Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Never Again – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,138
edited May 2022 in General
imageNever Again – politicalbetting.com

Here we are, nearly 6 months on from that tearful resignation by poor inaptly-named Allegra. Since then we have had the PM’s Captain Renault-like shock at the revelation of parties at No 10 during lockdown, leaked photos, apologies to the Queen, an internal investigation, an off-then-on police investigation, numerous apologies to Parliament, accusations of lies to the Commons, a PM and his Chancellor paying a fine after being served with an FPN over attendance at a birthday party in Cabinet, referral of the PM to the Parliamentary Standards Committee, an off-then-on police investigation (still continuing) into the Leader of the Opposition and, finally, the Met’s announcement that they have completed their investigation into 8 events in 2020-2021 and have issued 126 FPNs. The PM is – apparently – not getting a second one, much to the surprise of some, disgust of others and relief of yet others, mostly Tory MPs. The focus will turn once again to Sue Gray’s report, though it scarcely matters what she says as everyone has made their minds up about the PM.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    edited May 2022
    p.s. the trigger-happy abolition of freedom is becoming so ingrained that ministers, tabloid writers and police no longer seem to question themselves.

    Take the booing of the National Anthem by 'some' Liverpool fans at the FA Cup final. A Conservative minister immediately said those responsible should be hunted down and caught.

    Wtf????? What the hell are we becoming? I probably wouldn't boo the national anthem but only because it's too boring musically and lyrically to be arsed but if other people wish to boo it, bloody well let them. It's part of their democratic right if they wish to.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,363
    edited May 2022
    Third.
    Like the DCL goal last night.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,376
    "Sri Lanka defaults on debt for first time in its history"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61505842
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    edited May 2022
    Edit deleted as repetitious

    :wink:
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited May 2022

    darkage said:

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/he-was-a-world-renowned-cancer-researcher?s=r

    This is an interesting read. A scientist who has been destroyed by having a consensual sexual relationship, which was not reported to his employer. Was then consequently "Weinstin'ed out of science".

    People want to believe these things are more complicated than they seem. That may well be true. But to my mind this is not progress at all - It as a tribal witch hunt, with revolutionary justice being dispatched through kangaroo courts - all masquerading as due process.

    If the Republicans can sort themselves out, they will win in 2024.

    Actually, the Sabatini story sounds rather complicated. The article presents only one side of the story (Sabatini's).

    I am not sure I would draw any conclusions from the article.

    Having sex with your postdoc/grad student will get you fired from your job at most Universities. That has been the case for at least a decade.

    (Of course, things were different in the past. Otherwise, we would never have heard of Schrodinger or Feynman.)
    Having sex with one’s postdoc, i.e. one staff member in a relationship with another, wouldn’t get you fired. A line manager in a relationship with whom they line manage raises HR concerns, but is not forbidden. One would, I presume, be expected to report the relationship up the chain of command and arrange new line management arrangements. A relationship with one’s student is a different matter.

    Here’s my university’s policy on such matters: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/human-resources/personal-relationships-policy
    Your postdoc is someone you hired. You will write letters of recommendation for. You will have an enormous influence over his/her future job prospects. You have a mentoring and nurturing role.

    You will be fired if you have sex with someone for whom you have professional responsibility.

    It is not entirely clear from the Sabatini article, but it seems as though this is what probably happened. She knew him as a grad student, she was hired by him (or encouraged by him to come to his lab as a postdoc). Remember, we just have Sabatini's version of events.

    Sex with another academic, another staff member, is slightly different.

    However, I personally have never slept with an academic. I recommend this course of action to everyone. :)
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,363
    Andy_JS said:

    "Sri Lanka defaults on debt for first time in its history"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61505842

    I suspect it won't be the only one soon.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,741

    darkage said:

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/he-was-a-world-renowned-cancer-researcher?s=r

    This is an interesting read. A scientist who has been destroyed by having a consensual sexual relationship, which was not reported to his employer. Was then consequently "Weinstin'ed out of science".

    People want to believe these things are more complicated than they seem. That may well be true. But to my mind this is not progress at all - It as a tribal witch hunt, with revolutionary justice being dispatched through kangaroo courts - all masquerading as due process.

    If the Republicans can sort themselves out, they will win in 2024.

    Actually, the Sabatini story sounds rather complicated. The article presents only one side of the story (Sabatini's).

    I am not sure I would draw any conclusions from the article.

    Having sex with your postdoc/grad student will get you fired from your job at most Universities. That has been the case for at least a decade.

    (Of course, things were different in the past. Otherwise, we would never have heard of Schrodinger or Feynman.)
    Having sex with one’s postdoc, i.e. one staff member in a relationship with another, wouldn’t get you fired. A line manager in a relationship with whom they line manage raises HR concerns, but is not forbidden. One would, I presume, be expected to report the relationship up the chain of command and arrange new line management arrangements. A relationship with one’s student is a different matter.

    Here’s my university’s policy on such matters: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/human-resources/personal-relationships-policy
    Your postdoc is someone you hired. You will write letters of recommendation for. You will have an enormous influence over his/her future job prospects. You have a mentoring and nurturing role.

    You will be fired if you have sex with someone for whom you have professional responsibility.

    It is not entirely clear from the Sabatini article, but it seems as though this is what probably happened. She knew him as a grad student, she was hired by him (or encouraged by him to come to his lab as a postdoc). Remember, we just have Sabatini's version of events.

    Sex with another academic, another staff member, is slightly different.

    However, I personally have never slept with an academic. I recommend this course of action to everyone. :)
    I vaguely recall watching the History Man. I gained the impression that having sex with colleagues was pretty much how academics filled their days.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,988
    Eight new cities created.

    Small town in Yorkshire not on the list. Lol.

    Better still, another town in Yorkshire is included.


    However, Dunfermline buggers up ScotRails "Inter7Cities" branding.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,741

    Eight new cities created.

    Small town in Yorkshire not on the list. Lol.

    Better still, another town in Yorkshire is included.


    However, Dunfermline buggers up ScotRails "Inter7Cities" branding.

    Scotrail are buggering everything up all by themselves, thank you very much.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,915
    Operation Rwanda: @DominicRaab tells @BBCr4today that removals to East Africa likely to be in “the hundreds” a year..rather less than the “tens of thousands” promised last month by @BorisJohnson. More than 600 migrants arrived in small boats last weekend
    https://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/1527550143230246917
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,518
    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/he-was-a-world-renowned-cancer-researcher?s=r

    This is an interesting read. A scientist who has been destroyed by having a consensual sexual relationship, which was not reported to his employer. Was then consequently "Weinstin'ed out of science".

    People want to believe these things are more complicated than they seem. That may well be true. But to my mind this is not progress at all - It as a tribal witch hunt, with revolutionary justice being dispatched through kangaroo courts - all masquerading as due process.

    If the Republicans can sort themselves out, they will win in 2024.

    Actually, the Sabatini story sounds rather complicated. The article presents only one side of the story (Sabatini's).

    I am not sure I would draw any conclusions from the article.

    Having sex with your postdoc/grad student will get you fired from your job at most Universities. That has been the case for at least a decade.

    (Of course, things were different in the past. Otherwise, we would never have heard of Schrodinger or Feynman.)
    Having sex with one’s postdoc, i.e. one staff member in a relationship with another, wouldn’t get you fired. A line manager in a relationship with whom they line manage raises HR concerns, but is not forbidden. One would, I presume, be expected to report the relationship up the chain of command and arrange new line management arrangements. A relationship with one’s student is a different matter.

    Here’s my university’s policy on such matters: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/human-resources/personal-relationships-policy
    Your postdoc is someone you hired. You will write letters of recommendation for. You will have an enormous influence over his/her future job prospects. You have a mentoring and nurturing role.

    You will be fired if you have sex with someone for whom you have professional responsibility.

    It is not entirely clear from the Sabatini article, but it seems as though this is what probably happened. She knew him as a grad student, she was hired by him (or encouraged by him to come to his lab as a postdoc). Remember, we just have Sabatini's version of events.

    Sex with another academic, another staff member, is slightly different.

    However, I personally have never slept with an academic. I recommend this course of action to everyone. :)
    I vaguely recall watching the History Man. I gained the impression that having sex with colleagues was pretty much how academics filled their days.
    Howard Kirk would have been cancelled some time ago.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,660
    edited May 2022

    Absolutely agreed Cyclefree.

    Such a draconian stripping of our civil liberties was a monumental and catastrophic blunder and entirely unnecessary as Sweden showed who got through the pandemic without doing so.

    Let those who want to shelter from a virus take actions if they wish to do so, and support them if they wish to do so, but absolutely never again should we strip people of their fundamental freedoms.

    You're bloody optimistic. Another disease will come. And your argument is simply refuted by the reflection that your libertarian philosophy would allow Mary Malone to take any catering job and spread typhoid without restriction. Even laissez-faire USA had to do something with her.

    Execution of gmt policy over the last feww years, yes, arguable. But not the basic principle.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,988
    Medico-authoritarianism sets a precedent.

    It opens the door to eco-authoritarianism. And not all of us see that as a bad thing.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,518
    dixiedean said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Sri Lanka defaults on debt for first time in its history"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61505842

    I suspect it won't be the only one soon.
    If it's Turkey next, followed by Greece, can be start to look at some kind of correlation with our @Leon 's travels?

  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/he-was-a-world-renowned-cancer-researcher?s=r

    This is an interesting read. A scientist who has been destroyed by having a consensual sexual relationship, which was not reported to his employer. Was then consequently "Weinstin'ed out of science".

    People want to believe these things are more complicated than they seem. That may well be true. But to my mind this is not progress at all - It as a tribal witch hunt, with revolutionary justice being dispatched through kangaroo courts - all masquerading as due process.

    If the Republicans can sort themselves out, they will win in 2024.

    Actually, the Sabatini story sounds rather complicated. The article presents only one side of the story (Sabatini's).

    I am not sure I would draw any conclusions from the article.

    Having sex with your postdoc/grad student will get you fired from your job at most Universities. That has been the case for at least a decade.

    (Of course, things were different in the past. Otherwise, we would never have heard of Schrodinger or Feynman.)
    Having sex with one’s postdoc, i.e. one staff member in a relationship with another, wouldn’t get you fired. A line manager in a relationship with whom they line manage raises HR concerns, but is not forbidden. One would, I presume, be expected to report the relationship up the chain of command and arrange new line management arrangements. A relationship with one’s student is a different matter.

    Here’s my university’s policy on such matters: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/human-resources/personal-relationships-policy
    Your postdoc is someone you hired. You will write letters of recommendation for. You will have an enormous influence over his/her future job prospects. You have a mentoring and nurturing role.

    You will be fired if you have sex with someone for whom you have professional responsibility.

    It is not entirely clear from the Sabatini article, but it seems as though this is what probably happened. She knew him as a grad student, she was hired by him (or encouraged by him to come to his lab as a postdoc). Remember, we just have Sabatini's version of events.

    Sex with another academic, another staff member, is slightly different.

    However, I personally have never slept with an academic. I recommend this course of action to everyone. :)
    I vaguely recall watching the History Man. I gained the impression that having sex with colleagues was pretty much how academics filled their days.
    In the 1960s and 1970s, this was true.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,333

    darkage said:

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/he-was-a-world-renowned-cancer-researcher?s=r

    This is an interesting read. A scientist who has been destroyed by having a consensual sexual relationship, which was not reported to his employer. Was then consequently "Weinstin'ed out of science".

    People want to believe these things are more complicated than they seem. That may well be true. But to my mind this is not progress at all - It as a tribal witch hunt, with revolutionary justice being dispatched through kangaroo courts - all masquerading as due process.

    If the Republicans can sort themselves out, they will win in 2024.

    Actually, the Sabatini story sounds rather complicated. The article presents only one side of the story (Sabatini's).

    I am not sure I would draw any conclusions from the article.

    Having sex with your postdoc/grad student will get you fired from your job at most Universities. That has been the case for at least a decade.

    (Of course, things were different in the past. Otherwise, we would never have heard of Schrodinger or Feynman.)
    Having sex with one’s postdoc, i.e. one staff member in a relationship with another, wouldn’t get you fired. A line manager in a relationship with whom they line manage raises HR concerns, but is not forbidden. One would, I presume, be expected to report the relationship up the chain of command and arrange new line management arrangements. A relationship with one’s student is a different matter.

    Here’s my university’s policy on such matters: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/human-resources/personal-relationships-policy
    Your postdoc is someone you hired. You will write letters of recommendation for. You will have an enormous influence over his/her future job prospects. You have a mentoring and nurturing role.

