politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Motes and beams. Leading a response to a pandemic without mora
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Motes and beams. Leading a response to a pandemic without moral authority
So now we know: as in Pirates of the Caribbean, the rules of the C aren’t so much rules, they’re more what you’d call guidelines. Robert Jenrick has confirmed that the public could always exercise “a degree of personal judgement”.
Comments
-
first like Boris1
-
Thanks, Alastair.0
-
Use common sense and do what's right for your family in the circumstances. It's not difficult, it's not rocket science.2
-
Wait, I'm already confused.Philip_Thompson said:Use common sense and do what's right for your family in the circumstances. It's not difficult, it's not rocket science.
2 -
And all that it took was 2 minutes on Sunday afternoon.
Meanwhile some of the world is returning to normal. Ringtons are delivering again and it's boom time for their staff, they can't fill their vans up enough to last the day.0 -
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.1 -
the elected government, or an unelected self-regarding weirdo who wears his clothes the wrong way out.BluestBlue said:
This entire episode is a trial of strength (oops, another metaphor!) to determine who wields the real power in Britain - the elected government, or the unelected media. quapropter res iam redit ad triarios.IshmaelZ said:
All these metaphors: regicide, assassination, feeding frenzy, getting their man, taking their scalp. This misses two points. First, news organizations report news, all the time, and "news" is ultimately defined as what their audience considers to be news, cos otherwise they would lose their readership. Blaming the press is like warmist dweebs campaigning against investment in BP while pretending not to realise that their consumption of BP's products keeps BP in business.BluestBlue said:
Indeed. Also Emerson: 'When you strike the king, you must kill him.'MarqueeMark said:
Eventually, the bigger story of the Cummings episode is how fucked the BBC are going to be as a result of the way they have played it.Andy_JS said:
Remember, Beeb: "dig two graves".....
'Cos if you don't...
Secondly, the story is that a conceited creep is more conceited, and much less clever, than appeared at first sight. The big swinging dick bloodshed metaphors lend it a dignity it just does not deserve.
Colourful metaphors are indeed inadequate to express the magnitude of what is at stake.
I would doctor your text and do the ftfy thing, but I am better than that.0 -
Its the second time she has gone with a diatribe in recent weeks.CarlottaVance said:
Completely unforced error. If the first sentence had been a question, not a statement "Did Dominic Cummings break the rules? The country thinks so, but the government does not.." it would have been entirely fine. As it is its a major mis-step.FrancisUrquhart said:IMO, they are falling into the trap of CNN / NYT / WP / MSNBC does with Trump. Their hatred of the man leads to them publishing inaccuracies and it gives Trump an out (but in Trump's case he can't help himself but to jump straight back into the shit). It is what Bad Al used to use all the time to get New Labour out of issues.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/1265635019420323845?s=20
It reminds me a little bit of Rachel Maddow. Maddow also has got in trouble for stating things as facts that aren't, and while it plays great to her audience, again is used by Trump defenders as a get out e.g. repeated errors in reporting over Russian interference allows her to be painted as promoting "Russian hoax".1 -
'101 Uses for a Dead Cat' is a blast from the past. I must have first heard of that in about 1982.0
-
Saving yourself from a fire is rather different to transporting your diseased, contagious body from a place of isolation where you could harm no-one to somewhere else contaminating and potentially killing others in the process.Philip_Thompson said:I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.3 -
Ther are around 120,000 police in the UK against 65 million people. It is an extraordinairy achievenment that the lockdown was followed so well. I really thought that some inner london estates would just ignore it but they never did.
I don't think the Government has lost any moral authority, people are still social distancing in a very polite way.1 -
I like to vary my cultural references.Stark_Dawning said:'101 Uses for a Dead Cat' is a blast from the past. I must have first heard of that in about 1982.
0 -
And we are back on the leaking of potential loosening lockdown rules...
Two households CAN meet from next week: Lockdown loosening could see socially-distanced family reunions
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8360963/Two-households-meet-week-larger-family-friend-bubble-reunions-delayed.html0 -
The only way to determine that is using personal judgement. The principle of using judgement should not be in doubt.eek said:
Saving yourself from a fire is rather different to transporting your diseased, contagious body from a place of isolation where you could harm no-one to somewhere else contaminating and potentially killing others in the process.Philip_Thompson said:I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.0 -
A bit unfair - Maitliss is a much more even handed journalist.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its the second time she has gone with a diatribe in recent weeks.CarlottaVance said:
Completely unforced error. If the first sentence had been a question, not a statement "Did Dominic Cummings break the rules? The country thinks so, but the government does not.." it would have been entirely fine. As it is its a major mis-step.FrancisUrquhart said:IMO, they are falling into the trap of CNN / NYT / WP / MSNBC does with Trump. Their hatred of the man leads to them publishing inaccuracies and it gives Trump an out (but in Trump's case he can't help himself but to jump straight back into the shit). It is what Bad Al used to use all the time to get New Labour out of issues.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/1265635019420323845?s=20
It reminds me a little bit of Rachel Maddow. Maddow also has got in trouble for stating things as facts that aren't, and while it plays great to her audience, again is used by Trump defenders as a get out e.g. repeated errors in reporting over Russian interference allows her to be painted as promoting "Russian hoax".
But I agree entirely that in this case she let her standards slip (I did not see the other 'diatribe').
Maddow reminds me more of Carole Cadwallader.0 -
FPT: Mr. Flashman (deceased), I'm sure that'll work well...
The Barnier story is slightly weird. There's very little chance of it going ahead.
But... it depends how pissed off Conservative backbenchers are.
