"People may need to continue to follow social distancing, work from home, wear masks and comply with test and trace long after the end of the reopening road map, scientists have told the government.
Experts from Sage, the government’s science advisory group, warned ministers that a series of measures “are likely to be needed beyond the end of the current road map process” to avoid “the likelihood of having to reverse parts of the road map”." (£)
Whether its Delta sweeping through a low vaccinated population or a possible new variant travel restrictions need to be tightened immediately.
This time there's no possibility of sucking up to Modi for better post-Brexit trade deals being involved, quite the opposite, so who knows what may take place.
They almost never prosecute. I've breached Section 2 many times.
So far as we are aware, you are not Dominic Cummings and you are not directly pissing off the PM.
In Scotland the going rate for an offence of that type is apparently 8 months (subject to a potential appeal to the Supreme Court).
If you think prosecuting Cummings for this will in any way help the Government then you are incredibly naive. Even if people hate Cummings, he will get massive support for the fact he has exposed the failings that led to thousands of unnecessary deaths.
What is amusing is we seem to have moved in a matter of a couple of weeks from
"Cummings was lying and has presented no evidence"
to
"How dare Cummings present evidence"
Who will Cummings get massive support from. He lost all credibility a year ago. No one is interested in him. His appearance at the Select Committee led to the tories increasing their poll lead.
Delivering the vaccine success is credibility. Cummings said you cannot leave it to NHS to procure them, it has to be taken away and given to a vaccine task force. Which was innovative. No matter what people think of Cummings, have to concede that one?
What sort of mess would Hancock and Boris be in today without the success of Cummings vaccine programme?
I was just asking who will get Cummings get support from. The man was ridiculed for months. My view on Cummings is not relevant to my point. Without him Boris would probably not be in Number 10. he is a brilliant political strategist, but his trip up North has ruined his credibility.
Agreed he is a brilliant strategist. But what do you think his strategic aim is now?
(And why is Michael Gove keeping so quiet? Lol. But there really is no way Cummings is going to take over "SW1" with Gove as his little man next time.)
He is a very angry man, pure and simple. Having looked at the evidence i have no doubt its true, but the public wont believe it, even with my limited IT skills I could create Whatsapp messages to put on a twitter feed that will look like the ones he has put on there. Thats what people will think he has done. He will need Whatsapp to put in writing that those messages actually happened, the date, time, who from, who to etc etc before he will get a hearing and there is no way Whatsapp will do that.
Cummings says: “Unlike other PMs, this one has a clear plan to leave at the latest a couple of years after the next election, he wants to make money and have fun not ‘go on and on’."
Includes whatsapps from Boris calling Hancock useless.
Wow. There's screens of material.
He really really really hates Hancock doesn't he.
"Totally fucking useless"
This is seriously close to a breach of the Official Secrets Act, notwithstanding his protestations about having evidence demanded by the Committee. He hasn't so much burnt his bridges as incinerated them. Does he have no plans to work again?
I have a lot of time for his analysis of the failings of Whitehall. I agree with him that we need better use of genuine experts and better information for our decision makers. I also agree that it is disappointing that so many of those decision makers are innumerate, ignorant, not very bright and apparently uninterested in learning.
But this is disgraceful. It really is.
It is not disgraceful at all. It is exactly what should be happening. When the Government is relying on outright lies to committees to protect their reputation after the massive fuck ups they have made it is a public duty to have this stuff out in the open.
I hope Cummings has a lot more of this stuff and it all comes out. What is disgraceful is that it needs whistleblowing like this to get to the facts.
I think, with respect, you are confusing 2 different kinds of disgrace. Of course it is a disgrace that Hancock in particular has been lying to the select committee. But it is also impossible to work with people if you have to worry that every IM or Whatsapp you send is being recorded for posterity. The Official Secrets Act is there to make sure that government can actually work.
Perhaps one of the PB Rumpoles could weigh in on whether Hancock being useless is an Official Secret. It could be the prosecution of the Century, or the plot of Yes, Minister.
Cummings says: “Unlike other PMs, this one has a clear plan to leave at the latest a couple of years after the next election, he wants to make money and have fun not ‘go on and on’."
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Anecdotal from Leeds university: Indian variant like wildfire through undergraduate population incl some who have already had covid. Kent variant never touched them
Anecdotal from Leeds university: Indian variant like wildfire through undergraduate population incl some who have already had covid. Kent variant never touched them
Sounds fishy to me. Most students will not have been at University (exams, taken remotely etc).
Anecdotal from Leeds university: Indian variant like wildfire through undergraduate population incl some who have already had covid. Kent variant never touched them
That doesn’t sound good. However, it does suggest that there are clusters of cases which quickly burn out, as opposed to the more widespread infection that was observed in the prior waves.
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Although we've never needed to wear masks outside, so its not exactly comparing apples and apples is it? This is one of the tricky bits. People keep saying we are still in lockdown, we are clearly NOT, but there are some restrictions with a disproportionate impact on some business, and an annoyance for some in their lives (masks for me).
Includes whatsapps from Boris calling Hancock useless.
No it doesn't.
The most revealing thing is Johnson's question on the ppe disaster "is this from tonight focus group and polls"
Not "is PPE actually a disaster, but "do voters think it's a disaster"?
There's a screenshot of Boris saying "It's Hancock - he has been hopeless".
Even more damning, considering replacing shit Predator with awful Alien
I actually read that as the PM saying give PPE responsibility to Gove, not sacking Hancock and replacing him with Gove.
One of my main criticisms of the govt last spring was the sheer amount of responsibility left with Hancock whilst other more senior ministers had little to do. However bad Hancock is or was no-one could have done his job well, it was too much.
It would have been the right thing to do to give it Gove (or someone else).
They almost never prosecute. I've breached Section 2 many times.
So far as we are aware, you are not Dominic Cummings and you are not directly pissing off the PM.
In Scotland the going rate for an offence of that type is apparently 8 months (subject to a potential appeal to the Supreme Court).
If you think prosecuting Cummings for this will in any way help the Government then you are incredibly naive. Even if people hate Cummings, he will get massive support for the fact he has exposed the failings that led to thousands of unnecessary deaths.
What is amusing is we seem to have moved in a matter of a couple of weeks from
"Cummings was lying and has presented no evidence"
to
"How dare Cummings present evidence"
Who will Cummings get massive support from. He lost all credibility a year ago. No one is interested in him. His appearance at the Select Committee led to the tories increasing their poll lead.
Delivering the vaccine success is credibility. Cummings said you cannot leave it to NHS to procure them, it has to be taken away and given to a vaccine task force. Which was innovative. No matter what people think of Cummings, have to concede that one?
What sort of mess would Hancock and Boris be in today without the success of Cummings vaccine programme?
I was just asking who will get Cummings get support from. The man was ridiculed for months. My view on Cummings is not relevant to my point. Without him Boris would probably not be in Number 10. he is a brilliant political strategist, but his trip up North has ruined his credibility.
Agreed he is a brilliant strategist. But what do you think his strategic aim is now?
(And why is Michael Gove keeping so quiet? Lol. But there really is no way Cummings is going to take over "SW1" with Gove as his little man next time.)
He is a very angry man, pure and simple. Having looked at the evidence i have no doubt its true, but the public wont believe it, even with my limited IT skills I could create Whatsapp messages to put on a twitter feed that will look like the ones he has put on there. Thats what people will think he has done. He will need Whatsapp to put in writing that those messages actually happened, the date, time, who from, who to etc etc before he will get a hearing and there is no way Whatsapp will do that.
I could see the Select Committee requesting the data, as a formal, legal request. Not sure what the situation about verifiability is with WhatsApp messages, though.
What if the Conservatives keep winning not because of Evil Right Wing Media or Lies and Bigotry but because, for a critical mass of voters, life is OK and they're quite happy with the status quo?
"People may need to continue to follow social distancing, work from home, wear masks and comply with test and trace long after the end of the reopening road map, scientists have told the government.
Experts from Sage, the government’s science advisory group, warned ministers that a series of measures “are likely to be needed beyond the end of the current road map process” to avoid “the likelihood of having to reverse parts of the road map”." (£)
Sage seem to have forgotten the basic SEIR model here. Interventions other than vaccination only delay spread. We'll be into the tail end of vaccinations through July, herd immunity is the only true way out from the virus and if people want to gain immunity the hard way (Outwith the vaccine) then that's up to them.
They almost never prosecute. I've breached Section 2 many times.
So far as we are aware, you are not Dominic Cummings and you are not directly pissing off the PM.
In Scotland the going rate for an offence of that type is apparently 8 months (subject to a potential appeal to the Supreme Court).
If you think prosecuting Cummings for this will in any way help the Government then you are incredibly naive. Even if people hate Cummings, he will get massive support for the fact he has exposed the failings that led to thousands of unnecessary deaths.