    You will be fired if you have sex with someone for whom you have professional responsibility.

    It is not entirely clear from the Sabatini article, but it seems as though this is what probably happened. She knew him as a grad student, she was hired by him (or encouraged by him to come to his lab as a postdoc). Remember, we just have Sabatini's version of events.

    Sex with another academic, another staff member, is slightly different.

    However, I personally have never slept with an academic. I recommend this course of action to everyone. :)
    The daily mail have picked up on the story.
    You keep suggesting that she was his graduate student but as far as I can see, he didn't have any management responsibility for her at the time the events occurred.
    I think the moral of the story is that it is a bad idea having any sexual relationship with someone you work with.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10834645/MIT-scientist-collecting-unemployment-fired-consensual-relationship-colleague.html
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,596

    dixiedean said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Sri Lanka defaults on debt for first time in its history"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61505842

    I suspect it won't be the only one soon.
    If it's Turkey next, followed by Greece, can be start to look at some kind of correlation with our @Leon 's travels?

    Was he in Russia recently? Just asking.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,518
    Scott_xP said:

    Operation Rwanda: @DominicRaab tells @BBCr4today that removals to East Africa likely to be in “the hundreds” a year..rather less than the “tens of thousands” promised last month by @BorisJohnson. More than 600 migrants arrived in small boats last weekend
    https://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/1527550143230246917

    The policy has done its work and helped Big Dog navigate the local elections. I doubt he cares now whether a single person goes there or not. He probably doesn't even remember there was a Rwanda policy.



  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,669

    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/he-was-a-world-renowned-cancer-researcher?s=r

    This is an interesting read. A scientist who has been destroyed by having a consensual sexual relationship, which was not reported to his employer. Was then consequently "Weinstin'ed out of science".

    People want to believe these things are more complicated than they seem. That may well be true. But to my mind this is not progress at all - It as a tribal witch hunt, with revolutionary justice being dispatched through kangaroo courts - all masquerading as due process.

    If the Republicans can sort themselves out, they will win in 2024.

    Actually, the Sabatini story sounds rather complicated. The article presents only one side of the story (Sabatini's).

    I am not sure I would draw any conclusions from the article.

    Having sex with your postdoc/grad student will get you fired from your job at most Universities. That has been the case for at least a decade.

    (Of course, things were different in the past. Otherwise, we would never have heard of Schrodinger or Feynman.)
    Having sex with one’s postdoc, i.e. one staff member in a relationship with another, wouldn’t get you fired. A line manager in a relationship with whom they line manage raises HR concerns, but is not forbidden. One would, I presume, be expected to report the relationship up the chain of command and arrange new line management arrangements. A relationship with one’s student is a different matter.

    Here’s my university’s policy on such matters: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/human-resources/personal-relationships-policy
    Your postdoc is someone you hired. You will write letters of recommendation for. You will have an enormous influence over his/her future job prospects. You have a mentoring and nurturing role.

    You will be fired if you have sex with someone for whom you have professional responsibility.

    It is not entirely clear from the Sabatini article, but it seems as though this is what probably happened. She knew him as a grad student, she was hired by him (or encouraged by him to come to his lab as a postdoc). Remember, we just have Sabatini's version of events.

    Sex with another academic, another staff member, is slightly different.

    However, I personally have never slept with an academic. I recommend this course of action to everyone. :)
    I vaguely recall watching the History Man. I gained the impression that having sex with colleagues was pretty much how academics filled their days.
    Howard Kirk would have been cancelled some time ago.

    In 1979, Howard Kirk voted Conservative, so yes, he would have been.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,854
    Good morning

    I have only read @Cyclefree comment piece and as so often she is spot on and I agree 100% that we must never again allow our country's law makers to pass such idiotic, even ludicrous, laws on us
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,660
    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/he-was-a-world-renowned-cancer-researcher?s=r

    This is an interesting read. A scientist who has been destroyed by having a consensual sexual relationship, which was not reported to his employer. Was then consequently "Weinstin'ed out of science".

    People want to believe these things are more complicated than they seem. That may well be true. But to my mind this is not progress at all - It as a tribal witch hunt, with revolutionary justice being dispatched through kangaroo courts - all masquerading as due process.

    If the Republicans can sort themselves out, they will win in 2024.

    Actually, the Sabatini story sounds rather complicated. The article presents only one side of the story (Sabatini's).

    I am not sure I would draw any conclusions from the article.

    Having sex with your postdoc/grad student will get you fired from your job at most Universities. That has been the case for at least a decade.

    (Of course, things were different in the past. Otherwise, we would never have heard of Schrodinger or Feynman.)
    Having sex with one’s postdoc, i.e. one staff member in a relationship with another, wouldn’t get you fired. A line manager in a relationship with whom they line manage raises HR concerns, but is not forbidden. One would, I presume, be expected to report the relationship up the chain of command and arrange new line management arrangements. A relationship with one’s student is a different matter.

    Here’s my university’s policy on such matters: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/human-resources/personal-relationships-policy
    Your postdoc is someone you hired. You will write letters of recommendation for. You will have an enormous influence over his/her future job prospects. You have a mentoring and nurturing role.

    You will be fired if you have sex with someone for whom you have professional responsibility.

    It is not entirely clear from the Sabatini article, but it seems as though this is what probably happened. She knew him as a grad student, she was hired by him (or encouraged by him to come to his lab as a postdoc). Remember, we just have Sabatini's version of events.

    Sex with another academic, another staff member, is slightly different.

    However, I personally have never slept with an academic. I recommend this course of action to everyone. :)
    The daily mail have picked up on the story.
    You keep suggesting that she was his graduate student but as far as I can see, he didn't have any management responsibility for her at the time the events occurred.
    I think the moral of the story is that it is a bad idea having any sexual relationship with someone you work with.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10834645/MIT-scientist-collecting-unemployment-fired-consensual-relationship-colleague.html
    "Knouse claimed that Sabatini 'groomed' her 'while she was a graduate student under his mentorship [...]'"
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,185
    Not sure I understand this bit:

    "The restrictions were announced four days before the laws were enacted with no Parliamentary scrutiny by simple Ministerial decree."

    Is this not because Ministers used powers delegated to them by Parliament by the Civil Contingencies Act? Not sure how else it could have occurred.

    Isn't that the sort of system we'd want for situations like this - a clear framework calmly debated and set out in law as to how exceptional measures might be taken temporarily to deal with a civil crisis.

    I'm not really clear on what the alternative would have looked like. Is Cyclefree suggesting that Parliament should have spent April 2020 debating the restrictions to be imposed?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited May 2022
    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/he-was-a-world-renowned-cancer-researcher?s=r

    This is an interesting read. A scientist who has been destroyed by having a consensual sexual relationship, which was not reported to his employer. Was then consequently "Weinstin'ed out of science".

    People want to believe these things are more complicated than they seem. That may well be true. But to my mind this is not progress at all - It as a tribal witch hunt, with revolutionary justice being dispatched through kangaroo courts - all masquerading as due process.

    If the Republicans can sort themselves out, they will win in 2024.

    Actually, the Sabatini story sounds rather complicated. The article presents only one side of the story (Sabatini's).

    I am not sure I would draw any conclusions from the article.

    Having sex with your postdoc/grad student will get you fired from your job at most Universities. That has been the case for at least a decade.

    (Of course, things were different in the past. Otherwise, we would never have heard of Schrodinger or Feynman.)
    Having sex with one’s postdoc, i.e. one staff member in a relationship with another, wouldn’t get you fired. A line manager in a relationship with whom they line manage raises HR concerns, but is not forbidden. One would, I presume, be expected to report the relationship up the chain of command and arrange new line management arrangements. A relationship with one’s student is a different matter.

    Here’s my university’s policy on such matters: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/human-resources/personal-relationships-policy
    Your postdoc is someone you hired. You will write letters of recommendation for. You will have an enormous influence over his/her future job prospects. You have a mentoring and nurturing role.

    You will be fired if you have sex with someone for whom you have professional responsibility.

    It is not entirely clear from the Sabatini article, but it seems as though this is what probably happened. She knew him as a grad student, she was hired by him (or encouraged by him to come to his lab as a postdoc). Remember, we just have Sabatini's version of events.

    Sex with another academic, another staff member, is slightly different.

    However, I personally have never slept with an academic. I recommend this course of action to everyone. :)
    The daily mail have picked up on the story.
    You keep suggesting that she was his graduate student but as far as I can see, he didn't have any management responsibility for her at the time the events occurred.
    I think the moral of the story is that it is a bad idea having any sexual relationship with someone you work with.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10834645/MIT-scientist-collecting-unemployment-fired-consensual-relationship-colleague.html
    The article is unclear (which makes me suspicious that Sabatini is not being wholly honest).

    However, I am absolutely sure that in the US, sex with a grad student or postdoc gets you fired.

    One of my friends was fired as Professor at Berkeley for exactly this reason, about 15 years ago.

    He is now a Professor in a Mediterranean country where presumably these matters are looked at with a more lenient eye.

    Sabatini will have known the risks.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,333
    edited May 2022
    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/he-was-a-world-renowned-cancer-researcher?s=r

    This is an interesting read. A scientist who has been destroyed by having a consensual sexual relationship, which was not reported to his employer. Was then consequently "Weinstin'ed out of science".

    People want to believe these things are more complicated than they seem. That may well be true. But to my mind this is not progress at all - It as a tribal witch hunt, with revolutionary justice being dispatched through kangaroo courts - all masquerading as due process.

    If the Republicans can sort themselves out, they will win in 2024.

    Actually, the Sabatini story sounds rather complicated. The article presents only one side of the story (Sabatini's).

    I am not sure I would draw any conclusions from the article.

    Having sex with your postdoc/grad student will get you fired from your job at most Universities. That has been the case for at least a decade.

    (Of course, things were different in the past. Otherwise, we would never have heard of Schrodinger or Feynman.)
    Having sex with one’s postdoc, i.e. one staff member in a relationship with another, wouldn’t get you fired. A line manager in a relationship with whom they line manage raises HR concerns, but is not forbidden. One would, I presume, be expected to report the relationship up the chain of command and arrange new line management arrangements. A relationship with one’s student is a different matter.

    Here’s my university’s policy on such matters: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/human-resources/personal-relationships-policy
    Your postdoc is someone you hired. You will write letters of recommendation for. You will have an enormous influence over his/her future job prospects. You have a mentoring and nurturing role.

    You will be fired if you have sex with someone for whom you have professional responsibility.

    It is not entirely clear from the Sabatini article, but it seems as though this is what probably happened. She knew him as a grad student, she was hired by him (or encouraged by him to come to his lab as a postdoc). Remember, we just have Sabatini's version of events.

    Sex with another academic, another staff member, is slightly different.

    However, I personally have never slept with an academic. I recommend this course of action to everyone. :)
    The daily mail have picked up on the story.
    You keep suggesting that she was his graduate student but as far as I can see, he didn't have any management responsibility for her at the time the events occurred.
    I think the moral of the story is that it is a bad idea having any sexual relationship with someone you work with.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10834645/MIT-scientist-collecting-unemployment-fired-consensual-relationship-colleague.html
    "Knouse claimed that Sabatini 'groomed' her 'while she was a graduate student under his mentorship [...]'"
    Deleted.
    Have better things to do with my day than discuss this case.
    Good that we have people like Bari Weiss.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,660

    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/he-was-a-world-renowned-cancer-researcher?s=r

    This is an interesting read. A scientist who has been destroyed by having a consensual sexual relationship, which was not reported to his employer. Was then consequently "Weinstin'ed out of science".

    People want to believe these things are more complicated than they seem. That may well be true. But to my mind this is not progress at all - It as a tribal witch hunt, with revolutionary justice being dispatched through kangaroo courts - all masquerading as due process.

    If the Republicans can sort themselves out, they will win in 2024.

    Actually, the Sabatini story sounds rather complicated. The article presents only one side of the story (Sabatini's).

    I am not sure I would draw any conclusions from the article.

    Having sex with your postdoc/grad student will get you fired from your job at most Universities. That has been the case for at least a decade.

    (Of course, things were different in the past. Otherwise, we would never have heard of Schrodinger or Feynman.)
    Having sex with one’s postdoc, i.e. one staff member in a relationship with another, wouldn’t get you fired. A line manager in a relationship with whom they line manage raises HR concerns, but is not forbidden. One would, I presume, be expected to report the relationship up the chain of command and arrange new line management arrangements. A relationship with one’s student is a different matter.