"Axe Cummings or we give a two year extension" could be the threat. If they're angry enough.0 -
I see Wings Over Scotland have lost their appeal against Kezia Dugdale's comments regarding homophobia. (I assume I'm OK to mention it now?)
0 -
I have to say I am surprised da yuff gangs didn't try and take advantage of all those empty shops.NerysHughes said:Ther are around 120,000 police in the UK against 65 million people. It is an extraordinairy achievenment that the lockdown was followed so well. I really thought that some inner london estates would just ignore it but they never did.
I don't think the Government has lost any moral authority, people are still social distancing in a very polite way.0 -
Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.4 -
I'm pretty sure that the appointee of the elected government is covered by their mandate - how else would any appointee have the authority to do anything at all, under any government? Otherwise, good point.IshmaelZ said:
the elected government, or an unelected self-regarding weirdo who wears his clothes the wrong way out.BluestBlue said:
This entire episode is a trial of strength (oops, another metaphor!) to determine who wields the real power in Britain - the elected government, or the unelected media. quapropter res iam redit ad triarios.IshmaelZ said:
All these metaphors: regicide, assassination, feeding frenzy, getting their man, taking their scalp. This misses two points. First, news organizations report news, all the time, and "news" is ultimately defined as what their audience considers to be news, cos otherwise they would lose their readership. Blaming the press is like warmist dweebs campaigning against investment in BP while pretending not to realise that their consumption of BP's products keeps BP in business.BluestBlue said:
Indeed. Also Emerson: 'When you strike the king, you must kill him.'MarqueeMark said:
Eventually, the bigger story of the Cummings episode is how fucked the BBC are going to be as a result of the way they have played it.Andy_JS said:
Remember, Beeb: "dig two graves".....
'Cos if you don't...
Secondly, the story is that a conceited creep is more conceited, and much less clever, than appeared at first sight. The big swinging dick bloodshed metaphors lend it a dignity it just does not deserve.
Colourful metaphors are indeed inadequate to express the magnitude of what is at stake.
I would doctor your text and do the ftfy thing, but I am better than that.0 -
In a pandemic that is simply not sufficient, that is the problem with contagious diseases. If contagious people dont put wider society ahead of themselves and their families then the number of deaths will be much higher. It is central to the whole lockdown.Philip_Thompson said:Use common sense and do what's right for your family in the circumstances. It's not difficult, it's not rocket science.
"From this evening I must give the British people a very simple instruction - you must stay at home. Because the critical thing we must do is stop the disease spreading between households."1 -
Gypsies use 1,000 TONNES of rubble and 12 dumper trucks to build illegal camp in just three days after moving on to field in middle of night
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8360915/Gypsies-field-3am-raid-dump-1-000-TONNES-rubble-12-trucks.html
Get them building HS2, they will have it done in a few months.1 -
As with Adlai Stevenson, who was told that all thinking people would vote for him, that's not enough.Richard_Nabavi said:Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.2 -
The pencil sharpener was my favourite, I still think of it every time our cat shoves its arse in my face.AlastairMeeks said:
I like to vary my cultural references.Stark_Dawning said:'101 Uses for a Dead Cat' is a blast from the past. I must have first heard of that in about 1982.
0 -
Fair to say no love lost between Stuart Campbell and Kezia DugdaleTheWhiteRabbit said:I see Wings Over Scotland have lost their appeal against Kezia Dugdale's comments regarding homophobia. (I assume I'm OK to mention it now?)
https://wingsoverscotland.com/of-no-materiality/
0 -
This is not a view currently held by the majority of the country, no matter how many times you re-iterate the same position Philip!Philip_Thompson said:Use common sense and do what's right for your family in the circumstances. It's not difficult, it's not rocket science.
There are many things Cummings could have done which would have ensured the safety of his family without putting others at risk. Instead, he chose to break isolation & drive hundreds of miles. Then he doesn’t even have the grace to apologise to those who have put up with far, far worse in order to maintain the lockdown.
Common sense is not "do whatever’s easiest". It’s do whatever it takes to stay in place unless that turns out to be impossible, in which case there’s a legal escape hatch for you (put there to enable battered women to escape their violent partners with their children btw). It was clearly possible for Cummings and his wife to stay in London & therefore they ought to have done so.1 -
In the main the public, across all locations, ages, classes, and races behaved admirably.FrancisUrquhart said:
I have to say I am surprised da yuff gangs didn't try and take advantage of all those empty shops.NerysHughes said:Ther are around 120,000 police in the UK against 65 million people. It is an extraordinairy achievenment that the lockdown was followed so well. I really thought that some inner london estates would just ignore it but they never did.
I don't think the Government has lost any moral authority, people are still social distancing in a very polite way.
That's why the Cummings thing cut through.1 -
I'm sorry but it is sufficient. People need to take responsibility and ownership of their own choices.noneoftheabove said:
In a pandemic that is simply not sufficient, that is the problem with contagious diseases. If contagious people dont put wider society ahead of themselves and their families then the number of deaths will be much higher. It is central to the whole lockdown.Philip_Thompson said:Use common sense and do what's right for your family in the circumstances. It's not difficult, it's not rocket science.
"From this evening I must give the British people a very simple instruction - you must stay at home. Because the critical thing we must do is stop the disease spreading between households."
If a person is suffering from mental health and a call to the Samaritans isn't enough should they seek a loved one even if it means breaking the rules?
There's all sorts of what ifs. Life is complicated and we are sentient.