What is amusing is we seem to have moved in a matter of a couple of weeks from
"Cummings was lying and has presented no evidence"
to
"How dare Cummings present evidence"
Who will Cummings get massive support from. He lost all credibility a year ago. No one is interested in him. His appearance at the Select Committee led to the tories increasing their poll lead.
Delivering the vaccine success is credibility. Cummings said you cannot leave it to NHS to procure them, it has to be taken away and given to a vaccine task force. Which was innovative. No matter what people think of Cummings, have to concede that one?
What sort of mess would Hancock and Boris be in today without the success of Cummings vaccine programme?
I was just asking who will get Cummings get support from. The man was ridiculed for months. My view on Cummings is not relevant to my point. Without him Boris would probably not be in Number 10. he is a brilliant political strategist, but his trip up North has ruined his credibility.
Agreed he is a brilliant strategist. But what do you think his strategic aim is now?
(And why is Michael Gove keeping so quiet? Lol. But there really is no way Cummings is going to take over "SW1" with Gove as his little man next time.)
He is a very angry man, pure and simple. Having looked at the evidence i have no doubt its true, but the public wont believe it, even with my limited IT skills I could create Whatsapp messages to put on a twitter feed that will look like the ones he has put on there. Thats what people will think he has done. He will need Whatsapp to put in writing that those messages actually happened, the date, time, who from, who to etc etc before he will get a hearing and there is no way Whatsapp will do that.
I could see the Select Committee requesting the data, as a formal, legal request. Not sure what the situation about verifiability is with WhatsApp messages, though.
There's no way Boris is going to say they're faked unless they really are so I can't see it being an issue.
Have the women's Test cricket on in the background and it's very odd.
Women's top sprinters are c. 10% slower than top men. Top lady golfers drive it c. 280 vs 320 for men so a similar gap.
Yet the opening bowlers here are just incredibly slow, 25% or more down on a reasonably paced male bowler. Just wondering if anyone follows this whether that is an Indian team point or a general issue?
Fast-medium bowlers in men's cricket are at about 140kph and the women's team are pushing 120kph - so not far off that 10% difference.
Indian opening bowlers didn't crack 110kph once that I saw in the half hour I watched.
I'd guess women's fastest internationals are typically bowling somewhere around a University side's level - ~100-120kph. To be fair, that's round about where most medium-fast balls are delivered in the County championship.
I'm sorry but that's just wrong.
All country championship cricket is now broadcast on youtube - in the far too much cricket I've watched so far, with the exception of Darren Stevens there isn't a regular bowler out there averaging below 120kph, with most over 130kph. 100kph is barely quicker than a spin bowler.
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
11pm curfew: does absolutely nothing to stop spread and may even be counterproductive masks outdoors: does absolutely nothing to stop the spread and may even be counterproductive
Much as I lament the decision not to go ahead with 21st June, doing what was planned would have almost certainly lead to an increase in the spread, so the decision is at least understandable in a very narrow sense.
I think France has made the better decision. But I'm optimistic that both UK and France will be fine.
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Although we've never needed to wear masks outside, so its not exactly comparing apples and apples is it? This is one of the tricky bits. People keep saying we are still in lockdown, we are clearly NOT, but there are some restrictions with a disproportionate impact on some business, and an annoyance for some in their lives (masks for me).
A law stating how many people you can have into your house is imo a lockdown.
Cummings says: “Unlike other PMs, this one has a clear plan to leave at the latest a couple of years after the next election, he wants to make money and have fun not ‘go on and on’."
Who was the last PM who from Downing Street won three consecutive general elections?
Winning a second GE then leaving a few years later is pretty successful not embarrassing. It would be embarrassing if he was planning to not even face the next election as he thought he'd lose to Keir.
Includes whatsapps from Boris calling Hancock useless.
No it doesn't.
The most revealing thing is Johnson's question on the ppe disaster "is this from tonight focus group and polls"
Not "is PPE actually a disaster, but "do voters think it's a disaster"?
There's a screenshot of Boris saying "It's Hancock - he has been hopeless".
Even more damning, considering replacing shit Predator with awful Alien
I actually read that as the PM saying give PPE responsibility to Gove, not sacking Hancock and replacing him with Gove.
One of my main criticisms of the govt last spring was the sheer amount of responsibility left with Hancock whilst other more senior ministers had little to do. However bad Hancock is or was no-one could have done his job well, it was too much.
It would have been the right thing to do to give it Gove (or someone else).
Yes, the combination of Health and Social Care under Hunt seemed sensible at the time but in a pandemic Hancock's responsibilities were vast.
Interesting that Gove is still Boris's go to "fixer".
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
This care home staff compulsory vax business is going to be a big story. Totally incoherent care home worker on WATO. Freedom of choice, innit?
Freedom of choice to find another job then.....
The Social care sector isn’t exactly chockablock with excess staff though, is it? If staff are forced to quit/choose to quit, and can’t be replaced, then there’s obviously a problem...
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Although we've never needed to wear masks outside, so its not exactly comparing apples and apples is it? This is one of the tricky bits. People keep saying we are still in lockdown, we are clearly NOT, but there are some restrictions with a disproportionate impact on some business, and an annoyance for some in their lives (masks for me).
A law stating how many people you can have into your house is imo a lockdown.
Spot on. All these smarmy takes about how there are barely any restrictions left, but it's illegal to have 7 people at a dinner party in your own bloody home. It's almost a case study in slippery slopes that people seem to think this is basically normal.
What if the Conservatives keep winning not because of Evil Right Wing Media or Lies and Bigotry but because, for a critical mass of voters, life is OK and they're quite happy with the status quo?
Status quo? What on earth is that? We are hugely dislocated from anything resembling normal.
I think more likely it is a nanny thing for people (not a criticism, quite understandable). Which the govt either actively or passively encourages with its measures and messaging.
I haven't read Guido, I'm reading Cumming's blog, it is there in black and white.
Helpful to post a link......
Cummings isn't going to score a hit until the zeitgeist changes. The fact that Boris says stuff and does stuff in priced in. DC isn't helped by the fact that when he was loyal he was execrated by the entire centre left/left, and now he has no friends on the centre right either. As I recall the only people supporting him over the Durham matter are the people he is now execrating.
In a normal world people like David Allen Green would be lauding him to the skies. But they are falling short of that. Not least because exactly those commentators were his most accurate critics.
DC could easily be proved right about everything when the spirit of the age changes, but then it won't matter because Boris won't matter. Until then, unless Boris nukes Norway, Cummings is marginal and only for wonks and geeks; any smoking guns from the past don't count and there are no smoking guns just this minute.
This care home staff compulsory vax business is going to be a big story. Totally incoherent care home worker on WATO. Freedom of choice, innit?
Freedom of choice to find another job then.....
The Social care sector isn’t exactly chockablock with excess staff though, is it? If staff are forced to quit/choose to quit, and can’t be replaced, then there’s obviously a problem...
You would have thought PB Tories would understand supply and demand
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Although we've never needed to wear masks outside, so its not exactly comparing apples and apples is it? This is one of the tricky bits. People keep saying we are still in lockdown, we are clearly NOT, but there are some restrictions with a disproportionate impact on some business, and an annoyance for some in their lives (masks for me).
A law stating how many people you can have into your house is imo a lockdown.
A fair point, but ask yourself how many arrests we have seen for breaking this law in the last two months (or indeed at all)?
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Although we've never needed to wear masks outside, so its not exactly comparing apples and apples is it? This is one of the tricky bits. People keep saying we are still in lockdown, we are clearly NOT, but there are some restrictions with a disproportionate impact on some business, and an annoyance for some in their lives (masks for me).
A law stating how many people you can have into your house is imo a lockdown.
Spot on. All these smarmy takes about how there are barely any restrictions left, but it's illegal to have 7 people at a dinner party in your own bloody home. It's almost a case study in slippery slopes that people seem to think this is basically normal.
Yep. Out and about yesterday in London. We are in Lockdown make no mistake.
Or if people don't like the term lockdown, perhaps we should rename it - "Under Control"?
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Although we've never needed to wear masks outside, so its not exactly comparing apples and apples is it? This is one of the tricky bits. People keep saying we are still in lockdown, we are clearly NOT, but there are some restrictions with a disproportionate impact on some business, and an annoyance for some in their lives (masks for me).
A law stating how many people you can have into your house is imo a lockdown.
A fair point, but ask yourself how many arrests we have seen for breaking this law in the last two months (or indeed at all)?
Maybe but that's no way to live life. Not so much fun waiting for the knock on the door when you have your parents, brothers and sisters over for lunch.