    Here’s my university’s policy on such matters: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/human-resources/personal-relationships-policy
    Your postdoc is someone you hired. You will write letters of recommendation for. You will have an enormous influence over his/her future job prospects. You have a mentoring and nurturing role.

    You will be fired if you have sex with someone for whom you have professional responsibility.

    It is not entirely clear from the Sabatini article, but it seems as though this is what probably happened. She knew him as a grad student, she was hired by him (or encouraged by him to come to his lab as a postdoc). Remember, we just have Sabatini's version of events.

    Sex with another academic, another staff member, is slightly different.

    However, I personally have never slept with an academic. I recommend this course of action to everyone. :)
    I vaguely recall watching the History Man. I gained the impression that having sex with colleagues was pretty much how academics filled their days.
    In the 1960s and 1970s, this was true.
    Remember watching the first episode with two female fellow graduate students, who were decidedly startled ...
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 4,376

    Medico-authoritarianism sets a precedent.

    It opens the door to eco-authoritarianism. And not all of us see that as a bad thing.

    The fundamental principle that people should be free to do as they please insofar as they are not causing harm to others is a good one.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,660
    edited May 2022
    darkage said:

    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/he-was-a-world-renowned-cancer-researcher?s=r

    This is an interesting read. A scientist who has been destroyed by having a consensual sexual relationship, which was not reported to his employer. Was then consequently "Weinstin'ed out of science".

    People want to believe these things are more complicated than they seem. That may well be true. But to my mind this is not progress at all - It as a tribal witch hunt, with revolutionary justice being dispatched through kangaroo courts - all masquerading as due process.

    If the Republicans can sort themselves out, they will win in 2024.

    Actually, the Sabatini story sounds rather complicated. The article presents only one side of the story (Sabatini's).

    I am not sure I would draw any conclusions from the article.

    Having sex with your postdoc/grad student will get you fired from your job at most Universities. That has been the case for at least a decade.

    (Of course, things were different in the past. Otherwise, we would never have heard of Schrodinger or Feynman.)
    Having sex with one’s postdoc, i.e. one staff member in a relationship with another, wouldn’t get you fired. A line manager in a relationship with whom they line manage raises HR concerns, but is not forbidden. One would, I presume, be expected to report the relationship up the chain of command and arrange new line management arrangements. A relationship with one’s student is a different matter.

    Here’s my university’s policy on such matters: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/human-resources/personal-relationships-policy
    Your postdoc is someone you hired. You will write letters of recommendation for. You will have an enormous influence over his/her future job prospects. You have a mentoring and nurturing role.

    You will be fired if you have sex with someone for whom you have professional responsibility.

    It is not entirely clear from the Sabatini article, but it seems as though this is what probably happened. She knew him as a grad student, she was hired by him (or encouraged by him to come to his lab as a postdoc). Remember, we just have Sabatini's version of events.

    Sex with another academic, another staff member, is slightly different.

    However, I personally have never slept with an academic. I recommend this course of action to everyone. :)
    The daily mail have picked up on the story.
    You keep suggesting that she was his graduate student but as far as I can see, he didn't have any management responsibility for her at the time the events occurred.
    I think the moral of the story is that it is a bad idea having any sexual relationship with someone you work with.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10834645/MIT-scientist-collecting-unemployment-fired-consensual-relationship-colleague.html
    "Knouse claimed that Sabatini 'groomed' her 'while she was a graduate student under his mentorship [...]'"
    Pathetic. She was an adult in her twenties.
    Age is not relevant* when one is in that relationship. Consider, for instance, social workers/clients; police/public involved in cases under investigation; armed forces superior/subordinate; and so on.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,402
    Thanks for this. Very insightful as always. Just a couple of comments.

    It's not only North Korea but all jurisdictions will have the facility to act by government fiat in particular emergency situations. I'm not sure Cyclefree fully acknowledges the significance of this.

    Therefore to my mind the big issue is not that of big and arbitrary government - for which like Cyclefree I have no fondness. The use of emergency powers when faced with an unknown degree of disaster is unavoidable. Societal collapse did not happen, ghastly though all this was, and that in part is because government acted by decree.

    No, the big issue, which should not be confused with the necessity of government decree in emergency is competence, consistency, moral leadership, lawfulness, the boring stuff of rapid drafting of rules in emergency, and the ability of those with state powers, police etc, to act as grown ups. And, as Cyclefree points out, here the fail was and is epic.

    And finally Cyclefree, while hitting the target, does not, SFAICS, offer solutions to how, given the massive limitations of competence in our overgrown state, it could have been done better.

    And if Labour knows they are not telling us.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,120
    Scott_xP said:

    Operation Rwanda: @DominicRaab tells @BBCr4today that removals to East Africa likely to be in “the hundreds” a year..rather less than the “tens of thousands” promised last month by @BorisJohnson. More than 600 migrants arrived in small boats last weekend
    https://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/1527550143230246917

    Not really news, though. The Rwandan government have been saying that all along.

    Setting aside the morality, the questionable legal basis, the cost... Even on its own terms, the damn thing isn't going to work.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,684
    Ah, the 60s and 70s. Où sont les neiges d'antan?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,333
    On the subject of the header, the real problem for democracies is the lure of authoritarianism and the difficulties of holding it off. The measures were popular. Authoritarianism goes much further than Covid rules. As @Cyclefree points out, it has successfully encroached in to other areas like the policing of protest. The next frontier will be 'protection from harrassment', with calls going around to make things like staring at people illegal.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,660
    edited May 2022
    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/he-was-a-world-renowned-cancer-researcher?s=r

    This is an interesting read. A scientist who has been destroyed by having a consensual sexual relationship, which was not reported to his employer. Was then consequently "Weinstin'ed out of science".

    People want to believe these things are more complicated than they seem. That may well be true. But to my mind this is not progress at all - It as a tribal witch hunt, with revolutionary justice being dispatched through kangaroo courts - all masquerading as due process.

    If the Republicans can sort themselves out, they will win in 2024.

    Actually, the Sabatini story sounds rather complicated. The article presents only one side of the story (Sabatini's).

    I am not sure I would draw any conclusions from the article.

    Having sex with your postdoc/grad student will get you fired from your job at most Universities. That has been the case for at least a decade.

    (Of course, things were different in the past. Otherwise, we would never have heard of Schrodinger or Feynman.)
    Having sex with one’s postdoc, i.e. one staff member in a relationship with another, wouldn’t get you fired. A line manager in a relationship with whom they line manage raises HR concerns, but is not forbidden. One would, I presume, be expected to report the relationship up the chain of command and arrange new line management arrangements. A relationship with one’s student is a different matter.

    Here’s my university’s policy on such matters: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/human-resources/personal-relationships-policy
    Your postdoc is someone you hired. You will write letters of recommendation for. You will have an enormous influence over his/her future job prospects. You have a mentoring and nurturing role.

    You will be fired if you have sex with someone for whom you have professional responsibility.

    It is not entirely clear from the Sabatini article, but it seems as though this is what probably happened. She knew him as a grad student, she was hired by him (or encouraged by him to come to his lab as a postdoc). Remember, we just have Sabatini's version of events.

    Sex with another academic, another staff member, is slightly different.

    However, I personally have never slept with an academic. I recommend this course of action to everyone. :)
    The daily mail have picked up on the story.
    You keep suggesting that she was his graduate student but as far as I can see, he didn't have any management responsibility for her at the time the events occurred.
    I think the moral of the story is that it is a bad idea having any sexual relationship with someone you work with.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10834645/MIT-scientist-collecting-unemployment-fired-consensual-relationship-colleague.html
    One other point. The DM's anti-progressive agenda leads me to suspect that it's using this story to beat the woke on the head.

    But there is a fundamental aspect of employment law which is that if one takes a job one accepts restrictions which do not apply to other people. For instance, if I become a trustee of a local charity I can't trade with it any more.

    It is therefore irrelevant to apply the yardstick of the freedoms that other people have, and highly misleading to imply that [edit] the bsic dispute is all because of wokery.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,154
    edited May 2022
    That's a cracking header @Cyclefree

    Not just frightening to see how easily our liberties were removed - even more frightening to see how easily the large majority of the public accepted it. Populism inextricably links the two of course.

    You talk about lack of scrutiny, but what would more scrutiny have achieved when parliament were continually bleating that the restrictions were not authoritarian enough!?

    On the FPNs, I agree completely when you say "who knows whether all the FPNs which have been issued were correct?". I have little doubt that if he were not who he is (politically he had to accept the FPN) Johnson's fine (and especially Sunak's) could have been challenged successfully both on the circs of the case and also the retrospective nature of the investigation when the Met originally stated that they don't investigate Covid offenses retrospectively.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,596

    Good morning

    I have only read @Cyclefree comment piece and as so often she is spot on and I agree 100% that we must never again allow our country's law makers to pass such idiotic, even ludicrous, laws on us

    I seem to recall you were fully supportive of the restrictions at the time Big_G.

    I generally agree with @Cyclefree on most of her headers but "Never Again" is too simplistic here.

    For me the issue is not the principle but the practical application. Dependent on the virulence of any future pandemic I would support severe restrictions. However, we should learn from Covid and set up legislation now that can be quickly switched on, by agreement of Parliament, when required.

    We need to recognise that there will be another pandemic at some point and it could well be more severe than Covid.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,660

    Scott_xP said:

    Operation Rwanda: @DominicRaab tells @BBCr4today that removals to East Africa likely to be in “the hundreds” a year..rather less than the “tens of thousands” promised last month by @BorisJohnson. More than 600 migrants arrived in small boats last weekend
    https://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/1527550143230246917

    Not really news, though. The Rwandan government have been saying that all along.

    Setting aside the morality, the questionable legal basis, the cost... Even on its own terms, the damn thing isn't going to work.
    It was so obvious from any cursory reading of the news reports showing this hostel place, and simple arithmetic considering likely time to process people vs the capacity of the accommodation, as some of us pointed out at the time. That 'hundreds' feels much more probable against the physical evidence.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,185

    Good morning

    I have only read @Cyclefree comment piece and as so often she is spot on and I agree 100% that we must never again allow our country's law makers to pass such idiotic, even ludicrous, laws on us

    Its a shame most posters on this site were in full agreement with the restictions when they were imposed, and most wanted them to go further.
    As I said at the time, I found myself in the curious position of resenting that there was a law restricting my right to do something that I had no intention of doing. This meant that, when the opposition to the laws came from those who denied that there was a public health emergency, I found myself arguing against opposition to the laws, even though I wasn't supportive of the law restricting who could enter my home.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,034
    edited May 2022
    "
    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/he-was-a-world-renowned-cancer-researcher?s=r

    This is an interesting read. A scientist who has been destroyed by having a consensual sexual relationship, which was not reported to his employer. Was then consequently "Weinstin'ed out of science".

    People want to believe these things are more complicated than they seem. That may well be true. But to my mind this is not progress at all - It as a tribal witch hunt, with revolutionary justice being dispatched through kangaroo courts - all masquerading as due process.

    If the Republicans can sort themselves out, they will win in 2024.

    Actually, the Sabatini story sounds rather complicated. The article presents only one side of the story (Sabatini's).

    I am not sure I would draw any conclusions from the article.

    Having sex with your postdoc/grad student will get you fired from your job at most Universities. That has been the case for at least a decade.

    (Of course, things were different in the past. Otherwise, we would never have heard of Schrodinger or Feynman.)
    Having sex with one’s postdoc, i.e. one staff member in a relationship with another, wouldn’t get you fired. A line manager in a relationship with whom they line manage raises HR concerns, but is not forbidden. One would, I presume, be expected to report the relationship up the chain of command and arrange new line management arrangements. A relationship with one’s student is a different matter.

    Here’s my university’s policy on such matters: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/human-resources/personal-relationships-policy
    Your postdoc is someone you hired. You will write letters of recommendation for. You will have an enormous influence over his/her future job prospects. You have a mentoring and nurturing role.

    You will be fired if you have sex with someone for whom you have professional responsibility.

    It is not entirely clear from the Sabatini article, but it seems as though this is what probably happened. She knew him as a grad student, she was hired by him (or encouraged by him to come to his lab as a postdoc). Remember, we just have Sabatini's version of events.

    Sex with another academic, another staff member, is slightly different.

