are assumed to be too stupid, too useless etc) to take responsibility for ourselves, or be held accountable for our own behaviour, and abdicates that responsibility to the group, which needs to impose controls upon us all, to protect us all from ourselves. It treats society at large as if we are all troublesome infants, who cannot be held responsible for our own stupid unruly actions, and who need to be protected from ourselves.

The vast majority of individuals in SA are mental children and moral idiots. Also, our legal system is run by the same. Therefore, our only recourse is a set of laws that applies to all, and hope for the best. Remember, we have a legacy of exclusion - we are pretty unique in how sensitive our population is to non-inclusivity. Again, how are you going to not have the mob's stupidity not destroy everything, if not by a set of rules that applies equally to everyone, including those that don't need them, by virtue of them actually being able to think for themselves and act accordingly?

This is the exact converse of the thinking that we are all born free, and are by default free to do anything, unless there are specific laws against that. We should each take responsibility for ourselves and be held accountable accordingly.

That works well in a nation that is morally, ethically and philosophically developed. Which is why some nations, like for example Switzerland are for practical intents and purposes, crime free. You cannot apply the same kind of individualism to a nation that has the third highest crime rate on the planet - you have to treat everyone like an idiot if the overwhelming majority are idiots - and in that I include individuals across all races, beliefs and social strata. Idiots abound, and idiots can't be treated like developed adults.

In your specific example, if the patrons of your pub tended to become troublesome after say 22:00, why not just have a policy of closing at that time every night?

The bosses always want the extra 10% - and in any case - people will still call a 22:00 shutdown of alcohol sales as if it is a police state infringement on their right to drive drunk. As they are doing right now.

 

[Former member 61586]

I think it's great, reduces crime because police can stop people out after curfew more easily as most law abiding citizens will be home unless for work or medical reasons.

Surely most law abiding citizens pay e-tolls too right?