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Although we've never needed to wear masks outside, so its not exactly comparing apples and apples is it? This is one of the tricky bits. People keep saying we are still in lockdown, we are clearly NOT, but there are some restrictions with a disproportionate impact on some business, and an annoyance for some in their lives (masks for me).
A law stating how many people you can have into your house is imo a lockdown.
A fair point, but ask yourself how many arrests we have seen for breaking this law in the last two months (or indeed at all)?
That is immaterial. Either a law is enforced or it should not be a law. Having a law which has the purpose of frightening people into behaving without the intention of actually enforcing it is simply wrong.
This care home staff compulsory vax business is going to be a big story. Totally incoherent care home worker on WATO. Freedom of choice, innit?
Freedom of choice to find another job then.....
The Social care sector isn’t exactly chockablock with excess staff though, is it? If staff are forced to quit/choose to quit, and can’t be replaced, then there’s obviously a problem...
It may well be a problem but it’s still the right thing to do.
If we have to pay the staff more to fill the gap, then so be it.
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Although we've never needed to wear masks outside, so its not exactly comparing apples and apples is it? This is one of the tricky bits. People keep saying we are still in lockdown, we are clearly NOT, but there are some restrictions with a disproportionate impact on some business, and an annoyance for some in their lives (masks for me).
A law stating how many people you can have into your house is imo a lockdown.
A fair point, but ask yourself how many arrests we have seen for breaking this law in the last two months (or indeed at all)?
Maybe but that's no way to live life. Not so much fun waiting for the knock on the door when you have your parents, brothers and sisters over for lunch.
Oh come on - is anyone really waiting anxiously for the plod to knock on the door? They are not enforcing the rule of six in homes.
I’ll probably be corrected, but it seems to me that, on the whole, Muslims and Jews have never really got on, and the rising levels of islamophobia & anti- semitism are nothing more than there being more opportunities for them to clash in England than there used to be. We never really saw it this close up before
The worry for me is that if Labour lose the Muslim vote in the inner cities, an Islamic party will step into the vacuum - that would be a disastrous outcome
"Muslims and Jews have never really got on"
except for the loads of people of whatever faith who have got on fine with each other.
why not say eg "on the whole, Christians and Jews have never got on" if you're going to make silly comments?
The vast majority of Christians, Muslims and Jews all get on just fine. Every faith and none has its few idiots, as well as the civil wars between Catholic and Protestant, Sunni and Shia that have gone on for centuries.
Indeed. Muslims and Jews are now forming the coalition Government in Israel. So they must be 'getting on' there to some extent at least.
Oh they get on just fine now, that's a relief. 2000 years of hurt over!
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Although we've never needed to wear masks outside, so its not exactly comparing apples and apples is it? This is one of the tricky bits. People keep saying we are still in lockdown, we are clearly NOT, but there are some restrictions with a disproportionate impact on some business, and an annoyance for some in their lives (masks for me).
Yes - they are relaxing measures we haven't had. We are not relaxing further.
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Although we've never needed to wear masks outside, so its not exactly comparing apples and apples is it? This is one of the tricky bits. People keep saying we are still in lockdown, we are clearly NOT, but there are some restrictions with a disproportionate impact on some business, and an annoyance for some in their lives (masks for me).
A law stating how many people you can have into your house is imo a lockdown.
Spot on. All these smarmy takes about how there are barely any restrictions left, but it's illegal to have 7 people at a dinner party in your own bloody home. It's almost a case study in slippery slopes that people seem to think this is basically normal.
Highly likely that many of those PBers who support enduring restrictions have indeed broken the Rule of Six, because they only think restrictions apply to other people.
If Cummings is accused of lying to a parliamentary committee then he has a right to defend himself, but what was he doing in the first place taking photos of whiteboards in the PM's study and of a monitor screen displaying a Whatsapp conversation with the PM?
Who helps him keep his photos secure? What is he allowed to take photos of and what isn't he?
Did he wire himself for sound when he was at No.10/No.70 too?
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Although we've never needed to wear masks outside, so its not exactly comparing apples and apples is it? This is one of the tricky bits. People keep saying we are still in lockdown, we are clearly NOT, but there are some restrictions with a disproportionate impact on some business, and an annoyance for some in their lives (masks for me).
A law stating how many people you can have into your house is imo a lockdown.
A fair point, but ask yourself how many arrests we have seen for breaking this law in the last two months (or indeed at all)?
That is immaterial. Either a law is enforced or it should not be a law. Having a law which has the purpose of frightening people into behaving without the intention of actually enforcing it is simply wrong.
I agree with you and Topping on this - its not being enforced so it should not be a law. Stick to guidance only. I suspect many, many folk are breaking this on a regular basis.
Anecdotal from Leeds university: Indian variant like wildfire through undergraduate population incl some who have already had covid. Kent variant never touched them
Sounds fishy to me. Most students will not have been at University (exams, taken remotely etc).
Anecdotal from Leeds university: Indian variant like wildfire through undergraduate population incl some who have already had covid. Kent variant never touched them
Sounds fishy to me. Most students will not have been at University (exams, taken remotely etc).
What if the Conservatives keep winning not because of Evil Right Wing Media or Lies and Bigotry but because, for a critical mass of voters, life is OK and they're quite happy with the status quo?
Exactly two factors are behind current Tory success: they are seen as better than the only alternative government by a plurality of people and they occupy virtually the entire centre right ground while the centre left is split Lab, LD, SNP, Green.
Being better than the alternative does not imply or entail being good. It's all relative. The voter is the hungry tiger chasing two parties and one will run faster than the other even though it isn't Usain Bolt.
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Although we've never needed to wear masks outside, so its not exactly comparing apples and apples is it? This is one of the tricky bits. People keep saying we are still in lockdown, we are clearly NOT, but there are some restrictions with a disproportionate impact on some business, and an annoyance for some in their lives (masks for me).
A law stating how many people you can have into your house is imo a lockdown.
Spot on. All these smarmy takes about how there are barely any restrictions left, but it's illegal to have 7 people at a dinner party in your own bloody home. It's almost a case study in slippery slopes that people seem to think this is basically normal.
Agreed - we need to DEMAND that our MPs make sure ALL restrictions are lifted. We must not accept any "new normal" afterwards. Shame on us all if we do.
They almost never prosecute. I've breached Section 2 many times.
So far as we are aware, you are not Dominic Cummings and you are not directly pissing off the PM.
In Scotland the going rate for an offence of that type is apparently 8 months (subject to a potential appeal to the Supreme Court).
If you think prosecuting Cummings for this will in any way help the Government then you are incredibly naive. Even if people hate Cummings, he will get massive support for the fact he has exposed the failings that led to thousands of unnecessary deaths.
What is amusing is we seem to have moved in a matter of a couple of weeks from
"Cummings was lying and has presented no evidence"
to
"How dare Cummings present evidence"
Who will Cummings get massive support from. He lost all credibility a year ago. No one is interested in him. His appearance at the Select Committee led to the tories increasing their poll lead.
LOL. The desperation of the party faithful.
He is publishing messages that prove what he said was true and that Ministers have been lying about what was said and done. If this continues then poor polling will be the least of their problems.
He’s brilliant. I take back all those things I may have said about him on here around May last year. Who knew he would provide such high quality entertainment and insight.
If he wants to set up a new opposition party to fill the void left by Labour and the LDs, count me in!
The new Robert Kilroy-Silk? :-) The way he talks about "both" parties being pants suggests he either has the storming to power by a new party in mind (which election would that happen in?) or else some Monty Pythonesque "non-party" "solution". He's nuts. Which isn't to say those parties aren't pants, but this guy has a saviour complex.
I don't think he has any interest in forming a party or being a politician himself at all., Like me he thinks basically almost all politicians are self serving scum.
Anecdotal from Leeds university: Indian variant like wildfire through undergraduate population incl some who have already had covid. Kent variant never touched them
Sounds fishy to me. Most students will not have been at University (exams, taken remotely etc).
It's from one who is.
Need way more detail. Documented cases of reinfection worldwide are vanishingly rare. More likely someone who was ill at the same time as covid, but not covid (don't forget how many tests are negative, and originally we were only testing with symptoms) and now has covid. Bit like all those who were ill in Dec 2019, and Jan-Feb2020 who are convinced they had covid, like my wife, who tested negative for antibodies later in 2020. I can believe it has spread in that age group though - mostly unvaccinated, and likely to be social.
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Although we've never needed to wear masks outside, so its not exactly comparing apples and apples is it? This is one of the tricky bits. People keep saying we are still in lockdown, we are clearly NOT, but there are some restrictions with a disproportionate impact on some business, and an annoyance for some in their lives (masks for me).
A law stating how many people you can have into your house is imo a lockdown.
A fair point, but ask yourself how many arrests we have seen for breaking this law in the last two months (or indeed at all)?