    However, I personally have never slept with an academic. I recommend this course of action to everyone. :)
    The daily mail have picked up on the story.
    You keep suggesting that she was his graduate student but as far as I can see, he didn't have any management responsibility for her at the time the events occurred.
    I think the moral of the story is that it is a bad idea having any sexual relationship with someone you work with.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10834645/MIT-scientist-collecting-unemployment-fired-consensual-relationship-colleague.html
    "Knouse claimed that Sabatini 'groomed' her 'while she was a graduate student under his mentorship [...]'"
    Except in a few select circumstance (Low IQ adults for instance) this term "groomed" is positively unhelpful when adult relationships are described. It might be a bad idea to sleep with your students, but lets save the whole grooming term for combing Afghan hounds and inappropriate relationships with under 18s in a position of trust & under 16s generally.
    If you're a grad student and end up in bed with the professor, it's seduction not 'grooming'.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,596
    edited May 2022
    algarkirk said:

    Thanks for this. Very insightful as always. Just a couple of comments.

    It's not only North Korea but all jurisdictions will have the facility to act by government fiat in particular emergency situations. I'm not sure Cyclefree fully acknowledges the significance of this.

    Therefore to my mind the big issue is not that of big and arbitrary government - for which like Cyclefree I have no fondness. The use of emergency powers when faced with an unknown degree of disaster is unavoidable. Societal collapse did not happen, ghastly though all this was, and that in part is because government acted by decree.

    No, the big issue, which should not be confused with the necessity of government decree in emergency is competence, consistency, moral leadership, lawfulness, the boring stuff of rapid drafting of rules in emergency, and the ability of those with state powers, police etc, to act as grown ups. And, as Cyclefree points out, here the fail was and is epic.

    And finally Cyclefree, while hitting the target, does not, SFAICS, offer solutions to how, given the massive limitations of competence in our overgrown state, it could have been done better.

    And if Labour knows they are not telling us.

    I agree with most of this.

    Your comment about "the massive limitations of competence in our overgrown state" betrays your bias, which is fair enough.

    My bias suggests that hollowing out and constant undermining our public services over many years for purely political reasons, left them unable to to deal optimally with the pandemic. That and the poor cabinet-level decision-making let to the issues.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,376

    Good morning

    I have only read @Cyclefree comment piece and as so often she is spot on and I agree 100% that we must never again allow our country's law makers to pass such idiotic, even ludicrous, laws on us

    Its a shame most posters on this site were in full agreement with the restictions when they were imposed, and most wanted them to go further.
    +1
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,669
    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    On the subject of the header, the real problem for democracies is the lure of authoritarianism and the difficulties of holding it off. The measures were popular. Authoritarianism goes much further than Covid rules. As @Cyclefree points out, it has successfully encroached in to other areas like the policing of protest. The next frontier will be 'protection from harrassment', with calls going around to make things like staring at people illegal.

    We saw this all too clearly in Scotland where Nicola consistently sought to go that little bit further for that little bit longer to show how "responsible" she was and how much she cared. I lamented on many occasions that this was wildly popular. Indeed, slightly contrary to @Cyclefree's piece most of the criticism at the time was focused on Boris's "reckless" behaviour and instinctive desire to limit such regulations. The stick he got for "prematurely" ending the restrictions was extreme. He was quite brave to do what he did then and on earlier occasions such as Christmas.
    Boris the brave? Was he not forced into it by the Cabinet?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,660

    algarkirk said:

    Thanks for this. Very insightful as always. Just a couple of comments.

    It's not only North Korea but all jurisdictions will have the facility to act by government fiat in particular emergency situations. I'm not sure Cyclefree fully acknowledges the significance of this.

    Therefore to my mind the big issue is not that of big and arbitrary government - for which like Cyclefree I have no fondness. The use of emergency powers when faced with an unknown degree of disaster is unavoidable. Societal collapse did not happen, ghastly though all this was, and that in part is because government acted by decree.

    No, the big issue, which should not be confused with the necessity of government decree in emergency is competence, consistency, moral leadership, lawfulness, the boring stuff of rapid drafting of rules in emergency, and the ability of those with state powers, police etc, to act as grown ups. And, as Cyclefree points out, here the fail was and is epic.

    And finally Cyclefree, while hitting the target, does not, SFAICS, offer solutions to how, given the massive limitations of competence in our overgrown state, it could have been done better.

    And if Labour knows they are not telling us.

    I agree with most of this.

    Your comment about "the massive limitations of competence in our overgrown state" betrays your bias, which is fair enough. My bias suggests that hollowing out and constantly undermining our public services over many years for purely political reasons, left it unable to to deal optimally with the pandemic. That and the poor cabinet-level decision making.
    Particularly the changes to 'public health' services, both organizationally and in terms of funding.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,333
    Carnyx said:



    Age is not relevant* when one is in that relationship. Consider, for instance, social workers/clients; police/public involved in cases under investigation; armed forces superior/subordinate; and so on.

    I basically agree with you about this. But the events here occurred when she had her own lab. They were effectively colleagues. This is clearly a story about a consensual personal relationship that has gone bad for reasons we will never fully understand, but with the consequence that the career of a leading scientist has ended at its peak. That does not bode well for science or western civilisation in general.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,660
    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    On the subject of the header, the real problem for democracies is the lure of authoritarianism and the difficulties of holding it off. The measures were popular. Authoritarianism goes much further than Covid rules. As @Cyclefree points out, it has successfully encroached in to other areas like the policing of protest. The next frontier will be 'protection from harrassment', with calls going around to make things like staring at people illegal.

    We saw this all too clearly in Scotland where Nicola consistently sought to go that little bit further for that little bit longer to show how "responsible" she was and how much she cared. I lamented on many occasions that this was wildly popular. Indeed, slightly contrary to @Cyclefree's piece most of the criticism at the time was focused on Boris's "reckless" behaviour and instinctive desire to limit such regulations. The stick he got for "prematurely" ending the restrictions was extreme. He was quite brave to do what he did then and on earlier occasions such as Christmas.
    She didn't go further/longer so much as was more coherent and consistent, if you recall - particularly around that on/off Christmas episode, as we discussed at the time.
  • GasmanGasman Posts: 132
    As others have alluded to, the problem was that every restriction was wildly popular. The only complaint was often that restrictions didn't go far enough. To blame the government and police for this is not entirely fair.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,267
    On topic

    Crace in the Guardian has commented how well Partygate has worked out for Johnson. Investigated and penalised for the most minor of offences which handily brought down Sunak, and not even investigated for the more egregious breach events he attended.

    Gray would have seen Johnson off in January, but Met intervention (not investigation) into Johnson's conduct has neutralised that problem five months later.

    Even better, the LOTO has been investigated and will have to resign on the issuing of an FPN.

    Johnson either has friends in high places or he has sold his soul to the Devil 😈. Probably both.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,809
    Not bad header. But at the time, the consensus in the country and on PB, save for a precious few people (and I 92% include myself in that latter group) were cheering on the restrictions. Even pre-vaccine, which seems to have been a watershed for some, very few and very few on PB spotted the dangers of lockdown as a principle, rather than the effect it might have on the virus.

    Sure, the government saw how in northern Italy people were almost literally dying on the streets but there was always another route short of legal enforcement (with all the pitfalls that @Cyclefree correctly points out).

    And then literally one by one on PB people realised that all along it was the principle that was the danger. And now everyone is applauding this article who were huge lockdown fans at the time.

    And of course, when reviewing the largest restriction on liberty in living memory, someone is going to say seatbelts.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,402

    algarkirk said:

    Thanks for this. Very insightful as always. Just a couple of comments.

    It's not only North Korea but all jurisdictions will have the facility to act by government fiat in particular emergency situations. I'm not sure Cyclefree fully acknowledges the significance of this.

    Therefore to my mind the big issue is not that of big and arbitrary government - for which like Cyclefree I have no fondness. The use of emergency powers when faced with an unknown degree of disaster is unavoidable. Societal collapse did not happen, ghastly though all this was, and that in part is because government acted by decree.

    No, the big issue, which should not be confused with the necessity of government decree in emergency is competence, consistency, moral leadership, lawfulness, the boring stuff of rapid drafting of rules in emergency, and the ability of those with state powers, police etc, to act as grown ups. And, as Cyclefree points out, here the fail was and is epic.

    And finally Cyclefree, while hitting the target, does not, SFAICS, offer solutions to how, given the massive limitations of competence in our overgrown state, it could have been done better.

    And if Labour knows they are not telling us.

    I agree with most of this.

    Your comment about "the massive limitations of competence in our overgrown state" betrays your bias, which is fair enough.

    My bias suggests that hollowing out and constant undermining our public services over many years for purely political reasons, left them unable to to deal optimally with the pandemic. That and the poor cabinet-level decision-making let to the issues.
    Fair enough, but the proportion of GDP which is state/local government managed is rising rather than falling, as is the actual amount in billions. That is not 'hollowing out'. My suggestion (which is a bit tentative) is that we have an overgrown state in which too many things are being attempted with, as a result, too few resources.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,741
    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    On the subject of the header, the real problem for democracies is the lure of authoritarianism and the difficulties of holding it off. The measures were popular. Authoritarianism goes much further than Covid rules. As @Cyclefree points out, it has successfully encroached in to other areas like the policing of protest. The next frontier will be 'protection from harrassment', with calls going around to make things like staring at people illegal.

    We saw this all too clearly in Scotland where Nicola consistently sought to go that little bit further for that little bit longer to show how "responsible" she was and how much she cared. I lamented on many occasions that this was wildly popular. Indeed, slightly contrary to @Cyclefree's piece most of the criticism at the time was focused on Boris's "reckless" behaviour and instinctive desire to limit such regulations. The stick he got for "prematurely" ending the restrictions was extreme. He was quite brave to do what he did then and on earlier occasions such as Christmas.
    She didn't go further/longer so much as was more coherent and consistent, if you recall - particularly around that on/off Christmas episode, as we discussed at the time.
    I would not agree with that assessment at all. In my view she showed extremely authoritarian tendences and our laws were even more incoherent than England's and changed even more often. But I accept that was a minority view at the time and people seemed to like being told what to do to a simply absurd degree.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,915
    It’s almost as if JRM didn’t think his plans through https://twitter.com/johndickenssw/status/1527521404190605314
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,660

    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    On the subject of the header, the real problem for democracies is the lure of authoritarianism and the difficulties of holding it off. The measures were popular. Authoritarianism goes much further than Covid rules. As @Cyclefree points out, it has successfully encroached in to other areas like the policing of protest. The next frontier will be 'protection from harrassment', with calls going around to make things like staring at people illegal.

    We saw this all too clearly in Scotland where Nicola consistently sought to go that little bit further for that little bit longer to show how "responsible" she was and how much she cared. I lamented on many occasions that this was wildly popular. Indeed, slightly contrary to @Cyclefree's piece most of the criticism at the time was focused on Boris's "reckless" behaviour and instinctive desire to limit such regulations. The stick he got for "prematurely" ending the restrictions was extreme. He was quite brave to do what he did then and on earlier occasions such as Christmas.
    Boris the brave? Was he not forced into it by the Cabinet?
    With absurd results, like schools going back for just the one Monday after New Year in England, specially to spread the thing.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    On the subject of the header, the real problem for democracies is the lure of authoritarianism and the difficulties of holding it off. The measures were popular. Authoritarianism goes much further than Covid rules. As @Cyclefree points out, it has successfully encroached in to other areas like the policing of protest. The next frontier will be 'protection from harrassment', with calls going around to make things like staring at people illegal.

    We saw this all too clearly in Scotland where Nicola consistently sought to go that little bit further for that little bit longer to show how "responsible" she was and how much she cared. I lamented on many occasions that this was wildly popular. Indeed, slightly contrary to @Cyclefree's piece most of the criticism at the time was focused on Boris's "reckless" behaviour and instinctive desire to limit such regulations. The stick he got for "prematurely" ending the restrictions was extreme. He was quite brave to do what he did then and on earlier occasions such as Christmas.
    Exactly, posters really need to read what they have said on here over the past 2 years in regard to their desire for more restrictions and their criticism of the Government for not imposing them, before agreeing with the thread header.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,185

    Good morning

    I have only read @Cyclefree comment piece and as so often she is spot on and I agree 100% that we must never again allow our country's law makers to pass such idiotic, even ludicrous, laws on us

    I seem to recall you were fully supportive of the restrictions at the time Big_G.

    I generally agree with @Cyclefree on most of her headers but "Never Again" is too simplistic here.

    For me the issue is not the principle but the practical application. Dependent on the virulence of any future pandemic I would support severe restrictions. However, we should learn from Covid and set up legislation now that can be quickly switched on, by agreement of Parliament, when required.

    We need to recognise that there will be another pandemic at some point and it could well be more severe than Covid.
    I think an issue here is toleration of dissent. To what extent do we tolerate other people disagreeing with us, even though that may cause harm to themselves?