Too many people want to dispose their critical thinking to others. Everyone should always do what they think is right in the circumstances.0 -
Not quite personal judgement doesn't override the need to quarantine, personal judgement might be, (as it appears to have occurred in South Korea) I'm not feeling ill, let's go to the nightclub.Philip_Thompson said:
The only way to determine that is using personal judgement. The principle of using judgement should not be in doubt.eek said:
Saving yourself from a fire is rather different to transporting your diseased, contagious body from a place of isolation where you could harm no-one to somewhere else contaminating and potentially killing others in the process.Philip_Thompson said:I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.0 -
.
LOLAlastairMeeks said:
As with Adlai Stevenson, who was told that all thinking people would vote for him, that's not enough.Richard_Nabavi said:Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
I was composing a reply in a similar vein, and thankfully abandoned it as longwinded.0 -
It's probably not enough but it's the best we've got. Are we just going to give up because Cummings is an arrogant jerk and Boris is, well, Boris?AlastairMeeks said:
As with Adlai Stevenson, who was told that all thinking people would vote for him, that's not enough.Richard_Nabavi said:Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.1 -
Nicely put. And if we want to follow the dark logic of some critics that Cummingsgate has weakened the lockdown and will cost lives, then it follows incontrovertibly that in choosing to publish the story, the Guardian and Mirror deliberately chose to risk thousands of lives for the sake of trying (and failing) to destroy their political opponent.Richard_Nabavi said:Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
Which would make their scoop the most irresponsible piece of journalism in modern times.0 -
It's embarrassing for the state of the country that "think" is a shocking let alone minority opinion!Phil said:
This is not a view currently held by the majority of the country, no matter how many times you re-iterate the same position Philip!Philip_Thompson said:Use common sense and do what's right for your family in the circumstances. It's not difficult, it's not rocket science.
There are many things Cummings could have done which would have ensured the safety of his family without putting others at risk. Instead, he chose to break isolation & drive hundreds of miles. Then he doesn’t even have the grace to apologise to those who have put up with far, far worse in order to maintain the lockdown.
Common sense is not "do whatever’s easiest". It’s do whatever it takes to stay in place unless that turns out to be impossible, in which case there’s a legal escape hatch for you (put there to enable battered women to escape their violent partners with their children btw). It was clearly possible for Cummings and his wife to stay in London & therefore they ought to have done so.0 -
It depends what you mean. I shall follow the laws and whats needed to stop the virus spreading but nonsensical things like I can be in a park surrounded by people I dont know, but not by people I do know? Or I can be in a park but not a big garden? No, I shall no longer bother with such advice.Richard_Nabavi said:Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.1 -
Depends on what you mean by 'we'.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's probably not enough but it's the best we've got. Are we just going to give up because Cummings is an arrogant jerk and Boris is, well, Boris?AlastairMeeks said:
As with Adlai Stevenson, who was told that all thinking people would vote for him, that's not enough.Richard_Nabavi said:Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
Anecdotally, I noticed (only because it was unusual) that I was the only one wearing a mask when shopping yesterday. Saw a pub terrace occupied by drinkers over the weekend.
My best guess is, who knows ?0 -
I don't have a solution to this problem. Noting that there is a Cummings-created problem, however, is the first step to finding one.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's probably not enough but it's the best we've got. Are we just going to give up because Cummings is an arrogant jerk and Boris is, well, Boris?AlastairMeeks said:
As with Adlai Stevenson, who was told that all thinking people would vote for him, that's not enough.Richard_Nabavi said:Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.0 -
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8361403/Ex-Labour-spin-doctor-Alastair-Campbell-breaks-social-distancing-rules-speedo-man-selfie.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK
Proof that the Cummings story was more about a personal vendetta for some than any breach of the lockdown.1 -
May I present as the only argument for the opposing argument - Philip (my personal judgement / desires overrides what I've been told to do) Thompson.BluestBlue said:
Nicely put. And if we want to follow the dark logic of some critics that Cummingsgate has weakened the lockdown and will cost lives, then it follows incontrovertibly that in choosing to publish the story, the Guardian and Mirror deliberately chose to risk thousands of lives for the sake of trying (and failing) to destroy their political opponent.Richard_Nabavi said:Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
Which would make their scoop the most irresponsible piece of journalism in modern times.
I suspect his viewpoint represents a good 30-70% of the population which is going to make phase 2 impossible...0 -
Taking responsibility and ownership of his choices for Cummings would mean resignation and honesty. We have neither.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm sorry but it is sufficient. People need to take responsibility and ownership of their own choices.noneoftheabove said:
In a pandemic that is simply not sufficient, that is the problem with contagious diseases. If contagious people dont put wider society ahead of themselves and their families then the number of deaths will be much higher. It is central to the whole lockdown.Philip_Thompson said:Use common sense and do what's right for your family in the circumstances. It's not difficult, it's not rocket science.
"From this evening I must give the British people a very simple instruction - you must stay at home. Because the critical thing we must do is stop the disease spreading between households."
If a person is suffering from mental health and a call to the Samaritans isn't enough should they seek a loved one even if it means breaking the rules?
There's all sorts of what ifs. Life is complicated and we are sentient.