That is immaterial. Either a law is enforced or it should not be a law. Having a law which has the purpose of frightening people into behaving without the intention of actually enforcing it is simply wrong.
So you think that we should all have speed limiters in all our vehicles then? Or should speed limits only apply where there is a camera?
Law does have an important "nudge" element to it but I agree it is not a good thing that people should be getting used to only complying with the law when they feel like it.
I’ll probably be corrected, but it seems to me that, on the whole, Muslims and Jews have never really got on, and the rising levels of islamophobia & anti- semitism are nothing more than there being more opportunities for them to clash in England than there used to be. We never really saw it this close up before
The worry for me is that if Labour lose the Muslim vote in the inner cities, an Islamic party will step into the vacuum - that would be a disastrous outcome
"Muslims and Jews have never really got on"
except for the loads of people of whatever faith who have got on fine with each other.
why not say eg "on the whole, Christians and Jews have never got on" if you're going to make silly comments?
The vast majority of Christians, Muslims and Jews all get on just fine. Every faith and none has its few idiots, as well as the civil wars between Catholic and Protestant, Sunni and Shia that have gone on for centuries.
Indeed. Muslims and Jews are now forming the coalition Government in Israel. So they must be 'getting on' there to some extent at least.
Oh they get on just fine now, that's a relief. 2000 years of hurt over!
Anecdotal from Leeds university: Indian variant like wildfire through undergraduate population incl some who have already had covid. Kent variant never touched them
Sounds fishy to me. Most students will not have been at University (exams, taken remotely etc).
It's from one who is.
Need way more detail. Documented cases of reinfection worldwide are vanishingly rare. More likely someone who was ill at the same time as covid, but not covid (don't forget how many tests are negative, and originally we were only testing with symptoms) and now has covid. Bit like all those who were ill in Dec 2019, and Jan-Feb2020 who are convinced they had covid, like my wife, who tested negative for antibodies later in 2020. I can believe it has spread in that age group though - mostly unvaccinated, and likely to be social.
The cases are definitely highest in the student age groups
It is worth noting that at the height of things, the vast majority of tests for COVID were coming back negative. If someone has the symptoms and gets a test, the odds are very much they *don't* have COVID....
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Although we've never needed to wear masks outside, so its not exactly comparing apples and apples is it? This is one of the tricky bits. People keep saying we are still in lockdown, we are clearly NOT, but there are some restrictions with a disproportionate impact on some business, and an annoyance for some in their lives (masks for me).
A law stating how many people you can have into your house is imo a lockdown.
A fair point, but ask yourself how many arrests we have seen for breaking this law in the last two months (or indeed at all)?
Maybe but that's no way to live life. Not so much fun waiting for the knock on the door when you have your parents, brothers and sisters over for lunch.
Authoritarian measures should only ever be in place in extremis
Alongside WWI; WWII and the spanish flu, Covid pre vaccination was in my view in extremis. Post offering of every 18 year old a first dose with boosters and treatments progressing every day it most certainly is not.
If Cummings is accused of lying to a parliamentary committee then he has a right to defend himself, but what was he doing in the first place taking photos of whiteboards in the PM's study and of a monitor screen displaying a Whatsapp conversation with the PM?
Who helps him keep his photos secure? What is he allowed to take photos of and what isn't he?
Did he wire himself for sound when he was at No.10/No.70 too?
Well his Whatsapp conversations will be from his Whatsapp. I can go back and look at conversations from years ago (In fact to check I just did). They will have been sat on his phone ever since. He had no need to copy them at the time because unless he deletes them they will still be there.
As for photographing white boards, literally every business I have worked in since mobile phone cameras started does exactly that. It is a quick and easy way of making sure you capture everything that was important in a brainstorming exercise. Again I have dozens of photos of whiteboards on my phone from meetings going back 4 or 5years. None of this requires a malicious motive (though I don't deny it can also facilitate a malicious motive). It is just normal practice and 'how things happen'.
Yesterday I was in and out of stations and decided for a short amount of time not to wear my mask. There were plenty of marshalls and enforcement officers and so forth dotted around and signs saying you could be fined for not wearing a mask, etc.
The govt says the following:
"The police can take measures if members of the public do not comply with this law without a valid exemption and transport operators can deny access to their public transport services if a passenger is not wearing a face covering, or direct them to wear one or leave a service.
If necessary the police and Transport for London (TfL) officers have enforcement powers, including issuing fines of £200 (reduced to £100 if paid within 14 days) for the first offence.
Repeat offenders receiving fines on public transport or in an indoor setting will have their fines doubled at each offence.
After the first offence there will be no discount. For example, receiving a second fine will amount to £400 and a third fine will be £800, up to a maximum value of £6,400."
But the list of exemptions is such that you can decide not to wear one for a practicably unlimited number of reasons (eg. you will feel distress...). Equally, if you do decide not to wear one.
"If you have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering:
you do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this you do not need show an exemption card This means that you do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering."
So the government says by law you must wear a facemask, punishable by fines of up to £6,400, whereas you can decide you need not or don't want to wear one.
Anecdotal from Leeds university: Indian variant like wildfire through undergraduate population incl some who have already had covid. Kent variant never touched them
Sounds fishy to me. Most students will not have been at University (exams, taken remotely etc).
It's from one who is.
Wouldn't reinfection be a massive story?
Like I said, anecdotal. Alleged victim is soon of friend I am currently having lunch with.
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Although we've never needed to wear masks outside, so its not exactly comparing apples and apples is it? This is one of the tricky bits. People keep saying we are still in lockdown, we are clearly NOT, but there are some restrictions with a disproportionate impact on some business, and an annoyance for some in their lives (masks for me).
A law stating how many people you can have into your house is imo a lockdown.
A fair point, but ask yourself how many arrests we have seen for breaking this law in the last two months (or indeed at all)?
Maybe but that's no way to live life. Not so much fun waiting for the knock on the door when you have your parents, brothers and sisters over for lunch.
Oh come on - is anyone really waiting anxiously for the plod to knock on the door? They are not enforcing the rule of six in homes.
As @Richard_Tyndall said, it is the law. Why have it when it won't be enforced and I can assure you that many people adhere to it.
If Cummings is accused of lying to a parliamentary committee then he has a right to defend himself, but what was he doing in the first place taking photos of whiteboards in the PM's study and of a monitor screen displaying a Whatsapp conversation with the PM?
Who helps him keep his photos secure? What is he allowed to take photos of and what isn't he?
Did he wire himself for sound when he was at No.10/No.70 too?
Putting Cummings aside for a minute, this is the same issue with anyone WFH. How can firms be sure that confidential material is not being photographed or printed by employees with no shredders? When I consult my GP online about the lump I found while showering yesterday, how can I be sure her teenage daughter is not sending my dickpic to the Lower Sixth WhatsApp group?
Anecdotal from Leeds university: Indian variant like wildfire through undergraduate population incl some who have already had covid. Kent variant never touched them
Sounds fishy to me. Most students will not have been at University (exams, taken remotely etc).
It's from one who is.
Wouldn't reinfection be a massive story?
Like I said, anecdotal. Alleged victim is soon of friend I am currently having lunch with.
Neutralising efficacy from prior infection alone may not be enough to prevent infection so it's possible. Infection + even a single dose of vaccination is very strong mind.
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Although we've never needed to wear masks outside, so its not exactly comparing apples and apples is it? This is one of the tricky bits. People keep saying we are still in lockdown, we are clearly NOT, but there are some restrictions with a disproportionate impact on some business, and an annoyance for some in their lives (masks for me).
A law stating how many people you can have into your house is imo a lockdown.
A fair point, but ask yourself how many arrests we have seen for breaking this law in the last two months (or indeed at all)?
That is immaterial. Either a law is enforced or it should not be a law. Having a law which has the purpose of frightening people into behaving without the intention of actually enforcing it is simply wrong.
So you think that we should all have speed limiters in all our vehicles then? Or should speed limits only apply where there is a camera?
Law does have an important "nudge" element to it but I agree it is not a good thing that people should be getting used to only complying with the law when they feel like it.
Stupid argument. The police actively set out to catch and prosecute people speeding. I was answering the claim that the lockdown rules about the number of people in a house don't matter because they are not enforced. So your analogy is completely wrong.
If Cummings is accused of lying to a parliamentary committee then he has a right to defend himself, but what was he doing in the first place taking photos of whiteboards in the PM's study and of a monitor screen displaying a Whatsapp conversation with the PM?
Who helps him keep his photos secure? What is he allowed to take photos of and what isn't he?
Did he wire himself for sound when he was at No.10/No.70 too?