    My personal view is that, as a democracy, we should trust that a well-informed, responsible population will be able to follow public health guidance to avoid physical contact with people outside their households, if that is necessary to prevent the spread of a deadly airborne infection. We should keep that guidance as simple as possible to make it as easy as possible to follow.

    A democratic population then has to be prepared to tolerate a small minority not following these guidelines, while attempting to persuade them to do so. A democracy shouldn't be in the business of placing its entire population under house arrest.

    When it comes to regulating businesses, the government has more of a duty to enforce laws to ensure that businesses do not put public health at risk. This is why the government regulates hygiene in the kitchens of restaurants, but not in private homes.

    What was very clear was that the British public have very limited toleration for dissent. That was a feature of the clap for the NHS, as well as supporting draconian legislation.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,154

    Good morning

    I have only read @Cyclefree comment piece and as so often she is spot on and I agree 100% that we must never again allow our country's law makers to pass such idiotic, even ludicrous, laws on us

    Its a shame most posters on this site were in full agreement with the restictions when they were imposed, and most wanted them to go further.
    Look back at the threads - who was arguing against all this? Me obvs. @rottenborough and @isam were too in the early period but I think their stances moderated somewhat. @cookie and @Anabobazina in the later period for sure.

    The good old categorical imperative should have saved us from this. How can it ever have been illegal for a parent to see their child? or for citizens to leave the country? Fundamental principles come before the all-conquering culture of safety.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,464
    The problem was Covid came in so quickly if we did not respond quickly too with the lockdowns then even more would have died given we had no vaccine for the best part of a year, even if that came at the expense of parliamentary scrutiny. Of course Cyclefree can always vote RefUK given they were the only main party consistently opposing lockdowns and further restrictions
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    edited May 2022
    algarkirk said:

    Thanks for this. Very insightful as always. Just a couple of comments.

    It's not only North Korea but all jurisdictions will have the facility to act by government fiat in particular emergency situations. I'm not sure Cyclefree fully acknowledges the significance of this.

    Therefore to my mind the big issue is not that of big and arbitrary government - for which like Cyclefree I have no fondness. The use of emergency powers when faced with an unknown degree of disaster is unavoidable. Societal collapse did not happen, ghastly though all this was, and that in part is because government acted by decree.

    No, the big issue, which should not be confused with the necessity of government decree in emergency is competence, consistency, moral leadership, lawfulness, the boring stuff of rapid drafting of rules in emergency, and the ability of those with state powers, police etc, to act as grown ups. And, as Cyclefree points out, here the fail was and is epic.

    And finally Cyclefree, while hitting the target, does not, SFAICS, offer solutions to how, given the massive limitations of competence in our overgrown state, it could have been done better.

    And if Labour knows they are not telling us.

    I don't offer solutions or discuss other countries because if I did the headers would be very much longer and I'd get the usual suspects complaining about that.

    Also I wrote it to make the point that it's not just Boris's failings which are the objectionable thing about these rules.

    But some thoughts:

    1. Use the legislation already there for such a purpose ie the Civil Contingencies Act and not some new legislation which no-one has debated or scrutinised. Critically, this meant the powers had to be reviewed every 30 days and not kept in place for months. This change might well have avoided the endless changes and confusion.
    2. Clear consistent communication about what the laws say - none of this mixing up of rules and guidelines.
    3. Clear consistent policy on enforcement to be published and applied and reviewed by the CPS.
    4. Legal advice on the interpretation of the rules to be made public.

    I understand that not everything can be got right on Day One but we had some warning about what was likely and this went on for 2 years.

    The issue is not just the nature of the restrictions but also the process of how they were put in place - how the sausage was made, if you will. And, as others have said elsewhere, how the sausage was made shows us how feeble our processes and institutions are in the face of panic and determination to bulldoze decisions through.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,154
    HYUFD said:

    The problem was Covid came in so quickly if we did not respond quickly too with the lockdowns then even more would have died given we had no vaccine for the best part of a year, even if that came at the expense of parliamentary scrutiny. Of course Cyclefree can always vote RefUK given they were the only main party consistently opposing lockdowns and further restrictions

    The first three weeks maybe. Then three weeks became twelve. Then ...
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    On topic

    Crace in the Guardian has commented how well Partygate has worked out for Johnson. Investigated and penalised for the most minor of offences which handily brought down Sunak, and not even investigated for the more egregious breach events he attended.

    Gray would have seen Johnson off in January, but Met intervention (not investigation) into Johnson's conduct has neutralised that problem five months later.

    Even better, the LOTO has been investigated and will have to resign on the issuing of an FPN.

    Johnson either has friends in high places or he has sold his soul to the Devil 😈. Probably both.

    Would the Devil pay anything for Johnson's soul?

    It must look like a shrivelled and rancid walnut, giving off a strange odour.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,660
    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    On the subject of the header, the real problem for democracies is the lure of authoritarianism and the difficulties of holding it off. The measures were popular. Authoritarianism goes much further than Covid rules. As @Cyclefree points out, it has successfully encroached in to other areas like the policing of protest. The next frontier will be 'protection from harrassment', with calls going around to make things like staring at people illegal.

    We saw this all too clearly in Scotland where Nicola consistently sought to go that little bit further for that little bit longer to show how "responsible" she was and how much she cared. I lamented on many occasions that this was wildly popular. Indeed, slightly contrary to @Cyclefree's piece most of the criticism at the time was focused on Boris's "reckless" behaviour and instinctive desire to limit such regulations. The stick he got for "prematurely" ending the restrictions was extreme. He was quite brave to do what he did then and on earlier occasions such as Christmas.
    She didn't go further/longer so much as was more coherent and consistent, if you recall - particularly around that on/off Christmas episode, as we discussed at the time.
    I would not agree with that assessment at all. In my view she showed extremely authoritarian tendences and our laws were even more incoherent than England's and changed even more often. But I accept that was a minority view at the time and people seemed to like being told what to do to a simply absurd degree.
    Beg to differ.That Christmas/New Year was particularly clear. In Scotland we knew in advance what would happen in fair time. In England, chaos.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,333
    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    On the subject of the header, the real problem for democracies is the lure of authoritarianism and the difficulties of holding it off. The measures were popular. Authoritarianism goes much further than Covid rules. As @Cyclefree points out, it has successfully encroached in to other areas like the policing of protest. The next frontier will be 'protection from harrassment', with calls going around to make things like staring at people illegal.

    We saw this all too clearly in Scotland where Nicola consistently sought to go that little bit further for that little bit longer to show how "responsible" she was and how much she cared. I lamented on many occasions that this was wildly popular. Indeed, slightly contrary to @Cyclefree's piece most of the criticism at the time was focused on Boris's "reckless" behaviour and instinctive desire to limit such regulations. The stick he got for "prematurely" ending the restrictions was extreme. He was quite brave to do what he did then and on earlier occasions such as Christmas.
    Yes, we also had a lot of admiration on here for Drakeford playing a similar role in Wales, if I recall correctly. Boris has had good instincts on this, it is one area where he has proved himself to be a politician of moral principle. Partygate and the FPN's are really just a comical sideshow.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,755
    As usual, a brilliant header by @Cyclefree

    A little time ago, I saw an academic paper on the varying responses to COVID. The authors were of the Beat-On-Sweden persuasion. One of their metrics was that, horrifyingly to the authors, Sweden had used voluntary rules rather than legal enforcement of COVID rules.

    One thing they didn't look at was the effectiveness of voluntary advice vs legal rules. How much (if anything) did we gain by making lockdown a legal matter?

    NOTE: The header breaks Section 14.3.1.2 (Schedule 23) of the Amended Regulations For PB Headers On Legal Matters (2021). There is no inclusion of the phrases "Lessons Will Be Learned" or "For The Greater Good".
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,854

    Good morning

    I have only read @Cyclefree comment piece and as so often she is spot on and I agree 100% that we must never again allow our country's law makers to pass such idiotic, even ludicrous, laws on us

    Its a shame most posters on this site were in full agreement with the restictions when they were imposed, and most wanted them to go further.
    No more so than Sturgeon, Drakeford and labour
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,809
    edited May 2022

    As usual, a brilliant header by @Cyclefree

    A little time ago, I saw an academic paper on the varying responses to COVID. The authors were of the Beat-On-Sweden persuasion. One of their metrics was that, horrifyingly to the authors, Sweden had used voluntary rules rather than legal enforcement of COVID rules.

    One thing they didn't look at was the effectiveness of voluntary advice vs legal rules. How much (if anything) did we gain by making lockdown a legal matter?

    NOTE: The header breaks Section 14.3.1.2 (Schedule 23) of the Amended Regulations For PB Headers On Legal Matters (2021). There is no inclusion of the phrases "Lessons Will Be Learned" or "For The Greater Good".

    People blather on when discussing (edit!) Sweden - but what about Norway/Denmark, etc. And indeed vs those countries Sweden did "badly" (there is an article to be discussed as to the damage down the line they avoided). But vs all of Europe Sweden did pretty well and certainly much better than many.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,854

    Good morning

    I have only read @Cyclefree comment piece and as so often she is spot on and I agree 100% that we must never again allow our country's law makers to pass such idiotic, even ludicrous, laws on us

    I seem to recall you were fully supportive of the restrictions at the time Big_G.

    I generally agree with @Cyclefree on most of her headers but "Never Again" is too simplistic here.

    For me the issue is not the principle but the practical application. Dependent on the virulence of any future pandemic I would support severe restrictions. However, we should learn from Covid and set up legislation now that can be quickly switched on, by agreement of Parliament, when required.

    We need to recognise that there will be another pandemic at some point and it could well be more severe than Covid.
    Not the draconian measures Drakeford imposed on us
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,755
    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Operation Rwanda: @DominicRaab tells @BBCr4today that removals to East Africa likely to be in “the hundreds” a year..rather less than the “tens of thousands” promised last month by @BorisJohnson. More than 600 migrants arrived in small boats last weekend
    https://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/1527550143230246917

    Not really news, though. The Rwandan government have been saying that all along.

    Setting aside the morality, the questionable legal basis, the cost... Even on its own terms, the damn thing isn't going to work.
    It was so obvious from any cursory reading of the news reports showing this hostel place, and simple arithmetic considering likely time to process people vs the capacity of the accommodation, as some of us pointed out at the time. That 'hundreds' feels much more probable against the physical evidence.
    This works

    image
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,852
    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    On the subject of the header, the real problem for democracies is the lure of authoritarianism and the difficulties of holding it off. The measures were popular. Authoritarianism goes much further than Covid rules. As @Cyclefree points out, it has successfully encroached in to other areas like the policing of protest. The next frontier will be 'protection from harrassment', with calls going around to make things like staring at people illegal.

    We saw this all too clearly in Scotland where Nicola consistently sought to go that little bit further for that little bit longer to show how "responsible" she was and how much she cared. I lamented on many occasions that this was wildly popular. Indeed, slightly contrary to @Cyclefree's piece most of the criticism at the time was focused on Boris's "reckless" behaviour and instinctive desire to limit such regulations. The stick he got for "prematurely" ending the restrictions was extreme. He was quite brave to do what he did then and on earlier occasions such as Christmas.
    She didn't go further/longer so much as was more coherent and consistent, if you recall - particularly around that on/off Christmas episode, as we discussed at the time.
    Wasn't it after BJ's 'bravery' in loosening restrictions over Xmas 2020 that there was a massive spike in UK Covid deaths?




  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,669
    Scott_xP said:

    It’s almost as if JRM didn’t think his plans through https://twitter.com/johndickenssw/status/1527521404190605314

    Yes. The government has been closing offices, as have many private companies even pre-pandemic.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,729

    Carnyx said:

    Absolutely agreed Cyclefree.

    Such a draconian stripping of our civil liberties was a monumental and catastrophic blunder and entirely unnecessary as Sweden showed who got through the pandemic without doing so.

    Let those who want to shelter from a virus take actions if they wish to do so, and support them if they wish to do so, but absolutely never again should we strip people of their fundamental freedoms.

    You're bloody optimistic. Another disease will come. And your argument is simply refuted by the reflection that your libertarian philosophy would allow Mary Malone to take any catering job and spread typhoid without restriction. Even laissez-faire USA had to do something with her.

    Execution of gmt policy over the last feww years, yes, arguable. But not the basic principle.
    algarkirk said:

    Thanks for this. Very insightful as always. Just a couple of comments.

    It's not only North Korea but all jurisdictions will have the facility to act by government fiat in particular emergency situations. I'm not sure Cyclefree fully acknowledges the significance of this.