Too many people want to dispose their critical thinking to others. Everyone should always do what they think is right in the circumstances.1 -
Didn’t a comment like that get Rees Mogg into trouble an aeon ago?Philip_Thompson said:I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.0 -
Following a certain interview a few months ago in which she just kept listening with a straight face and didn't laugh Emily Maitlis deserves National Treasure status. You might as well object to Mary Berry or Monty Don.Nigelb said:
A bit unfair - Maitliss is a much more even handed journalist.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its the second time she has gone with a diatribe in recent weeks.CarlottaVance said:
Completely unforced error. If the first sentence had been a question, not a statement "Did Dominic Cummings break the rules? The country thinks so, but the government does not.." it would have been entirely fine. As it is its a major mis-step.FrancisUrquhart said:IMO, they are falling into the trap of CNN / NYT / WP / MSNBC does with Trump. Their hatred of the man leads to them publishing inaccuracies and it gives Trump an out (but in Trump's case he can't help himself but to jump straight back into the shit). It is what Bad Al used to use all the time to get New Labour out of issues.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/1265635019420323845?s=20
It reminds me a little bit of Rachel Maddow. Maddow also has got in trouble for stating things as facts that aren't, and while it plays great to her audience, again is used by Trump defenders as a get out e.g. repeated errors in reporting over Russian interference allows her to be painted as promoting "Russian hoax".
But I agree entirely that in this case she let her standards slip (I did not see the other 'diatribe').
Maddow reminds me more of Carole Cadwallader.
0 -
Good. That's progress. Glad some good has come out of all this.noneoftheabove said:
It depends what you mean. I shall follow the laws and whats needed to stop the virus spreading but nonsensical things like I can be in a park surrounded by people I dont know, but not by people I do know? Or I can be in a park but not a big garden? No, I shall no longer bother with such advice.Richard_Nabavi said:Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.0 -
Maybe, just maybe, the government looked at the deficit for April and thought, holy shit, we have to stop this before the entire country goes bust. I'd really like to think so. I agree with Alastair that there seems an element of panic about the removal of restrictions now but so there bloody well should be.
For me, the issues the government face are the reopening of the economy, the wind down of the excellent furlough scheme, the financial help for particular industries such as the French did yesterday with their car industry, the absolute crisis in our hospitality and tourism industries, the disaster for Universities who have grown fat on far eastern fees, the chronic failure to develop either an App or a method of tracing in the last 2.5 months, the speed with which tests are being turned around, even now the capacity to test, I could go on all day, it is terrifying.
Cummings is not even a deckchair on the Titanic which we are arguing about throwing overboard as the iceberg rips an ever bigger hole in the ship of state and the pathetic, irrational, disproportionate and frankly mad obsession with Cummings shows so much of what is wrong with this country today. People should grow up. There is plenty to be angry about, plenty to be genuinely worried about.1 job in Whitehall is not even close to making the list.
5 -
Pique isn't the issue. It's not that parents with a cough will head out to Nando's to spite the government, but that they will do so because their child is hungry and the government said our children's needs come first. And I should keep them away from school for the same reason -- or, I should send them to school for the same reason. My dear old mum's tooth hurts; can I bribe or blackmail the dentist into opening her surgery to deal with it? After all, there's no risk of infection if mum's the only patient.Richard_Nabavi said:Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
It is not that Cummings is a cock or a Brexiteer but that the guy who set the rules drove a coach and horses through them and the government has now retconned the rules to exonerate him.
1 -
Alternatively, if we go for the personal responsibility front, then if someone ends up infecting someone else, they are liable for the consequences (for the people infected, and all who they infect, and all who they infect, and so on down the chain).noneoftheabove said:
In a pandemic that is simply not sufficient, that is the problem with contagious diseases. If contagious people dont put wider society ahead of themselves and their families then the number of deaths will be much higher. It is central to the whole lockdown.Philip_Thompson said:Use common sense and do what's right for your family in the circumstances. It's not difficult, it's not rocket science.
"From this evening I must give the British people a very simple instruction - you must stay at home. Because the critical thing we must do is stop the disease spreading between households."
If someone is ill enough to be off work, that's assault. If they're hospitalised, it's grievous bodily harm. And if they're killed, it's manslaughter at the least.
We don't usually go for that because, you know, it's a disease, but if we're looking at handling it with personal responsibility, then the consequences of getting it wrong must be held accountable.0 -
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury.Philip_Thompson said:I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
Very specific aren't they?0 -
Also anecdotally, I would say as well as very significantly increased pedestrian traffic the last few days, the proportion of mask wearers has fallen.Nigelb said:
Depends on what you mean by 'we'.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's probably not enough but it's the best we've got. Are we just going to give up because Cummings is an arrogant jerk and Boris is, well, Boris?AlastairMeeks said:
As with Adlai Stevenson, who was told that all thinking people would vote for him, that's not enough.Richard_Nabavi said:Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
Anecdotally, I noticed (only because it was unusual) that I was the only one wearing a mask when shopping yesterday. Saw a pub terrace occupied by drinkers over the weekend.
My best guess is, who knows ?0 -
Well, yes, but expecting the media not to run with a great scoop - especially one aimed against their political opponents - is like expecting one of @MarqueeMark's fine moths not to fly towards a bright light.BluestBlue said:Nicely put. And if we want to follow the dark logic of some critics that Cummingsgate has weakened the lockdown and will cost lives, then it follows incontrovertibly that in choosing to publish the story, the Guardian and Mirror deliberately chose to risk thousands of lives for the sake of trying (and failing) to destroy their political opponent.