Putting Cummings aside for a minute, this is the same issue with anyone WFH. How can firms be sure that confidential material is not being photographed or printed by employees with no shredders? When I consult my GP online about the lump I found while showering yesterday, how can I be sure her teenage daughter is not sending my dickpic to the Lower Sixth WhatsApp group?
Welcome to the wonderful world of information security.
We definitely need a new political party. I really has to be no more than a NOT Johnson infested Tory Party but without Labour's baggage. Just a competent party run by empathetic HONEST human beings. It's difficult for Labour after Corbyn or the Libs with their skeletons. But with millions of politically homeless voting for the least worst option someone's got to fill the vacuum.
If you are pro Brexit and centre right you can vote Tory, if you are pro Brexit but anti lockdown you can vote ReformUK, if you are anti Brexit you can vote LD, if you are centre left you can vote Labour, if you are further left you can vote Green.
I really fail to see why we need yet another party?
I think Roger's very valid point is that what we need is a party that is actually led by competent politicians. Although that is rapidly starting to look like an oxymoron these days.
Which is a matter of getting more competent leaders at the top of those existing parties, not a need for any new parties. That is especially the case under FPTP where new parties will quickly disappear, it would only be relevant under PR.
However the party leader and candidates for Parliament are elected by party members so that is a point about getting more involved and joining existing political parties to select better candidates if anything
Or a point about reducing the power of parties and having more direct democracy.
Anecdotal from Leeds university: Indian variant like wildfire through undergraduate population incl some who have already had covid. Kent variant never touched them
Sounds fishy to me. Most students will not have been at University (exams, taken remotely etc).
It's from one who is.
Wouldn't reinfection be a massive story?
Like I said, anecdotal. Alleged victim is soon of friend I am currently having lunch with.
You must be fun at dinner parties. Posting on PB during lunch?
Yesterday I was in and out of stations and decided for a short amount of time not to wear my mask. There were plenty of marshalls and enforcement officers and so forth dotted around and signs saying you could be fined for not wearing a mask, etc.
The govt says the following:
"The police can take measures if members of the public do not comply with this law without a valid exemption and transport operators can deny access to their public transport services if a passenger is not wearing a face covering, or direct them to wear one or leave a service.
If necessary the police and Transport for London (TfL) officers have enforcement powers, including issuing fines of £200 (reduced to £100 if paid within 14 days) for the first offence.
Repeat offenders receiving fines on public transport or in an indoor setting will have their fines doubled at each offence.
After the first offence there will be no discount. For example, receiving a second fine will amount to £400 and a third fine will be £800, up to a maximum value of £6,400."
But the list of exemptions is such that you can decide not to wear one for a practicably unlimited number of reasons (eg. you will feel distress...). Equally, if you do decide not to wear one.
"If you have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering:
you do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this you do not need show an exemption card This means that you do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering."
So the government says by law you must wear a facemask, punishable by fines of up to £6,400, whereas you can decide you need not or don't want to wear one.
yes this was something that @ydoethur pointed out. It is a largely meaningless law. You'd just have to be willing to get arrested and fight it out in court.
Yesterday I was in and out of stations and decided for a short amount of time not to wear my mask. There were plenty of marshalls and enforcement officers and so forth dotted around and signs saying you could be fined for not wearing a mask, etc.
The govt says the following:
"The police can take measures if members of the public do not comply with this law without a valid exemption and transport operators can deny access to their public transport services if a passenger is not wearing a face covering, or direct them to wear one or leave a service.
If necessary the police and Transport for London (TfL) officers have enforcement powers, including issuing fines of £200 (reduced to £100 if paid within 14 days) for the first offence.
Repeat offenders receiving fines on public transport or in an indoor setting will have their fines doubled at each offence.
After the first offence there will be no discount. For example, receiving a second fine will amount to £400 and a third fine will be £800, up to a maximum value of £6,400."
But the list of exemptions is such that you can decide not to wear one for a practicably unlimited number of reasons (eg. you will feel distress...). Equally, if you do decide not to wear one.
"If you have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering:
you do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this you do not need show an exemption card This means that you do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering."
So the government says by law you must wear a facemask, punishable by fines of up to £6,400, whereas you can decide you need not or don't want to wear one.
yes this was something that @ydoethur pointed out. It is a largely meaningless law. You'd just have to be willing to get arrested and fight it out in court.
Have the women's Test cricket on in the background and it's very odd.
Women's top sprinters are c. 10% slower than top men. Top lady golfers drive it c. 280 vs 320 for men so a similar gap.
Yet the opening bowlers here are just incredibly slow, 25% or more down on a reasonably paced male bowler. Just wondering if anyone follows this whether that is an Indian team point or a general issue?
Yes, I've noticed that too. Oddly, they seem to hit 6s almost as far as the men these days, 80m is not that unusual. Probably within the 10%. There may be physiological reasons, fast bowling is a bloody weird thing to do to the body.
I tend to find womens' tennis more interesting than mens', because fewer aces are served.
Well, that's certainly one reason to prefer it 😉
There are others, but I shall not sully this site by mentioning them.
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Although we've never needed to wear masks outside, so its not exactly comparing apples and apples is it? This is one of the tricky bits. People keep saying we are still in lockdown, we are clearly NOT, but there are some restrictions with a disproportionate impact on some business, and an annoyance for some in their lives (masks for me).
A law stating how many people you can have into your house is imo a lockdown.
A fair point, but ask yourself how many arrests we have seen for breaking this law in the last two months (or indeed at all)?
That is immaterial. Either a law is enforced or it should not be a law. Having a law which has the purpose of frightening people into behaving without the intention of actually enforcing it is simply wrong.
So you think that we should all have speed limiters in all our vehicles then? Or should speed limits only apply where there is a camera?
Law does have an important "nudge" element to it but I agree it is not a good thing that people should be getting used to only complying with the law when they feel like it.
Stupid argument. The police actively set out to catch and prosecute people speeding. I was answering the claim that the lockdown rules about the number of people in a house don't matter because they are not enforced. So your analogy is completely wrong.
Except people have had the plod at the door due to having house guests, Amanda Holden was famously one, but probably many more less famous ones too. Typically due to curtain twitching neighbours I expect.
Just because a law exists doesn't mean it either can be or is enforced 100% of the time. In fact the overwhelming tendency is to rely upon self-enforcement for the law.
When the public chooses to disrespect a law then Police can't catch all of the law breakers.
Yesterday I was in and out of stations and decided for a short amount of time not to wear my mask. There were plenty of marshalls and enforcement officers and so forth dotted around and signs saying you could be fined for not wearing a mask, etc.
The govt says the following:
"The police can take measures if members of the public do not comply with this law without a valid exemption and transport operators can deny access to their public transport services if a passenger is not wearing a face covering, or direct them to wear one or leave a service.
If necessary the police and Transport for London (TfL) officers have enforcement powers, including issuing fines of £200 (reduced to £100 if paid within 14 days) for the first offence.
Repeat offenders receiving fines on public transport or in an indoor setting will have their fines doubled at each offence.
After the first offence there will be no discount. For example, receiving a second fine will amount to £400 and a third fine will be £800, up to a maximum value of £6,400."
But the list of exemptions is such that you can decide not to wear one for a practicably unlimited number of reasons (eg. you will feel distress...). Equally, if you do decide not to wear one.
"If you have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering:
you do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this you do not need show an exemption card This means that you do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering."
So the government says by law you must wear a facemask, punishable by fines of up to £6,400, whereas you can decide you need not or don't want to wear one.
yes this was something that @ydoethur pointed out. It is a largely meaningless law. You'd just have to be willing to get arrested and fight it out in court.
What happens if you tell the truth in court that that you simply believe it's an authoritarian measure too far for your liking ?
Yesterday I was in and out of stations and decided for a short amount of time not to wear my mask. There were plenty of marshalls and enforcement officers and so forth dotted around and signs saying you could be fined for not wearing a mask, etc.
The govt says the following:
"The police can take measures if members of the public do not comply with this law without a valid exemption and transport operators can deny access to their public transport services if a passenger is not wearing a face covering, or direct them to wear one or leave a service.
If necessary the police and Transport for London (TfL) officers have enforcement powers, including issuing fines of £200 (reduced to £100 if paid within 14 days) for the first offence.
Repeat offenders receiving fines on public transport or in an indoor setting will have their fines doubled at each offence.
After the first offence there will be no discount. For example, receiving a second fine will amount to £400 and a third fine will be £800, up to a maximum value of £6,400."
But the list of exemptions is such that you can decide not to wear one for a practicably unlimited number of reasons (eg. you will feel distress...). Equally, if you do decide not to wear one.
"If you have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering:
you do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this you do not need show an exemption card This means that you do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering."
So the government says by law you must wear a facemask, punishable by fines of up to £6,400, whereas you can decide you need not or don't want to wear one.