    Therefore to my mind the big issue is not that of big and arbitrary government - for which like Cyclefree I have no fondness. The use of emergency powers when faced with an unknown degree of disaster is unavoidable. Societal collapse did not happen, ghastly though all this was, and that in part is because government acted by decree.

    No, the big issue, which should not be confused with the necessity of government decree in emergency is competence, consistency, moral leadership, lawfulness, the boring stuff of rapid drafting of rules in emergency, and the ability of those with state powers, police etc, to act as grown ups. And, as Cyclefree points out, here the fail was and is epic.

    And finally Cyclefree, while hitting the target, does not, SFAICS, offer solutions to how, given the massive limitations of competence in our overgrown state, it could have been done better.

    And if Labour knows they are not telling us.

    Exactly, with both.

    Pretty much the only way to have it on individual responsibility would be to somehow criminalise the effects of poor individual choices on others. As it's impossible to go: "You infected a bunch of people, some of whom died; although you were fine with the disease's effects on you, those to who you passed it on were not."

    And that can't happen. You don't leave it to personal choice whether or not you quarantine to things, or whether Mary Malone is allowed to work as a chef. You can't.

    The coherence, consistency, and process of the legislation were a ball of chalk, and that's where the Government should have got it right. Yes, it was confusing as to what was happening, but that doesn't justify making inconsistent decrees and incoherent ones.

    At the end of the day, we did get huge and unsustainable pressures on the healthcare system. When England has capacity for around 100,000 acute and general patients, runs at 75,000-95,000 by default, and then gets a flood of thousand of extra patients coming in, growing exponentially, you can't sit back and say, "Oh, chaps, please try to avoid spreading this thing."

    At the first wave peak, England had 3,000 new patients per day. It peaked at 19,000 covid patients. Fortunately, it wasn't running exceptionally hot to start with and did what it could to reduce other patients (and we'll experience the impacts of that for a while) so it survived. Had we decided to let that 3,000 per day continue doubling a little while longer, it wouldn't have worked out well.

    At the second wave peak, we exceeded 4,000 new covid patients every day. The total of covid patients maxed out at just under 35,000, and at a time when the health service runs hottest - at its highest loading. Unsurprisingly, the death rate increased as patients were triaged, other patients had cancellations and reduced care, and we will see the knock-on effects from that for years.

    They took huge and draconian steps to stem the spread of the virus that was causing this. I hated that and I'm still convinced that the Tiers system could have been made to work if people had gone for the higher tiers sooner and we hadn't had all the carping about it being unnecessary/false positives/it's dropping/you can't have a second wave/etc.

    The limits of individual libertarianism are where and how it affects others. In a pandemic, people AREN'T just making choices for their own health and family health, but for that of everyone "downstream" of themselves. And yes, even if you make the right choices and comply, you may well pass it on, but you'll have done whatever you can to reduce that. Safe drivers can crash, but that doesn't excuse reckless drivers.
    The Swedish voluntary approach is well suited to an egalitarian society with a strong safety net and humane labour laws. In a country like Britain a voluntary approach, in practice, would have meant the middle classes being protected while the working poor were forced to be exposed to the illness. And even in Sweden I think there are somewhat mixed feelings about how things played out - at least this is what I gathered from speaking to a Swedish friend earlier this week. I don't think there are any easy answers, especially when the underlying society is dysfunctional.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,363
    Wrt the scientist.
    The USA can be supremely Puritan at times. Surprising "interventions" from concerned folk when you order a third glass of wine.
    Relationships at work simply aren't treated the same as here. They are generally frowned upon, if not specifically outlawed completely. You can't argue it was consensual between colleagues. That isn't looked on favourably either.
    It's impossible to view it through our cultural lens, where meeting at work is one of the leading ways to form a relationship.
    America is simply a different society to the UK (and Europe) in this regard.
    It has nothing to do with "woke" whatsoever.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,267

    Good morning

    I have only read @Cyclefree comment piece and as so often she is spot on and I agree 100% that we must never again allow our country's law makers to pass such idiotic, even ludicrous, laws on us

    Its a shame most posters on this site were in full agreement with the restictions when they were imposed, and most wanted them to go further.
    In April 2020 we were locked into our homes for our own safety and the safety of others.

    All those on here saying, "well I disagreed with this restrictive socialism from day one" seem to have forgotten that if one was over a certain age in April, May, June, or December 2020 and January, February and early March 2021 and one contracted the virus there was a very good chance it was good night Vienna.

    The narrative in part has changed to protect Johnson. "It wasn't so bad in April 2020, which is why Big Dog could party like it was 1999". It really was so bad.

    Whether with hindsight it could have been managed better is open to debate. At the time, we didn't have the benefit of hindsight.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,429

    Scott_xP said:

    Operation Rwanda: @DominicRaab tells @BBCr4today that removals to East Africa likely to be in “the hundreds” a year..rather less than the “tens of thousands” promised last month by @BorisJohnson. More than 600 migrants arrived in small boats last weekend
    https://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/1527550143230246917

    The policy has done its work and helped Big Dog navigate the local elections. I doubt he cares now whether a single person goes there or not. He probably doesn't even remember there was a Rwanda policy.



    If by "navigate" you mean "foundered on the rocks"....

    They were a bad defeat.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,755
    dixiedean said:

    Wrt the scientist.
    The USA can be supremely Puritan at times. Surprising "interventions" from concerned folk when you order a third glass of wine.
    Relationships at work simply aren't treated the same as here. They are generally frowned upon, if not specifically outlawed completely. You can't argue it was consensual between colleagues. That isn't looked on favourably either.
    It's impossible to view it through our cultural lens, where meeting at work is one of the leading ways to form a relationship.
    America is simply a different society to the UK (and Europe) in this regard.
    It has nothing to do with "woke" whatsoever.

    Very similar work practises and legislation on this matter in the UK.

    In many, many places in the UK, a work relationship with a close colleague will have one of you moved sideways rapidly. If you are lucky and do the right HR dance.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,314

    darkage said:

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/he-was-a-world-renowned-cancer-researcher?s=r

    This is an interesting read. A scientist who has been destroyed by having a consensual sexual relationship, which was not reported to his employer. Was then consequently "Weinstin'ed out of science".

    People want to believe these things are more complicated than they seem. That may well be true. But to my mind this is not progress at all - It as a tribal witch hunt, with revolutionary justice being dispatched through kangaroo courts - all masquerading as due process.

    If the Republicans can sort themselves out, they will win in 2024.

    Actually, the Sabatini story sounds rather complicated. The article presents only one side of the story (Sabatini's).

    I am not sure I would draw any conclusions from the article.

    Having sex with your postdoc/grad student will get you fired from your job at most Universities. That has been the case for at least a decade.

    (Of course, things were different in the past. Otherwise, we would never have heard of Schrodinger or Feynman.)
    Having sex with one’s postdoc, i.e. one staff member in a relationship with another, wouldn’t get you fired. A line manager in a relationship with whom they line manage raises HR concerns, but is not forbidden. One would, I presume, be expected to report the relationship up the chain of command and arrange new line management arrangements. A relationship with one’s student is a different matter.

    Here’s my university’s policy on such matters: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/human-resources/personal-relationships-policy
    Your postdoc is someone you hired. You will write letters of recommendation for. You will have an enormous influence over his/her future job prospects. You have a mentoring and nurturing role.

    You will be fired if you have sex with someone for whom you have professional responsibility.

    It is not entirely clear from the Sabatini article, but it seems as though this is what probably happened. She knew him as a grad student, she was hired by him (or encouraged by him to come to his lab as a postdoc). Remember, we just have Sabatini's version of events.

    Sex with another academic, another staff member, is slightly different.

    However, I personally have never slept with an academic. I recommend this course of action to everyone. :)
    Not in academia, but I sort-of project-managed Mrs J when we started going out together (we had been friends before that). We didn't want everyone to know, but we did tell both of our bosses. It was agreed that I would have no input into her career appraisals, but I could continue project-managing her.

    Seemed a sensible way of doing things.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,138

    As usual, a brilliant header by @Cyclefree

    A little time ago, I saw an academic paper on the varying responses to COVID. The authors were of the Beat-On-Sweden persuasion. One of their metrics was that, horrifyingly to the authors, Sweden had used voluntary rules rather than legal enforcement of COVID rules.

    One thing they didn't look at was the effectiveness of voluntary advice vs legal rules. How much (if anything) did we gain by making lockdown a legal matter?

    NOTE: The header breaks Section 14.3.1.2 (Schedule 23) of the Amended Regulations For PB Headers On Legal Matters (2021). There is no inclusion of the phrases "Lessons Will Be Learned" or "For The Greater Good".

    I still think we didn't do enough to scare people about COVID. Yes, the government's main concern was making sure the NHS didn't collapse, and that was why they wanted us to change our behaviour, but I still don't think all that many people appreciated just how bad COVID was. "It's in your interest not to die."
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    edited May 2022

    Not sure I understand this bit:

    "The restrictions were announced four days before the laws were enacted with no Parliamentary scrutiny by simple Ministerial decree."

    Is this not because Ministers used powers delegated to them by Parliament by the Civil Contingencies Act? Not sure how else it could have occurred.

    Isn't that the sort of system we'd want for situations like this - a clear framework calmly debated and set out in law as to how exceptional measures might be taken temporarily to deal with a civil crisis.

    I'm not really clear on what the alternative would have looked like. Is Cyclefree suggesting that Parliament should have spent April 2020 debating the restrictions to be imposed?

    No, they didn't. MPs passed the Coronavirus Act then Ministers issued the regulations under a Public Health Act. That is why the first set of prosecutions were abandoned. The police had brought the charges in the Coronavirus Act without realising that this was the wrong Act . Bear in mind this was months later and they still got it wrong.

    The Civil Contingencies Act - passed to cover situations like this - was not used at all, AFAICS. One assumes because it had an in-built review mechanism and the government wanted to avoid that. There was some criticism of this at the time, including by me - here - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/10/10/hollow-men-the-sidelining-of-parliament-during-the-biggest-health-economic-crisis-in-modern-times/ and here - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/04/01/taking-liberties/.

    As I said in the former -

    "Good governance is not just some technical process issue. When it doesn’t exist, it leads to unwise or bad choices; it results in decisions, even good ones, having no or inadequate consent. Its absence frays the bonds of trust with voters necessary for difficult measures to be taken, to be followed and work. Above all, it reinforces a government uninterested in the hard work of effective policy-making and accountability in its arrogance, its disregard for any check or balance, whether from Parliament or the law."

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,402
    Cyclefree said:

    algarkirk said:

    Thanks for this. Very insightful as always. Just a couple of comments.

    It's not only North Korea but all jurisdictions will have the facility to act by government fiat in particular emergency situations. I'm not sure Cyclefree fully acknowledges the significance of this.

    Therefore to my mind the big issue is not that of big and arbitrary government - for which like Cyclefree I have no fondness. The use of emergency powers when faced with an unknown degree of disaster is unavoidable. Societal collapse did not happen, ghastly though all this was, and that in part is because government acted by decree.

    No, the big issue, which should not be confused with the necessity of government decree in emergency is competence, consistency, moral leadership, lawfulness, the boring stuff of rapid drafting of rules in emergency, and the ability of those with state powers, police etc, to act as grown ups. And, as Cyclefree points out, here the fail was and is epic.

    And finally Cyclefree, while hitting the target, does not, SFAICS, offer solutions to how, given the massive limitations of competence in our overgrown state, it could have been done better.

    And if Labour knows they are not telling us.

    I don't offer solutions or discuss other countries because if I did the headers would be very much longer and I'd get the usual suspects complaining about that.

    Also I wrote it to make the point that it's not just Boris's failings which are the objectionable thing about these rules.

    But some thoughts:

    1. Use the legislation already there for such a purpose ie the Civil Contingencies Act and not some new legislation which no-one has debated or scrutinised. Critically, this meant the powers had to be reviewed every 30 days and not kept in place for months. This change might well have avoided the endless changes and confusion.
    2. Clear consistent communication about what the laws say - none of this mixing up of rules and guidelines.
    3. Clear consistent policy on enforcement to be published and applied and reviewed by the CPS.
    4. Legal advice on the interpretation of the rules to be made public.

    I understand that not everything can be got right on Day One but we had some warning about what was likely and this went on for 2 years.

    The issue is not just the nature of the restrictions but also the process of how they were put in place - how the sausage was made, if you will. And, as others have said elsewhere, how the sausage was made shows us how feeble our processes and institutions are in the face of panic and determination to bulldoze decisions through.
    Thanks. Agreement all round I think.