Which would make their scoop the most irresponsible piece of journalism in modern times.0 -
The thing about analogies is, if they aren't really analogous they don't really work.Philip_Thompson said:
The only way to determine that is using personal judgement. The principle of using judgement should not be in doubt.eek said:
Saving yourself from a fire is rather different to transporting your diseased, contagious body from a place of isolation where you could harm no-one to somewhere else contaminating and potentially killing others in the process.Philip_Thompson said:I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
Do you exercise your own judgment as to how much tax you should pay, what guns and recreational drugs you should own, how fast you should drive and how much you can safely drink before you do so, whether you should practise medicine or law or fly aeroplanes in your spare time, whether you should build a house in your garden, whether your car really needs an mot more than, say, once every three years, and which side of the road you should drive it on?0 -
Mmm. Indeed so. And one is queasy about saying this but it is certain that Johnson's praising of the breaking of the rules by his Chief Advisor will lead to less risk avoidance from the public and as a consequence our Covid-19 death toll will be higher than it otherwise would have been. Or to put it another way, come Christmas, because of how our craven vacuous PM has behaved over this last week, there will be a non-trivial number of people who will be lying cold in their grave rather than sitting down to turkey and all the trimmings. Indefensible really.1
-
Govt gives instructions to appointee-> good. Appointee gives instructions to govt -> doubleplusungood.BluestBlue said:
I'm pretty sure that the appointee of the elected government is covered by their mandate - how else would any appointee have the authority to do anything at all, under any government? Otherwise, good point.IshmaelZ said:
the elected government, or an unelected self-regarding weirdo who wears his clothes the wrong way out.BluestBlue said:
This entire episode is a trial of strength (oops, another metaphor!) to determine who wields the real power in Britain - the elected government, or the unelected media. quapropter res iam redit ad triarios.IshmaelZ said:
All these metaphors: regicide, assassination, feeding frenzy, getting their man, taking their scalp. This misses two points. First, news organizations report news, all the time, and "news" is ultimately defined as what their audience considers to be news, cos otherwise they would lose their readership. Blaming the press is like warmist dweebs campaigning against investment in BP while pretending not to realise that their consumption of BP's products keeps BP in business.BluestBlue said:
Indeed. Also Emerson: 'When you strike the king, you must kill him.'MarqueeMark said:
Eventually, the bigger story of the Cummings episode is how fucked the BBC are going to be as a result of the way they have played it.Andy_JS said:
Remember, Beeb: "dig two graves".....
'Cos if you don't...
Secondly, the story is that a conceited creep is more conceited, and much less clever, than appeared at first sight. The big swinging dick bloodshed metaphors lend it a dignity it just does not deserve.
Colourful metaphors are indeed inadequate to express the magnitude of what is at stake.
I would doctor your text and do the ftfy thing, but I am better than that.0 -
I've received two emails today advertising a motley range of signs, posters and floor markers specifying 2m distance. If Boris tries to earn back cheap popularity by reducing this to 1.5m - or even a yard - there will be a lot of angry suppliers to contend with.0
-
Even with the soft balling of the committee appearance this afternoon, I predict Boris will some how make things worse.
Unlike a Blair or Cameron, he is rubbish at Q&A at the best of times, but post-covid he had lost any of the blustering approach to take a question, spin it and make a witty remark. It is painful watching him do the daily pressers where even the softer questions he seems to get the wrong end of the stick.0 -
It probably isnt, because although individually its better for me, for every person who makes sensible choices, there will be some numpty who decides to drive 350 miles up the country with an infectious family. So society would be better off if they werent allowed to.Philip_Thompson said:
Good. That's progress. Glad some good has come out of all this.noneoftheabove said:
It depends what you mean. I shall follow the laws and whats needed to stop the virus spreading but nonsensical things like I can be in a park surrounded by people I dont know, but not by people I do know? Or I can be in a park but not a big garden? No, I shall no longer bother with such advice.Richard_Nabavi said:Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.0 -
The suppliers will be loving it, surely? They get to charge twice.Alphabet_Soup said:I've received two emails today advertising a motley range of signs, posters and floor markers specifying 2m distance. If Boris tries to earn back cheap popularity by reducing this to 1.5m - or even a yard - there will be a lot of angry suppliers to contend with.
0 -
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.Freggles said:
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury.Philip_Thompson said:I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
Very specific aren't they?0 -
Mail Online is saying Saturday 4 July for pub reopening.
Where is it getting this date from?
0 -
...into the fridge.squareroot2 said:first like Boris
0 -
A weird bald man from the NE? Leaking of all these lockdown loosening rules, like social bubbles and pubs reopening, with the hope of distracting from his boss crashing the clown car this afternoon.Anabobazina said:Mail Online is saying Saturday 4 July for pub reopening.
Where is it getting this date from?0 -
Independence day!Anabobazina said:Mail Online is saying Saturday 4 July for pub reopening.
Where is it getting this date from?1 -
Nor should you, from the very start of the lockdown you have been able to queue at Tescos 2 metres from people you don't know, but you have not been allowed to stand 2 metres from people you do know. The lockdown rules if you look at them closely are daft. But they are there as a guide. What the Government was aiming for was a dramatic change of behaviour which was achieved. In the latest guidelines you should only meet one member of your family at a time in a park, but you can meet two people you don't know. Clearly if you just read that out it is madness, but what they are trying to prevent is big family parties.noneoftheabove said:
It depends what you mean. I shall follow the laws and whats needed to stop the virus spreading but nonsensical things like I can be in a park surrounded by people I dont know, but not by people I do know? Or I can be in a park but not a big garden? No, I shall no longer bother with such advice.Richard_Nabavi said:Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
Basically as long as you stay 2 metres from anyone not in your household you can do whatever you like now.0 -
More than one in five (22.1 percent) MPs had a speeding conviction according to the survey, ranking them higher than radio presenters (19.2 percent) and sales directors (18.9 percent).IshmaelZ said:
The thing about analogies is, if they aren't really analogous they don't really work.Philip_Thompson said:
The only way to determine that is using personal judgement. The principle of using judgement should not be in doubt.eek said:
Saving yourself from a fire is rather different to transporting your diseased, contagious body from a place of isolation where you could harm no-one to somewhere else contaminating and potentially killing others in the process.Philip_Thompson said:I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
Do you exercise your own judgment as to how much tax you should pay, what guns and recreational drugs you should own, how fast you should drive and how much you can safely drink before you do so, whether you should practise medicine or law or fly aeroplanes in your spare time, whether you should build a house in your garden, whether your car really needs an mot more than, say, once every three years, and which side of the road you should drive it on?0 -
Anabobazina said:
Mail Online is saying Saturday 4 July for pub reopening.