Indeed. You simply need to use the word 'exempt'. If you find wearing a mask distressing, you can technically simply say "I'm exempt" and it is perfectly legal for you to go about your business maskless.
We definitely need a new political party. I really has to be no more than a NOT Johnson infested Tory Party but without Labour's baggage. Just a competent party run by empathetic HONEST human beings. It's difficult for Labour after Corbyn or the Libs with their skeletons. But with millions of politically homeless voting for the least worst option someone's got to fill the vacuum.
If you are pro Brexit and centre right you can vote Tory, if you are pro Brexit but anti lockdown you can vote ReformUK, if you are anti Brexit you can vote LD, if you are centre left you can vote Labour, if you are further left you can vote Green.
I really fail to see why we need yet another party?
I think Roger's very valid point is that what we need is a party that is actually led by competent politicians. Although that is rapidly starting to look like an oxymoron these days.
Which is a matter of getting more competent leaders at the top of those existing parties, not a need for any new parties. That is especially the case under FPTP where new parties will quickly disappear, it would only be relevant under PR.
However the party leader and candidates for Parliament are elected by party members so that is a point about getting more involved and joining existing political parties to select better candidates if anything
Or a point about reducing the power of parties and having more direct democracy.
Most people have neither the time nor the inclination to vote in constant plebiscites and those who do will tend to be populists and extremists
Yesterday I was in and out of stations and decided for a short amount of time not to wear my mask. There were plenty of marshalls and enforcement officers and so forth dotted around and signs saying you could be fined for not wearing a mask, etc.
The govt says the following:
"The police can take measures if members of the public do not comply with this law without a valid exemption and transport operators can deny access to their public transport services if a passenger is not wearing a face covering, or direct them to wear one or leave a service.
If necessary the police and Transport for London (TfL) officers have enforcement powers, including issuing fines of £200 (reduced to £100 if paid within 14 days) for the first offence.
Repeat offenders receiving fines on public transport or in an indoor setting will have their fines doubled at each offence.
After the first offence there will be no discount. For example, receiving a second fine will amount to £400 and a third fine will be £800, up to a maximum value of £6,400."
But the list of exemptions is such that you can decide not to wear one for a practicably unlimited number of reasons (eg. you will feel distress...). Equally, if you do decide not to wear one.
"If you have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering:
you do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this you do not need show an exemption card This means that you do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering."
So the government says by law you must wear a facemask, punishable by fines of up to £6,400, whereas you can decide you need not or don't want to wear one.
On trains, you're supposed to wear a mask. But you can take it off if you're eating or drinking.
Does the virus suddenly decide not to attack people on trains who are eating and drinking? 🤔
Yesterday I was in and out of stations and decided for a short amount of time not to wear my mask. There were plenty of marshalls and enforcement officers and so forth dotted around and signs saying you could be fined for not wearing a mask, etc.
The govt says the following:
"The police can take measures if members of the public do not comply with this law without a valid exemption and transport operators can deny access to their public transport services if a passenger is not wearing a face covering, or direct them to wear one or leave a service.
If necessary the police and Transport for London (TfL) officers have enforcement powers, including issuing fines of £200 (reduced to £100 if paid within 14 days) for the first offence.
Repeat offenders receiving fines on public transport or in an indoor setting will have their fines doubled at each offence.
After the first offence there will be no discount. For example, receiving a second fine will amount to £400 and a third fine will be £800, up to a maximum value of £6,400."
But the list of exemptions is such that you can decide not to wear one for a practicably unlimited number of reasons (eg. you will feel distress...). Equally, if you do decide not to wear one.
"If you have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering:
you do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this you do not need show an exemption card This means that you do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering."
So the government says by law you must wear a facemask, punishable by fines of up to £6,400, whereas you can decide you need not or don't want to wear one.
yes this was something that @ydoethur pointed out. It is a largely meaningless law. You'd just have to be willing to get arrested and fight it out in court.
What happens if you tell the truth in court that that you simply believe it's an authoritarian measure too far for your liking ?
Is a good point. There is a "severe distress" exemption which you could I suppose use. Distress at a badly thought out law or authoritarian state or...
I think if you went full out liberty or death type thing that might have a 30-50% chance of success. We don't much like principled folk on these here isles.
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Although we've never needed to wear masks outside, so its not exactly comparing apples and apples is it? This is one of the tricky bits. People keep saying we are still in lockdown, we are clearly NOT, but there are some restrictions with a disproportionate impact on some business, and an annoyance for some in their lives (masks for me).
A law stating how many people you can have into your house is imo a lockdown.
A fair point, but ask yourself how many arrests we have seen for breaking this law in the last two months (or indeed at all)?
That is immaterial. Either a law is enforced or it should not be a law. Having a law which has the purpose of frightening people into behaving without the intention of actually enforcing it is simply wrong.
So you think that we should all have speed limiters in all our vehicles then? Or should speed limits only apply where there is a camera?
Law does have an important "nudge" element to it but I agree it is not a good thing that people should be getting used to only complying with the law when they feel like it.
There is a more fundamental point here away from the lockdown argument.
Having laws which can be enforced when the authorities feel like it is exactly the way less democratic countries behave. It gives power to the police that they do not deserve to have - the power to pick and choose who gets arrested and who does not for a particular crime. That leads to abuse of power and abuse of privilege. It is exactly what is wrong with many countries that have the "everything that is not explicitly legal is illegal" form of law.
Yesterday I was in and out of stations and decided for a short amount of time not to wear my mask. There were plenty of marshalls and enforcement officers and so forth dotted around and signs saying you could be fined for not wearing a mask, etc.
The govt says the following:
"The police can take measures if members of the public do not comply with this law without a valid exemption and transport operators can deny access to their public transport services if a passenger is not wearing a face covering, or direct them to wear one or leave a service.
If necessary the police and Transport for London (TfL) officers have enforcement powers, including issuing fines of £200 (reduced to £100 if paid within 14 days) for the first offence.
Repeat offenders receiving fines on public transport or in an indoor setting will have their fines doubled at each offence.
After the first offence there will be no discount. For example, receiving a second fine will amount to £400 and a third fine will be £800, up to a maximum value of £6,400."
But the list of exemptions is such that you can decide not to wear one for a practicably unlimited number of reasons (eg. you will feel distress...). Equally, if you do decide not to wear one.
"If you have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering:
you do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this you do not need show an exemption card This means that you do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering."
So the government says by law you must wear a facemask, punishable by fines of up to £6,400, whereas you can decide you need not or don't want to wear one.
On trains, you're supposed to wear a mask. But you can take it off if you're eating or drinking.
Does the virus suddenly decide not to attack people on trains who are eating and drinking? 🤔
Same issue I have about putting it on to go to the loo in a pub, but not when I'm sat down.
Yesterday I was in and out of stations and decided for a short amount of time not to wear my mask. There were plenty of marshalls and enforcement officers and so forth dotted around and signs saying you could be fined for not wearing a mask, etc.
The govt says the following:
"The police can take measures if members of the public do not comply with this law without a valid exemption and transport operators can deny access to their public transport services if a passenger is not wearing a face covering, or direct them to wear one or leave a service.
If necessary the police and Transport for London (TfL) officers have enforcement powers, including issuing fines of £200 (reduced to £100 if paid within 14 days) for the first offence.
Repeat offenders receiving fines on public transport or in an indoor setting will have their fines doubled at each offence.
After the first offence there will be no discount. For example, receiving a second fine will amount to £400 and a third fine will be £800, up to a maximum value of £6,400."
But the list of exemptions is such that you can decide not to wear one for a practicably unlimited number of reasons (eg. you will feel distress...). Equally, if you do decide not to wear one.
"If you have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering:
you do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this you do not need show an exemption card This means that you do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering."
So the government says by law you must wear a facemask, punishable by fines of up to £6,400, whereas you can decide you need not or don't want to wear one.
On trains, you're supposed to wear a mask. But you can take it off if you're eating or drinking.
Does the virus suddenly decide not to attack people on trains who are eating and drinking? 🤔
I presume the idea is that since people need to eat and drink, they can. But by wearing a mask at other times, it reduces the risk.
@anabobazina@Topping What happens if you don't find wearing a mask distressing but simply believe it an authoritarian measure too far and believing you should never lie, particularly in court, come out with that to the beak ?
We definitely need a new political party. I really has to be no more than a NOT Johnson infested Tory Party but without Labour's baggage. Just a competent party run by empathetic HONEST human beings. It's difficult for Labour after Corbyn or the Libs with their skeletons. But with millions of politically homeless voting for the least worst option someone's got to fill the vacuum.