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,669
    dixiedean said:

    Wrt the scientist.
    The USA can be supremely Puritan at times. Surprising "interventions" from concerned folk when you order a third glass of wine.
    Relationships at work simply aren't treated the same as here. They are generally frowned upon, if not specifically outlawed completely. You can't argue it was consensual between colleagues. That isn't looked on favourably either.
    It's impossible to view it through our cultural lens, where meeting at work is one of the leading ways to form a relationship.
    America is simply a different society to the UK (and Europe) in this regard.
    It has nothing to do with "woke" whatsoever.

    Even in Britain, it is common to have rules limiting relationships between different staff levels, and not just because of concerns about power being abused. If you work for a large company, have a look at your own guidelines.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,809

    Good morning

    I have only read @Cyclefree comment piece and as so often she is spot on and I agree 100% that we must never again allow our country's law makers to pass such idiotic, even ludicrous, laws on us

    Its a shame most posters on this site were in full agreement with the restictions when they were imposed, and most wanted them to go further.
    In April 2020 we were locked into our homes for our own safety and the safety of others.

    All those on here saying, "well I disagreed with this restrictive socialism from day one" seem to have forgotten that if one was over a certain age in April, May, June, or December 2020 and January, February and early March 2021 and one contracted the virus there was a very good chance it was good night Vienna.

    The narrative in part has changed to protect Johnson. "It wasn't so bad in April 2020, which is why Big Dog could party like it was 1999". It really was so bad.

    Whether with hindsight it could have been managed better is open to debate. At the time, we didn't have the benefit of hindsight.
    Not too many people "of a certain age" at nightclubs and raves and, I believe, such people read the newspapers also.

    So lock them down. Voluntarily. Compensate them.

    But the principle is more important than the outcome. The country is now accustomed to what were hitherto unprecedented restrictions on liberty. When else might such laws be deployed. We don't know but it's a known unknown or an unknown unknown but it's out there.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,429

    Good morning

    I have only read @Cyclefree comment piece and as so often she is spot on and I agree 100% that we must never again allow our country's law makers to pass such idiotic, even ludicrous, laws on us

    Its a shame most posters on this site were in full agreement with the restictions when they were imposed, and most wanted them to go further.
    In April 2020 we were locked into our homes for our own safety and the safety of others.

    All those on here saying, "well I disagreed with this restrictive socialism from day one" seem to have forgotten that if one was over a certain age in April, May, June, or December 2020 and January, February and early March 2021 and one contracted the virus there was a very good chance it was good night Vienna.

    The narrative in part has changed to protect Johnson. "It wasn't so bad in April 2020, which is why Big Dog could party like it was 1999". It really was so bad.

    Whether with hindsight it could have been managed better is open to debate. At the time, we didn't have the benefit of hindsight.
    Captain Hindsight did. He would have kept us locked up earlier, later, longer, tighter. Christmas 2021 would have been a very shitty affair, left to SKS.

    He was of course being guided "by the science". Which was massively pessimistic, once the nation was getting vaxxed.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,267

    On topic

    Crace in the Guardian has commented how well Partygate has worked out for Johnson. Investigated and penalised for the most minor of offences which handily brought down Sunak, and not even investigated for the more egregious breach events he attended.

    Gray would have seen Johnson off in January, but Met intervention (not investigation) into Johnson's conduct has neutralised that problem five months later.

    Even better, the LOTO has been investigated and will have to resign on the issuing of an FPN.

    Johnson either has friends in high places or he has sold his soul to the Devil 😈. Probably both.

    Would the Devil pay anything for Johnson's soul?

    It must look like a shrivelled and rancid walnut, giving off a strange odour.
    Maybe the Devil is female. Johnson is catnip to the female of a species.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,631
    TOPPING said:

    Not bad header. But at the time, the consensus in the country and on PB, save for a precious few people (and I 92% include myself in that latter group) were cheering on the restrictions. Even pre-vaccine, which seems to have been a watershed for some, very few and very few on PB spotted the dangers of lockdown as a principle, rather than the effect it might have on the virus.

    Sure, the government saw how in northern Italy people were almost literally dying on the streets but there was always another route short of legal enforcement (with all the pitfalls that @Cyclefree correctly points out).

    And then literally one by one on PB people realised that all along it was the principle that was the danger. And now everyone is applauding this article who were huge lockdown fans at the time.

    And of course, when reviewing the largest restriction on liberty in living memory, someone is going to say seatbelts.

    Is still support the principle of lockdowns, when needed (I think they were needed for periods of this pandemic, particularly pre-vaccine - as I think has been my expressed view throughout).

    The laws were rushed, for obvious reasons. The guidelines were incoherent and often nonsensical. I remember going for a walk with my father in law and my son while my wife went for a walk with my mother in law and our daughter, along the same road, a few tens of yards apart because that was, I believe, the law at that point. Clearly that was no difference, from a disease spread point of view, to us all walking together.

    I have a lot of sympathy with rushed laws and guidance at the start of the first lockdown. Arguably they should have been drafted and debated early in the year, but I don't think any of us really believed it would get so bad at that point. For the later lockdowns (partly with hindsight) there should have been proper debate and scrutiny in advance of a range of restriction options, from which the government could then choose as needed. Any deviation should require full debate or have a very strict time limit.

    Now is the time to do these things, while they are fresh in the mind. Get the epidemiologists to write up some options for different kinds of pathogens, airbourne, surface-spread and sensible restrictions in various levels. Get those voted on and put into a set of restrictions that can be triggered as needed, with a strict time limit before a vote is needed to maintain them. They should also be reviewed with each new government, perhaps. We were caught unprepared, which was understandable, but now is the time to ensure we are better prepared next time and to have the debate about what is and is not acceptable. The epidemiologists should inform that debate, so should the NHS leaders, but also advocacy groups for those who were worst hit by lockdown, those who live alone, who are elderly - or young - and isolated without going into work and socialising. When all that is done, we need the police and CPS to agree guidelines on enforcement and have thes reviewed, to stop the ridiculous harassment we saw of people doing lawful things this time round. Guidance, if issued, should be made clearly distinct from the law: "In addition to the things restricted by law, we also ask you to avoid the following, as much as you can, to reduce spread..."
  • Pelosi is tweeting on the NIP

    The fact that she keeps referring to the "Good Friday Accords" just shows how detached she is from the details. She's just signalling for domestic reasons.
    Believe you are seriously understimating committment of Pelosi and other Democrats - especially politicos like her and Biden who were players in Congress during the Clinton administration when the Good Friday deal went down. And millions more who were keen observers. Not all of whom were Democrats, insiders and onlookers.

    Bringing peace - or reasonable semblence thereof - to Ireland was THE marquee foreign policy achievement of the Clinton presidency. It is NOT just some damn political talking point. We regard it as a human victory, a moral imperative.

    Which YOUR goverment has endangered & undermined, with about as much forethought let alone foresight as a blind dog pisses on handy lamp-post.
    Oh cut the virtue signalling bullshit.

    Brexit doesn't endanger peace in Northern Ireland and it doesn't require a sea border.

    If the UK invokes Article 16, which it is perfectly legally entitled to do under international law, and tears up the 'sea border' and doesn't impose any land checks then how exactly is peace in NI threatened?

    If there's no land border, no sea border, and we're not in the EU - the so-called unicorn - then how does that threaten peace?

    And if peace still exists and the "unicorn" exists post-Article 16 then what is America going to do about it? Are Pelosi and Biden going to try to slay 'the unicorn' and insist upon border checks where none are happening and so jeopardise peace in Northern Ireland? I don't think so.
    I'm busy today as I was yesterday so won't be hanging round on here to bother pulling your posts aparts.

    Do you understand the difference between what you think should happen and reality?

    "Brexit doesn't endanger peace in NI" when it has literally and demonstrably done that is HY levels of delusion.

    "If the UK invokes Article 16" is not the end of the process where you then insist we just "walk away". We can invoke A16 but in the real world will then need to propose alternatives which are acceptable to all sides. As all sides including our own say. You disagree, but you aren't involved so who cares?

    I hope that you won't be too angry when the absolutes you describe turn out to be imaginary.
    No you are categorically wrong, we don't need to propose alternatives which are acceptable to all sides. We need to unilaterally act and implement unilateral safeguards then the unilateral safeguards remain the answer until they're either accepted by all sides, or an alternative is found that is acceptable to all sides.

    So we just implement what is suitable to us and propose that or similar as the acceptable solution, then let the EU come to us with an alternative which is acceptable to us, or we leave our solution in place.

    See this explanatory flow chart. Nowhere does it say that we must satisfy them. Instead what it says is "Safeguard measures retained" or "Agreed solution found" are the only two steps at the bottom. Our own safeguard measures being kept is fine for us, and an agreed solution (my preferred long-term solution) that is agreeable to us, is also fine for us. So where is the problem for us?

    On the other hand if the EU want the safeguards removed rather than being extended every three months (see loop back at bottom) they need find a solution that satisfies us. Otherwise we keep the safeguards, which we're content with and they're not.

    image
    This is as dumb as Tories posting screengrabs of guidelines saying "this proves Starmer broke the law". The part your blinkervision is missing is "Party B may respond with rebalancing measures".

    You think "We trigger A16, we do what we like, the EU do nothing, we win". In the real world, the impact of the rebalancing measures is why the government are all mouth and no trousers over their threats...
    We do win. I couldn't give a hairy crack of a rat's arse about "rebalancing measures".

    What "rebalancing measures" can the EU do? Build a land border? I don't think so.

    If there's no Irish Sea border, no land border and we are out of the EU then the so-called "unicorn" exists and all we are left with is a trade dispute with the EU going against the Good Friday Agreement because they want to build barriers (in the Irish Sea) and we don't.

    All the weaponising of the GFA for the past few years is turned around. Every month that passes in the dispute is another month where the "unicorn" is real and normalised and not a threat to peace, the only threat to peace is the EU wanting a trade dispute.

    And we get to keep our solution until an agreed solution is reached. So as long as we are willing to ride out the rebalancing measures, yes we win. We either get our unilateral solution, or we replace it with an agreement we have reached at the point that we are the guardians of the GFA.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,666
    Good header @Cyclefree . Thanks.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,518

    Scott_xP said:

    Operation Rwanda: @DominicRaab tells @BBCr4today that removals to East Africa likely to be in “the hundreds” a year..rather less than the “tens of thousands” promised last month by @BorisJohnson. More than 600 migrants arrived in small boats last weekend
    https://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/1527550143230246917

    The policy has done its work and helped Big Dog navigate the local elections. I doubt he cares now whether a single person goes there or not. He probably doesn't even remember there was a Rwanda policy.



    If by "navigate" you mean "foundered on the rocks"....

    They were a bad defeat.
    Not bad enough for the MPs to finally do the right thing. And that's all he cares about. Remaining in office.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,267

    Good morning

    I have only read @Cyclefree comment piece and as so often she is spot on and I agree 100% that we must never again allow our country's law makers to pass such idiotic, even ludicrous, laws on us

    Its a shame most posters on this site were in full agreement with the restictions when they were imposed, and most wanted them to go further.
    In April 2020 we were locked into our homes for our own safety and the safety of others.

    All those on here saying, "well I disagreed with this restrictive socialism from day one" seem to have forgotten that if one was over a certain age in April, May, June, or December 2020 and January, February and early March 2021 and one contracted the virus there was a very good chance it was good night Vienna.

    The narrative in part has changed to protect Johnson. "It wasn't so bad in April 2020, which is why Big Dog could party like it was 1999". It really was so bad.

    Whether with hindsight it could have been managed better is open to debate. At the time, we didn't have the benefit of hindsight.
    Captain Hindsight did. He would have kept us locked up earlier, later, longer, tighter. Christmas 2021 would have been a very shitty affair, left to SKS.

    He was of course being guided "by the science". Which was massively pessimistic, once the nation was getting vaxxed.
    Many ion here deriding the lockdowns apparently imposed on us by Starmer and opposed by Johnson haven't even mentioned post Johnson's invention of a vaccine. "It's still April 2020- let me out!"
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,809

    Carnyx said:

    Absolutely agreed Cyclefree.

    Such a draconian stripping of our civil liberties was a monumental and catastrophic blunder and entirely unnecessary as Sweden showed who got through the pandemic without doing so.

    Let those who want to shelter from a virus take actions if they wish to do so, and support them if they wish to do so, but absolutely never again should we strip people of their fundamental freedoms.

    You're bloody optimistic. Another disease will come. And your argument is simply refuted by the reflection that your libertarian philosophy would allow Mary Malone to take any catering job and spread typhoid without restriction. Even laissez-faire USA had to do something with her.