Where is it getting this date from?CummingsSenior Source no doubt.0 -
Was the timescale suggested weeks ago.Anabobazina said:Mail Online is saying Saturday 4 July for pub reopening.
Where is it getting this date from?
But frankly ludicrous to have that applied to outdoors. Beer gardens should be open already with indoors restrictions until then.1 -
Elected government chooses to accept advice of appointee as it may choose to accept advice from any other source -> doubleshotofvictorygin.IshmaelZ said:
Govt gives instructions to appointee-> good. Appointee gives instructions to govt -> doubleplusungood.BluestBlue said:
I'm pretty sure that the appointee of the elected government is covered by their mandate - how else would any appointee have the authority to do anything at all, under any government? Otherwise, good point.IshmaelZ said:
the elected government, or an unelected self-regarding weirdo who wears his clothes the wrong way out.BluestBlue said:
This entire episode is a trial of strength (oops, another metaphor!) to determine who wields the real power in Britain - the elected government, or the unelected media. quapropter res iam redit ad triarios.IshmaelZ said:
All these metaphors: regicide, assassination, feeding frenzy, getting their man, taking their scalp. This misses two points. First, news organizations report news, all the time, and "news" is ultimately defined as what their audience considers to be news, cos otherwise they would lose their readership. Blaming the press is like warmist dweebs campaigning against investment in BP while pretending not to realise that their consumption of BP's products keeps BP in business.BluestBlue said:
Indeed. Also Emerson: 'When you strike the king, you must kill him.'MarqueeMark said:
Eventually, the bigger story of the Cummings episode is how fucked the BBC are going to be as a result of the way they have played it.Andy_JS said:
Remember, Beeb: "dig two graves".....
'Cos if you don't...
Secondly, the story is that a conceited creep is more conceited, and much less clever, than appeared at first sight. The big swinging dick bloodshed metaphors lend it a dignity it just does not deserve.
Colourful metaphors are indeed inadequate to express the magnitude of what is at stake.
I would doctor your text and do the ftfy thing, but I am better than that.0 -
"No childcare"Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.Freggles said:
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury.Philip_Thompson said:I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
Very specific aren't they?
DC wasn't even symptomatic yet and when he was, by his own admission he didn't need any help.
Grasping
At
Straws1 -
This is why I expect Boris to resign if he does not recover. Not so much (or not just) that he cannot answer questions but that sometimes he seems not even to follow the question. On the plus side, his breathing seems less laboured.FrancisUrquhart said:Even with the soft balling of the committee appearance this afternoon, I predict Boris will some how make things worse.
Unlike a Blair or Cameron, he is rubbish at Q&A at the best of times, but post-covid he had lost any of the blustering approach to take a question, spin it and make a witty remark. It is painful watching him do the daily pressers where even the softer questions he seems to get the wrong end of the stick.0 -
I'm surprised pubs are opening on a Saturday. I would have expected a Monday would be better to ensure everything is working. However I'm sure the breweries and councils will send people round to check the correct measures are in place.RobD said:
Independence day!Anabobazina said:Mail Online is saying Saturday 4 July for pub reopening.
Where is it getting this date from?0 -
Will Dominic Cummings still be in position on 1st June?
Ladbrokes: 7/4 go, 2/5 stay
PP/Betfair: 2/1 go, 1/3 stay
Starsports: 5/2 go, 2/7 stay
(in order of bookmakers suspecting he might still be at risk, so if you are confident he will still be there in a few days time, Shadsy's paying the best interest rate, and higher than the Building Society)0 -
If the publicans do not exercise their own judgement over when to reopen they have no place in England's green and pleasant land.Anabobazina said:Mail Online is saying Saturday 4 July for pub reopening.
Where is it getting this date from?0 -
NoIshmaelZ said:
The thing about analogies is, if they aren't really analogous they don't really work.Philip_Thompson said:
The only way to determine that is using personal judgement. The principle of using judgement should not be in doubt.eek said:
Saving yourself from a fire is rather different to transporting your diseased, contagious body from a place of isolation where you could harm no-one to somewhere else contaminating and potentially killing others in the process.Philip_Thompson said:I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
Do you exercise your own judgment as to how much tax you should pay, what guns and recreational drugs you should own, how fast you should drive and how much you can safely drink before you do so, whether you should practise medicine or law or fly aeroplanes in your spare time, whether you should build a house in your garden, whether your car really needs an mot more than, say, once every three years, and which side of the road you should drive it on?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
So yes room for judgement. Others answers may vary.0 -
You really want to go down that road? Then I'll just quote myself:kinabalu said:Mmm. Indeed so. And one is queasy about saying this but it is certain that Johnson's praising of the breaking of the rules by his Chief Advisor will lead to less risk avoidance from the public and as a consequence our Covid-19 death toll will be higher than it otherwise would have been. Or to put it another way, come Christmas, because of how our craven vacuous PM has behaved over this last week, there will be a non-trivial number of people who will be lying cold in their grave rather than sitting down to turkey and all the trimmings. Indefensible really.
'And if we want to follow the dark logic of some critics that Cummingsgate has weakened the lockdown and will cost lives, then it follows incontrovertibly that in choosing to publish the story, the Guardian and Mirror deliberately chose to risk thousands of lives for the sake of trying (and failing) to destroy their political opponent.'