If you are pro Brexit and centre right you can vote Tory, if you are pro Brexit but anti lockdown you can vote ReformUK, if you are anti Brexit you can vote LD, if you are centre left you can vote Labour, if you are further left you can vote Green.
I really fail to see why we need yet another party?
I think Roger's very valid point is that what we need is a party that is actually led by competent politicians. Although that is rapidly starting to look like an oxymoron these days.
Which is a matter of getting more competent leaders at the top of those existing parties, not a need for any new parties. That is especially the case under FPTP where new parties will quickly disappear, it would only be relevant under PR.
However the party leader and candidates for Parliament are elected by party members so that is a point about getting more involved and joining existing political parties to select better candidates if anything
Or a point about reducing the power of parties and having more direct democracy.
Most people have neither the time nor the inclination to vote in constant plebiscites and those who do will tend to be populists and extremists
I am sure the people of Switzerland will be pleased by that classification.
We definitely need a new political party. I really has to be no more than a NOT Johnson infested Tory Party but without Labour's baggage. Just a competent party run by empathetic HONEST human beings. It's difficult for Labour after Corbyn or the Libs with their skeletons. But with millions of politically homeless voting for the least worst option someone's got to fill the vacuum.
If you are pro Brexit and centre right you can vote Tory, if you are pro Brexit but anti lockdown you can vote ReformUK, if you are anti Brexit you can vote LD, if you are centre left you can vote Labour, if you are further left you can vote Green.
I really fail to see why we need yet another party?
I think Roger's very valid point is that what we need is a party that is actually led by competent politicians. Although that is rapidly starting to look like an oxymoron these days.
Which is a matter of getting more competent leaders at the top of those existing parties, not a need for any new parties. That is especially the case under FPTP where new parties will quickly disappear, it would only be relevant under PR.
However the party leader and candidates for Parliament are elected by party members so that is a point about getting more involved and joining existing political parties to select better candidates if anything
Or a point about reducing the power of parties and having more direct democracy.
Too much direct democracy is a terrible idea for large countries.
You end up like California where people vote to increase expenditure, while also voting to cut taxes.
Yesterday I was in and out of stations and decided for a short amount of time not to wear my mask. There were plenty of marshalls and enforcement officers and so forth dotted around and signs saying you could be fined for not wearing a mask, etc.
The govt says the following:
"The police can take measures if members of the public do not comply with this law without a valid exemption and transport operators can deny access to their public transport services if a passenger is not wearing a face covering, or direct them to wear one or leave a service.
If necessary the police and Transport for London (TfL) officers have enforcement powers, including issuing fines of £200 (reduced to £100 if paid within 14 days) for the first offence.
Repeat offenders receiving fines on public transport or in an indoor setting will have their fines doubled at each offence.
After the first offence there will be no discount. For example, receiving a second fine will amount to £400 and a third fine will be £800, up to a maximum value of £6,400."
But the list of exemptions is such that you can decide not to wear one for a practicably unlimited number of reasons (eg. you will feel distress...). Equally, if you do decide not to wear one.
"If you have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering:
you do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this you do not need show an exemption card This means that you do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering."
So the government says by law you must wear a facemask, punishable by fines of up to £6,400, whereas you can decide you need not or don't want to wear one.
On trains, you're supposed to wear a mask. But you can take it off if you're eating or drinking.
Does the virus suddenly decide not to attack people on trains who are eating and drinking? 🤔
Yes, it has better manners than to interrupt one's luncheon.
Yesterday I was in and out of stations and decided for a short amount of time not to wear my mask. There were plenty of marshalls and enforcement officers and so forth dotted around and signs saying you could be fined for not wearing a mask, etc.
The govt says the following:
"The police can take measures if members of the public do not comply with this law without a valid exemption and transport operators can deny access to their public transport services if a passenger is not wearing a face covering, or direct them to wear one or leave a service.
If necessary the police and Transport for London (TfL) officers have enforcement powers, including issuing fines of £200 (reduced to £100 if paid within 14 days) for the first offence.
Repeat offenders receiving fines on public transport or in an indoor setting will have their fines doubled at each offence.
After the first offence there will be no discount. For example, receiving a second fine will amount to £400 and a third fine will be £800, up to a maximum value of £6,400."
But the list of exemptions is such that you can decide not to wear one for a practicably unlimited number of reasons (eg. you will feel distress...). Equally, if you do decide not to wear one.
"If you have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering:
you do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this you do not need show an exemption card This means that you do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering."
So the government says by law you must wear a facemask, punishable by fines of up to £6,400, whereas you can decide you need not or don't want to wear one.
On trains, you're supposed to wear a mask. But you can take it off if you're eating or drinking.
Does the virus suddenly decide not to attack people on trains who are eating and drinking? 🤔
Same issue I have about putting it on to go to the loo in a pub, but not when I'm sat down.
I presume the idea is that when you are sat down, you are in a limited space, when you are moving about, you are interacting with a larger group.
French govt can't be too worried about Delta variant of Covid. PM Jean Castex just announced that the 11pm curfew would end on 20 June, 10 days early. Requirement to wear masks outdoors will be lifted tomorrow, instead of 1 July. UK tightening up: France easing up. Who's right?
Although we've never needed to wear masks outside, so its not exactly comparing apples and apples is it? This is one of the tricky bits. People keep saying we are still in lockdown, we are clearly NOT, but there are some restrictions with a disproportionate impact on some business, and an annoyance for some in their lives (masks for me).
A law stating how many people you can have into your house is imo a lockdown.
A fair point, but ask yourself how many arrests we have seen for breaking this law in the last two months (or indeed at all)?
That is immaterial. Either a law is enforced or it should not be a law. Having a law which has the purpose of frightening people into behaving without the intention of actually enforcing it is simply wrong.
So you think that we should all have speed limiters in all our vehicles then? Or should speed limits only apply where there is a camera?
Law does have an important "nudge" element to it but I agree it is not a good thing that people should be getting used to only complying with the law when they feel like it.
There is a more fundamental point here away from the lockdown argument.
Having laws which can be enforced when the authorities feel like it is exactly the way less democratic countries behave. It gives power to the police that they do not deserve to have - the power to pick and choose who gets arrested and who does not for a particular crime. That leads to abuse of power and abuse of privilege. It is exactly what is wrong with many countries that have the "everything that is not explicitly legal is illegal" form of law.
Is a bloody good point.
I know that I have banged on about the laws that have been introduced but in some ways I think we are at a moment whereby the Britain that we have all taken for granted (fair, decent, rule of law, equal before the law) is becoming not the place we actually live.
We definitely need a new political party. I really has to be no more than a NOT Johnson infested Tory Party but without Labour's baggage. Just a competent party run by empathetic HONEST human beings. It's difficult for Labour after Corbyn or the Libs with their skeletons. But with millions of politically homeless voting for the least worst option someone's got to fill the vacuum.
If you are pro Brexit and centre right you can vote Tory, if you are pro Brexit but anti lockdown you can vote ReformUK, if you are anti Brexit you can vote LD, if you are centre left you can vote Labour, if you are further left you can vote Green.
I really fail to see why we need yet another party?
I think Roger's very valid point is that what we need is a party that is actually led by competent politicians. Although that is rapidly starting to look like an oxymoron these days.
Which is a matter of getting more competent leaders at the top of those existing parties, not a need for any new parties. That is especially the case under FPTP where new parties will quickly disappear, it would only be relevant under PR.
However the party leader and candidates for Parliament are elected by party members so that is a point about getting more involved and joining existing political parties to select better candidates if anything
Or a point about reducing the power of parties and having more direct democracy.
Most people have neither the time nor the inclination to vote in constant plebiscites and those who do will tend to be populists and extremists
I am sure the people of Switzerland will be pleased by that classification.
Swiss voters voted for a ban on the full veil only this year, so as I said it does make it more likely populist laws will be passed if more frequent referendums are held.
As RCS also correctly points out it also leads to populist economics and bigger deficits with voters supporting tax cuts and more spending
Scottish cases numbers now out and up 11% on last Wednesday, following Wales numbers down on last week.
Considering GB wide the numbers have been basically flat for 7 days, the early indications are no big increase today either. Excellent news for all except SAGE.
@anabobazina@Topping What happens if you don't find wearing a mask distressing but simply believe it an authoritarian measure too far and believing you should never lie, particularly in court, come out with that to the beak ?
Yes that was what I pondered upthread: the liberty or death approach. I think you would have a less than 50% chance of success (in arguing your case) because we are all so cynical and no one would believe you were so principled or wouldn't value those principles anyway.
@anabobazina@Topping What happens if you don't find wearing a mask distressing but simply believe it an authoritarian measure too far and believing you should never lie, particularly in court, come out with that to the beak ?