    Execution of gmt policy over the last feww years, yes, arguable. But not the basic principle.
    algarkirk said:

    Thanks for this. Very insightful as always. Just a couple of comments.

    It's not only North Korea but all jurisdictions will have the facility to act by government fiat in particular emergency situations. I'm not sure Cyclefree fully acknowledges the significance of this.

    Therefore to my mind the big issue is not that of big and arbitrary government - for which like Cyclefree I have no fondness. The use of emergency powers when faced with an unknown degree of disaster is unavoidable. Societal collapse did not happen, ghastly though all this was, and that in part is because government acted by decree.

    No, the big issue, which should not be confused with the necessity of government decree in emergency is competence, consistency, moral leadership, lawfulness, the boring stuff of rapid drafting of rules in emergency, and the ability of those with state powers, police etc, to act as grown ups. And, as Cyclefree points out, here the fail was and is epic.

    And finally Cyclefree, while hitting the target, does not, SFAICS, offer solutions to how, given the massive limitations of competence in our overgrown state, it could have been done better.

    And if Labour knows they are not telling us.

    Exactly, with both.

    Pretty much the only way to have it on individual responsibility would be to somehow criminalise the effects of poor individual choices on others. As it's impossible to go: "You infected a bunch of people, some of whom died; although you were fine with the disease's effects on you, those to who you passed it on were not."

    And that can't happen. You don't leave it to personal choice whether or not you quarantine to things, or whether Mary Malone is allowed to work as a chef. You can't.

    The coherence, consistency, and process of the legislation were a ball of chalk, and that's where the Government should have got it right. Yes, it was confusing as to what was happening, but that doesn't justify making inconsistent decrees and incoherent ones.

    At the end of the day, we did get huge and unsustainable pressures on the healthcare system. When England has capacity for around 100,000 acute and general patients, runs at 75,000-95,000 by default, and then gets a flood of thousand of extra patients coming in, growing exponentially, you can't sit back and say, "Oh, chaps, please try to avoid spreading this thing."

    At the first wave peak, England had 3,000 new patients per day. It peaked at 19,000 covid patients. Fortunately, it wasn't running exceptionally hot to start with and did what it could to reduce other patients (and we'll experience the impacts of that for a while) so it survived. Had we decided to let that 3,000 per day continue doubling a little while longer, it wouldn't have worked out well.

    At the second wave peak, we exceeded 4,000 new covid patients every day. The total of covid patients maxed out at just under 35,000, and at a time when the health service runs hottest - at its highest loading. Unsurprisingly, the death rate increased as patients were triaged, other patients had cancellations and reduced care, and we will see the knock-on effects from that for years.

    They took huge and draconian steps to stem the spread of the virus that was causing this. I hated that and I'm still convinced that the Tiers system could have been made to work if people had gone for the higher tiers sooner and we hadn't had all the carping about it being unnecessary/false positives/it's dropping/you can't have a second wave/etc.

    The limits of individual libertarianism are where and how it affects others. In a pandemic, people AREN'T just making choices for their own health and family health, but for that of everyone "downstream" of themselves. And yes, even if you make the right choices and comply, you may well pass it on, but you'll have done whatever you can to reduce that. Safe drivers can crash, but that doesn't excuse reckless drivers.
    Your premise is flawed.

    Aware of the taboo of using the word "flu" in any discussion about Covid, nevertheless "influenza and pneumonia" kills thousands of people every year. We didn't impose any restrictions for that. The issue was always hospital capacity. Otherwise we would arrest everyone who had the flu (knowingly or unknowingly and went on the tube in London).
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    edited May 2022
    Another great @Cyclefree header, and very little to take issue with in what it contains.

    It's worth pointing out, however, what it doesn't contain - any comment on why the government could implement these disastrous restrictions on our freedoms - and that was because both the official opposion and the media demanded not only whatever we ended up with, but more. I fear that if the same thing happens again, the same mistakes will be made because they will be able to dismiss the small number of people opposed to them as nutters, just like they did last time.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,631

    Good morning

    I have only read @Cyclefree comment piece and as so often she is spot on and I agree 100% that we must never again allow our country's law makers to pass such idiotic, even ludicrous, laws on us

    Its a shame most posters on this site were in full agreement with the restictions when they were imposed, and most wanted them to go further.
    In April 2020 we were locked into our homes for our own safety and the safety of others.

    All those on here saying, "well I disagreed with this restrictive socialism from day one" seem to have forgotten that if one was over a certain age in April, May, June, or December 2020 and January, February and early March 2021 and one contracted the virus there was a very good chance it was good night Vienna.

    The narrative in part has changed to protect Johnson. "It wasn't so bad in April 2020, which is why Big Dog could party like it was 1999". It really was so bad.

    Whether with hindsight it could have been managed better is open to debate. At the time, we didn't have the benefit of hindsight.
    Captain Hindsight did. He would have kept us locked up earlier, later, longer, tighter. Christmas 2021 would have been a very shitty affair, left to SKS.

    He was of course being guided "by the science". Which was massively pessimistic, once the nation was getting vaxxed.
    Not all the science. Many scientists were saying they were worried about omicron given the limited data, not that many calling for action outside of iSage. Some of the modelling was eye-watering, to be sure, but not all (there were also models that said we would be ok). SKS was wrong at the end of 2021 and (I think) I said so at the time. To me, it looked opportunistic (a stick to beat the government with if things did go bad) and lowered my opinion of him. Johnson et al got the response to the Omicron situation about right, perhaps they could have even done less than they did, but they resisted panic at least.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    dixiedean said:

    Third.
    Like the DCL goal last night.

    Morning :) - I told you you weren't going down!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,809
    Selebian said:

    TOPPING said:

    Not bad header. But at the time, the consensus in the country and on PB, save for a precious few people (and I 92% include myself in that latter group) were cheering on the restrictions. Even pre-vaccine, which seems to have been a watershed for some, very few and very few on PB spotted the dangers of lockdown as a principle, rather than the effect it might have on the virus.

    Sure, the government saw how in northern Italy people were almost literally dying on the streets but there was always another route short of legal enforcement (with all the pitfalls that @Cyclefree correctly points out).

    And then literally one by one on PB people realised that all along it was the principle that was the danger. And now everyone is applauding this article who were huge lockdown fans at the time.

    And of course, when reviewing the largest restriction on liberty in living memory, someone is going to say seatbelts.

    Is still support the principle of lockdowns, when needed (I think they were needed for periods of this pandemic, particularly pre-vaccine - as I think has been my expressed view throughout).

    The laws were rushed, for obvious reasons. The guidelines were incoherent and often nonsensical. I remember going for a walk with my father in law and my son while my wife went for a walk with my mother in law and our daughter, along the same road, a few tens of yards apart because that was, I believe, the law at that point. Clearly that was no difference, from a disease spread point of view, to us all walking together.

    I have a lot of sympathy with rushed laws and guidance at the start of the first lockdown. Arguably they should have been drafted and debated early in the year, but I don't think any of us really believed it would get so bad at that point. For the later lockdowns (partly with hindsight) there should have been proper debate and scrutiny in advance of a range of restriction options, from which the government could then choose as needed. Any deviation should require full debate or have a very strict time limit.

    Now is the time to do these things, while they are fresh in the mind. Get the epidemiologists to write up some options for different kinds of pathogens, airbourne, surface-spread and sensible restrictions in various levels. Get those voted on and put into a set of restrictions that can be triggered as needed, with a strict time limit before a vote is needed to maintain them. They should also be reviewed with each new government, perhaps. We were caught unprepared, which was understandable, but now is the time to ensure we are better prepared next time and to have the debate about what is and is not acceptable. The epidemiologists should inform that debate, so should the NHS leaders, but also advocacy groups for those who were worst hit by lockdown, those who live alone, who are elderly - or young - and isolated without going into work and socialising. When all that is done, we need the police and CPS to agree guidelines on enforcement and have thes reviewed, to stop the ridiculous harassment we saw of people doing lawful things this time round. Guidance, if issued, should be made clearly distinct from the law: "In addition to the things restricted by law, we also ask you to avoid the following, as much as you can, to reduce spread..."
    Great post.

    But I still prefer guidance, nudges, education, and appropriate compensation rather than laws. Once the lockdown genie is out of the bottle (too late, I appreciate) then that becomes a policy tool for any number of situations. Ask Walter Wolfgang.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Selebian said:

    TOPPING said:

    Not bad header. But at the time, the consensus in the country and on PB, save for a precious few people (and I 92% include myself in that latter group) were cheering on the restrictions. Even pre-vaccine, which seems to have been a watershed for some, very few and very few on PB spotted the dangers of lockdown as a principle, rather than the effect it might have on the virus.

    Sure, the government saw how in northern Italy people were almost literally dying on the streets but there was always another route short of legal enforcement (with all the pitfalls that @Cyclefree correctly points out).

    And then literally one by one on PB people realised that all along it was the principle that was the danger. And now everyone is applauding this article who were huge lockdown fans at the time.

    And of course, when reviewing the largest restriction on liberty in living memory, someone is going to say seatbelts.

    Is still support the principle of lockdowns, when needed (I think they were needed for periods of this pandemic, particularly pre-vaccine - as I think has been my expressed view throughout).

    The laws were rushed, for obvious reasons. The guidelines were incoherent and often nonsensical. I remember going for a walk with my father in law and my son while my wife went for a walk with my mother in law and our daughter, along the same road, a few tens of yards apart because that was, I believe, the law at that point. Clearly that was no difference, from a disease spread point of view, to us all walking together.

    I have a lot of sympathy with rushed laws and guidance at the start of the first lockdown. Arguably they should have been drafted and debated early in the year, but I don't think any of us really believed it would get so bad at that point. For the later lockdowns (partly with hindsight) there should have been proper debate and scrutiny in advance of a range of restriction options, from which the government could then choose as needed. Any deviation should require full debate or have a very strict time limit.

    Now is the time to do these things, while they are fresh in the mind. Get the epidemiologists to write up some options for different kinds of pathogens, airbourne, surface-spread and sensible restrictions in various levels. Get those voted on and put into a set of restrictions that can be triggered as needed, with a strict time limit before a vote is needed to maintain them. They should also be reviewed with each new government, perhaps. We were caught unprepared, which was understandable, but now is the time to ensure we are better prepared next time and to have the debate about what is and is not acceptable. The epidemiologists should inform that debate, so should the NHS leaders, but also advocacy groups for those who were worst hit by lockdown, those who live alone, who are elderly - or young - and isolated without going into work and socialising. When all that is done, we need the police and CPS to agree guidelines on enforcement and have thes reviewed, to stop the ridiculous harassment we saw of people doing lawful things this time round. Guidance, if issued, should be made clearly distinct from the law: "In addition to the things restricted by law, we also ask you to avoid the following, as much as you can, to reduce spread..."
    The problem with your suggestion here is that in early 2020 the government had a pandemic plan, and when the pandemic hit, the media stampeded them into a panic and the first thing they did was throw it in the bin.
  • Carnyx said:

    Absolutely agreed Cyclefree.

    Such a draconian stripping of our civil liberties was a monumental and catastrophic blunder and entirely unnecessary as Sweden showed who got through the pandemic without doing so.

    Let those who want to shelter from a virus take actions if they wish to do so, and support them if they wish to do so, but absolutely never again should we strip people of their fundamental freedoms.

    You're bloody optimistic. Another disease will come. And your argument is simply refuted by the reflection that your libertarian philosophy would allow Mary Malone to take any catering job and spread typhoid without restriction. Even laissez-faire USA had to do something with her.

    Execution of gmt policy over the last feww years, yes, arguable. But not the basic principle.
    Mary Malone was an individual who was known to have the disease, not the entire country who did not.

    Quarantining the sick or people arriving into the country has happened since Medieval ages. Locking down the entire bloody country in peacetime was unprecedented and must never happen again.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,809
    Applicant said:

    Another great @Cyclefree header, and very little to take issue with in what it contains.

    It's worth pointing out, however, what it doesn't contain - any comment on why the government could implement these disastrous restrictions on our freedoms - and that was because both the official opposion and the media demanded not only whatever we ended up with, but more. I fear that if the same thing happens again, the same mistakes will be made because they will be able to dismiss the small number of people opposed to them as nutters, just like they did last time.

    And for that we, sadly but necessarily, have to look at the opinion polls. All hugely in favour of restrictions. Wasn't there one wherein around 10% of people wanted nightclubs to remain closed forever.

    And PB contained some of the most vocal lockdown cheerleaders.
This discussion has been closed.