'Which would make their scoop the most irresponsible piece of journalism in modern times.'
Really indefensible.0 -
There was childcare! The father was capable of a 350 mile drive without a stop. I dont think Id think that was safe at any time let alone driving a stressed family after an extremely stressful week at work. He must have been in excellent health and fresh.Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.Freggles said:
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury.Philip_Thompson said:I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
Very specific aren't they?
Of course he could look after his child. They have family in London and are rich enough it would be trivial to arrange childcare at short notice if needed.
Has there been a single child in the country who has had a serious accident because their parents had covid?
At best he acted on irrational fear. Far more likely natural selfishness.0 -
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.0
-
Reduce the material by a quarter, jack the price up (“Rush job”) and you’re quids inAlphabet_Soup said:I've received two emails today advertising a motley range of signs, posters and floor markers specifying 2m distance. If Boris tries to earn back cheap popularity by reducing this to 1.5m - or even a yard - there will be a lot of angry suppliers to contend with.
0 -
As I think you alluded to in your header, the metric seems to be "will it get Cummings off the front page".AlastairMeeks said:I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
0 -
And recall that they sat on it for a while having asked Downing St for clarification. Giving them every opportunity to deal with it by an apology or reprimand - either of which would almost certainly have avoided the current mess.Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, yes, but expecting the media not to run with a great scoop - especially one aimed against their political opponents - is like expecting one of @MarqueeMark's fine moths not to fly towards a bright light.BluestBlue said:Nicely put. And if we want to follow the dark logic of some critics that Cummingsgate has weakened the lockdown and will cost lives, then it follows incontrovertibly that in choosing to publish the story, the Guardian and Mirror deliberately chose to risk thousands of lives for the sake of trying (and failing) to destroy their political opponent.
Which would make their scoop the most irresponsible piece of journalism in modern times.0 -
That's his decision to make, not mine or yours.Freggles said:
"No childcare"Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.Freggles said:
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury.Philip_Thompson said:I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
Very specific aren't they? DC wasn't even symptomatic yet and when he was, by his own admission he didn't need any help.
Grasping
At
Straws0 -
So Boris was right. 'We can beat Corona virus, and we will!' It seems we have, well done Boris, well done Dom!Anabobazina said:Mail Online is saying Saturday 4 July for pub reopening.
Where is it getting this date from?
0 -
This is precisely why the concept of the "reasonable person" exists in law. Would a reasonable person exit a burning building in order to save themselves despite the rules on lockdown? Yes, obviously.Philip_Thompson said:
Too many people want to dispose their critical thinking to others. Everyone should always do what they think is right in the circumstances.
Would a reasonable person drive halfway up the country with a family member with a suspected Covid-19 infection in order to access the possibility of childcare from family members when they had a) access to other family members far closer to home and b) were the government’s chief advisor & had the resources of the government available to them on tap if they simply lifted the phone to ask? No.
The test is not "I thought I made a reasonable choice". It’s "does the polity (or in court, case law & potentially a jury of peers) think that would be a reasonable action to take".
It’s entirely obvious that a majority of the country do not find Cummings actions to be reasonable. You don’t have to like that Philip, but it is what it is.1 -
Question. If Sunday June 7th is as nice a day as the forecast suggests it will be, will my wife and I be allowed drive 150 miles (there & back) to our son's home? To visit, inter alia, that set of grandchildren.
AToW no-one has had Conovid-19 symptoms.0 -
Mission accomplished banner on standby.Mexicanpete said:
So Boris was right. 'We can beat Corona virus, and we will!' It seems we have, well done Boris, well done Dom!Anabobazina said:Mail Online is saying Saturday 4 July for pub reopening.
Where is it getting this date from?0 -
Its like they have all been hypnotised. People completely ignored the don't panic buy toilet roll but completely followed the stay home message. It is the most astonishing acquiescence of the British public in my lifetime.FrancisUrquhart said:
I have to say I am surprised da yuff gangs didn't try and take advantage of all those empty shops.NerysHughes said:Ther are around 120,000 police in the UK against 65 million people. It is an extraordinairy achievenment that the lockdown was followed so well. I really thought that some inner london estates would just ignore it but they never did.
I don't think the Government has lost any moral authority, people are still social distancing in a very polite way.0 -
I actually think Kier could score a lot of "I'm the only grown up in the room" points if he made a speech to this effect.Richard_Nabavi said:Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.0 -
-
That sounds like leftie Remainer talk.RobD said:
As I think you alluded to in your header, the metric seems to be "will it get Cummings off the front page".AlastairMeeks said:I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
Off to the gulag for you.
0 -
The leaks that @FrancisUrquhart mentioned seem to suggest you will be able to.OldKingCole said:Question. If Sunday June 7th is as nice a day as the forecast suggests it will be, will my wife and I be allowed drive 150 miles (there & back) to our son's home? To visit, inter alia, that set of grandchildren.
AToW no-one has had Conovid-19 symptoms.0 -
That rather assumes the papers could predict the government's response. You should pay attention to their racing tips if you think Fleet Street is that clever.BluestBlue said:
You really want to go down that road? Then I'll just quote myself:kinabalu said:Mmm. Indeed so. And one is queasy about saying this but it is certain that Johnson's praising of the breaking of the rules by his Chief Advisor will lead to less risk avoidance from the public and as a consequence our Covid-19 death toll will be higher than it otherwise would have been. Or to put it another way, come Christmas, because of how our craven vacuous PM has behaved over this last week, there will be a non-trivial number of people who will be lying cold in their grave rather than sitting down to turkey and all the trimmings. Indefensible really.