Would surely be legal as the law is written – AFAIK one doesn't need to adhere a specified list of reasons for one's distress. Similarly, if you wear glasses, you might be genuinely distressed because it steams them up and renders you partially blind!
Yesterday I was in and out of stations and decided for a short amount of time not to wear my mask. There were plenty of marshalls and enforcement officers and so forth dotted around and signs saying you could be fined for not wearing a mask, etc.
The govt says the following:
"The police can take measures if members of the public do not comply with this law without a valid exemption and transport operators can deny access to their public transport services if a passenger is not wearing a face covering, or direct them to wear one or leave a service.
If necessary the police and Transport for London (TfL) officers have enforcement powers, including issuing fines of £200 (reduced to £100 if paid within 14 days) for the first offence.
Repeat offenders receiving fines on public transport or in an indoor setting will have their fines doubled at each offence.
After the first offence there will be no discount. For example, receiving a second fine will amount to £400 and a third fine will be £800, up to a maximum value of £6,400."
But the list of exemptions is such that you can decide not to wear one for a practicably unlimited number of reasons (eg. you will feel distress...). Equally, if you do decide not to wear one.
"If you have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering:
you do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this you do not need show an exemption card This means that you do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering."
So the government says by law you must wear a facemask, punishable by fines of up to £6,400, whereas you can decide you need not or don't want to wear one.
On trains, you're supposed to wear a mask. But you can take it off if you're eating or drinking.
Does the virus suddenly decide not to attack people on trains who are eating and drinking? 🤔
Same issue I have about putting it on to go to the loo in a pub, but not when I'm sat down.
I presume the idea is that when you are sat down, you are in a limited space, when you are moving about, you are interacting with a larger group.
Risk reduction, rather than risk elimination.
I learned from a barmaid the other day that the virus is very diligent at following one-way systems, hence why she insisted I walked counterclockwise around her bar to the gents when there was only me and her in the pub.
Scottish cases numbers now out and up 11% on last Wednesday, following Wales numbers down on last week.
Considering GB wide the numbers have been basically flat for 7 days, the early indications are no big increase today either. Excellent news for all except SAGE.
Funny the way everybody on here talks about SAGE now.
Comments
Just fuck off Sage......
Having looked at the evidence i have no doubt its true, but the public wont believe it, even with my limited IT skills I could create Whatsapp messages to put on a twitter feed that will look like the ones he has put on there. Thats what people will think he has done. He will need Whatsapp to put in writing that those messages actually happened, the date, time, who from, who to etc etc before he will get a hearing and there is no way Whatsapp will do that.
Cummings says: “Unlike other PMs, this one has a clear plan to leave at the latest a couple of years after the next election, he wants to make money and have fun not ‘go on and on’."
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1405137205086113796?s=20
https://twitter.com/john_lichfield/status/1405131992581251075?s=20
One of my main criticisms of the govt last spring was the sheer amount of responsibility left with Hancock whilst other more senior ministers had little to do. However bad Hancock is or was no-one could have done his job well, it was too much.
It would have been the right thing to do to give it Gove (or someone else).
https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1405140255670419459?s=20
C’mon Finland!
11pm curfew: does absolutely nothing to stop spread and may even be counterproductive
masks outdoors: does absolutely nothing to stop the spread and may even be counterproductive
Much as I lament the decision not to go ahead with 21st June, doing what was planned would have almost certainly lead to an increase in the spread, so the decision is at least understandable in a very narrow sense.
I think France has made the better decision. But I'm optimistic that both UK and France will be fine.
Who was the last PM who from Downing Street won three consecutive general elections?
Winning a second GE then leaving a few years later is pretty successful not embarrassing. It would be embarrassing if he was planning to not even face the next election as he thought he'd lose to Keir.
Interesting that Gove is still Boris's go to "fixer".
I think more likely it is a nanny thing for people (not a criticism, quite understandable). Which the govt either actively or passively encourages with its measures and messaging.
In a normal world people like David Allen Green would be lauding him to the skies. But they are falling short of that. Not least because exactly those commentators were his most accurate critics.
DC could easily be proved right about everything when the spirit of the age changes, but then it won't matter because Boris won't matter. Until then, unless Boris nukes Norway, Cummings is marginal and only for wonks and geeks; any smoking guns from the past don't count and there are no smoking guns just this minute.
Or if people don't like the term lockdown, perhaps we should rename it - "Under Control"?
Prize for the winning entry.
If we have to pay the staff more to fill the gap, then so be it.
Who helps him keep his photos secure? What is he allowed to take photos of and what isn't he?
Did he wire himself for sound when he was at No.10/No.70 too?
Being better than the alternative does not imply or entail being good. It's all relative. The voter is the hungry tiger chasing two parties and one will run faster than the other even though it isn't Usain Bolt.
The most well-known female writer from Nigeria comes out against cancel culture, describing it as obscene.
https://www.chimamanda.com
I can believe it has spread in that age group though - mostly unvaccinated, and likely to be social.
Law does have an important "nudge" element to it but I agree it is not a good thing that people should be getting used to only complying with the law when they feel like it.
Palestine is coming home
Oh wait its not
It is worth noting that at the height of things, the vast majority of tests for COVID were coming back negative. If someone has the symptoms and gets a test, the odds are very much they *don't* have COVID....
Alongside WWI; WWII and the spanish flu, Covid pre vaccination was in my view in extremis. Post offering of every 18 year old a first dose with boosters and treatments progressing every day it most certainly is not.
As for photographing white boards, literally every business I have worked in since mobile phone cameras started does exactly that. It is a quick and easy way of making sure you capture everything that was important in a brainstorming exercise. Again I have dozens of photos of whiteboards on my phone from meetings going back 4 or 5years. None of this requires a malicious motive (though I don't deny it can also facilitate a malicious motive). It is just normal practice and 'how things happen'.
Yesterday I was in and out of stations and decided for a short amount of time not to wear my mask. There were plenty of marshalls and enforcement officers and so forth dotted around and signs saying you could be fined for not wearing a mask, etc.
The govt says the following:
"The police can take measures if members of the public do not comply with this law without a valid exemption and transport operators can deny access to their public transport services if a passenger is not wearing a face covering, or direct them to wear one or leave a service.
If necessary the police and Transport for London (TfL) officers have enforcement powers, including issuing fines of £200 (reduced to £100 if paid within 14 days) for the first offence.
Repeat offenders receiving fines on public transport or in an indoor setting will have their fines doubled at each offence.
After the first offence there will be no discount. For example, receiving a second fine will amount to £400 and a third fine will be £800, up to a maximum value of £6,400."
But the list of exemptions is such that you can decide not to wear one for a practicably unlimited number of reasons (eg. you will feel distress...). Equally, if you do decide not to wear one.
"If you have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering:
you do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this
you do not need show an exemption card
This means that you do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering."
So the government says by law you must wear a facemask, punishable by fines of up to £6,400, whereas you can decide you need not or don't want to wear one.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/ursula-von-der-leyen-europes-second-rate-first-lady-european-commission
It's going to be fun fun fun....
BBC 2 Tennis all afternoon
BBC 1 Football all afternoon
ITV - Horse Racing all afternoon
Its like Prince Phillips death all over again
Although there is Stephs packed lunch on C4
Just because a law exists doesn't mean it either can be or is enforced 100% of the time. In fact the overwhelming tendency is to rely upon self-enforcement for the law.
When the public chooses to disrespect a law then Police can't catch all of the law breakers.
VAR offside
Does the virus suddenly decide not to attack people on trains who are eating and drinking? 🤔
I think if you went full out liberty or death type thing that might have a 30-50% chance of success. We don't much like principled folk on these here isles.
Having laws which can be enforced when the authorities feel like it is exactly the way less democratic countries behave. It gives power to the police that they do not deserve to have - the power to pick and choose who gets arrested and who does not for a particular crime. That leads to abuse of power and abuse of privilege. It is exactly what is wrong with many countries that have the "everything that is not explicitly legal is illegal" form of law.
Edit @Topping thanks for your answer downthread.
You end up like California where people vote to increase expenditure, while also voting to cut taxes.
Risk reduction, rather than risk elimination.
I know that I have banged on about the laws that have been introduced but in some ways I think we are at a moment whereby the Britain that we have all taken for granted (fair, decent, rule of law, equal before the law) is becoming not the place we actually live.
As RCS also correctly points out it also leads to populist economics and bigger deficits with voters supporting tax cuts and more spending
Stoke is the Middlesbrough of the Midlands.
Considering GB wide the numbers have been basically flat for 7 days, the early indications are no big increase today either. Excellent news for all except SAGE.
Asked if the messages are real, PM's spox says: ‘I don’t plan to get into the detail of what has been published.'
https://twitter.com/jrmaidment/status/1405150352438087683
6 months ago, it was just me.