'And if we want to follow the dark logic of some critics that Cummingsgate has weakened the lockdown and will cost lives, then it follows incontrovertibly that in choosing to publish the story, the Guardian and Mirror deliberately chose to risk thousands of lives for the sake of trying (and failing) to destroy their political opponent.'
'Which would make their scoop the most irresponsible piece of journalism in modern times.'
Really indefensible.0 -
Absolutely it is Alastair. But your piece did seem to me to rather pre-judge the current lack of clarity as being symptomatic of the Cummings saga, hence the reference to dead cats etc.AlastairMeeks said:I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
The government has got itself in a super cautious box where no one will say take the risk in case the finger subsequently gets pointed and it needs to get out of that box but it has no clear idea of how to do so whilst making it consistent with everything that they have said and done to date.0 -
The tests seem to have been dispensed with. Onwards and upwards until the second wave!AlastairMeeks said:I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
0 -
And that is why Dominic Cummings is so damaging. The government has some desperately difficult decisions to make and it now lacks the public trust to make them in a sufficiently disinterested and fair way.DavidL said:
Absolutely it is Alastair. But your piece did seem to me to rather pre-judge the current lack of clarity as being symptomatic of the Cummings saga, hence the reference to dead cats etc.AlastairMeeks said:I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
The government has got itself in a super cautious box where no one will say take the risk in case the finger subsequently gets pointed and it needs to get out of that box but it has no clear idea of how to do so whilst making it consistent with everything that they have said and done to date.0 -
I am not a massive fan of Boris, but I think he is a still a lot iller than they are letting on.DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is why I expect Boris to resign if he does not recover. Not so much (or not just) that he cannot answer questions but that sometimes he seems not even to follow the question. On the plus side, his breathing seems less laboured.FrancisUrquhart said:Even with the soft balling of the committee appearance this afternoon, I predict Boris will some how make things worse.
Unlike a Blair or Cameron, he is rubbish at Q&A at the best of times, but post-covid he had lost any of the blustering approach to take a question, spin it and make a witty remark. It is painful watching him do the daily pressers where even the softer questions he seems to get the wrong end of the stick.0 -
Trump -15 (42-57) approval today ....... on a Rasmussen.3
-
So it would seem.RobD said:
Mission accomplished banner on standby.Mexicanpete said:
So Boris was right. 'We can beat Corona virus, and we will!' It seems we have, well done Boris, well done Dom!Anabobazina said:Mail Online is saying Saturday 4 July for pub reopening.
Where is it getting this date from?
I do recall George Bush used that very statement on vanquishing Sadam.0 -
Yes, but pls check your eyesight on the Saturday. You wouldnt be breaking any laws AIUI.OldKingCole said:Question. If Sunday June 7th is as nice a day as the forecast suggests it will be, will my wife and I be allowed drive 150 miles (there & back) to our son's home? To visit, inter alia, that set of grandchildren.
AToW no-one has had Conovid-19 symptoms.
If you wanted to follow the advice strictly, you could drive together and see them one at a time outside their house, in a park or a road, but not their garden. The advice doesnt cover how far back the second person needs to be whilst the first is speaking to them. Perhaps 2.01m would be reasonable?0 -
I hope that you and he are right.RobD said:
The leaks that @FrancisUrquhart mentioned seem to suggest you will be able to.OldKingCole said:Question. If Sunday June 7th is as nice a day as the forecast suggests it will be, will my wife and I be allowed drive 150 miles (there & back) to our son's home? To visit, inter alia, that set of grandchildren.
AToW no-one has had Conovid-19 symptoms.0 -
I like the reasonable test in law. You know what else I like in law? Innocent until proven guilty.Phil said:
This is precisely why the concept of the "reasonable person" exists in law. Would a reasonable person exit a burning building in order to save themselves despite the rules on lockdown? Yes, obviously.Philip_Thompson said:
Too many people want to dispose their critical thinking to others. Everyone should always do what they think is right in the circumstances.
Would a reasonable person drive halfway up the country with a family member with a suspected Covid-19 infection in order to access the possibility of childcare from family members when they had a) access to other family members far closer to home and b) were the government’s chief advisor & had the resources of the government available to them on tap if they simply lifted the phone to ask? No.
The test is not "I thought I made a reasonable choice". It’s "does the polity (or in court, case law & potentially a jury of peers) think that would be a reasonable action to take".
It’s entirely obvious that a majority of the country do not find Cummings actions to be reasonable. You don’t have to like that Philip, but it is what it is.
If someone says they have a reasonable reason and it's not been proven unreasonable then they are not guilty. That a majority may think they are guilty doesn't make them so. You don't have to like that Phil, but it is what it is.1 -
To answer that:AlastairMeeks said:I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
3 -
Do the public now care if they can go to the pub because the science says it is safe or because it helps Dom out of a hole? I am not sure they do.AlastairMeeks said:
And that is why Dominic Cummings is so damaging. The government has some desperately difficult decisions to make and it now lacks the public trust to make them in a sufficiently disinterested and fair way.DavidL said:
Absolutely it is Alastair. But your piece did seem to me to rather pre-judge the current lack of clarity as being symptomatic of the Cummings saga, hence the reference to dead cats etc.AlastairMeeks said:I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
The government has got itself in a super cautious box where no one will say take the risk in case the finger subsequently gets pointed and it needs to get out of that box but it has no clear idea of how to do so whilst making it consistent with everything that they have said and done to date.1 -
Meanwhile, it looks like Trump is going to try and switch off the Internet0
