politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At the start of lockdown Johnson’s Tories had poll leads of up

Chris said:

Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).

The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.

Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.

Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?

Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.

Stark_Dawning said:

The Durham police's ambiguity on the Cummings saga probably doesn't help Boris - smacks of the authorities giving leeway to the high and mighty which they'd never entertain if the culprit was a peasant. Cummings is very much a shrunken figure now in Last Chance Saloon. Surely even Boris wouldn't be stupid enough to keep him on if there are any more debacles like this.

algarkirk said:

Chris said:

Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).

The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.

Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.

Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?

Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.

IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.

Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.

Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?

Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anabobazina said:

Lord above.

Not more Cummings chat.

Somebody make it stop.

185 new deaths in England, last 3 days, 19 / 73 / 29. Not great numbers really. Bit larger than usual back dating due to bank holiday in there, but I think we have hit a plateau.

Chris said:

algarkirk said:

Chris said:

Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).

The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.

Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.

Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?

Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.

IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.

Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.

Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?

Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.

Thank you for a sensible answer.

But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.

CarlottaVance said:

Wonder how long Carole leaves this up, considering David Allen Green has deleted the tweet she refers to?

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1265987790237511685?s=20

RobD said:

Chris said:

algarkirk said:

Chris said:

Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).

The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.

Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.

Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?

Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.

IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.

Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.

Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?

Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.

Thank you for a sensible answer.

But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.

On point three, wouldn't an offence have been committed in the Durham jurisdiction for the return leg?

Dura_Ace said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The Durham police's ambiguity on the Cummings saga probably doesn't help Boris - smacks of the authorities giving leeway to the high and mighty which they'd never entertain if the culprit was a peasant. Cummings is very much a shrunken figure now in Last Chance Saloon. Surely even Boris wouldn't be stupid enough to keep him on if there are any more debacles like this.

The only thing we do know for certain is that the "Barnard Castle Eye Test" won't be the last act of politically catastrophic arrogance from Scummings.

Peter_the_Punter said:

@Philip_Thompson

Hi Philip

Do you believe Cummings story about the Castle expedition? I mean do you, personally, actually believe he was telling the truth?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.

It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52829348

Is this a despite Brexit? or because of it?

Philip_Thompson said:

Chris said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RobD said:

eek said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/tomfrench85/status/1265985151319801856

What does Ian Blackford know that the Durham constabulary don't?

Well, the plod did say Mr C broke the regulations, see the Secret Barrister tweet.

And I don't then understyand why the same plod were/are fining folk for driving up to Co Durham.

No they didn't, see their statement.

It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"

Why would they use that rather than "was" if there was a breach?

Why didn't they say "was NOT a breach"?

They explain in their statement, they would have needed more information but because its so minor they're not investigating further. Therefore they're not in a position to judge either way.

That's just sheer invention.

This is what they really said about Barnard Castle:
"Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.
"In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.

That matches what I said. These are the key words "the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts" . . . the officers haven't spoken to him, haven't established the facts, which is why the word that follows is "likely"

Chris said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Chris said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RobD said:

eek said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/tomfrench85/status/1265985151319801856

What does Ian Blackford know that the Durham constabulary don't?

Well, the plod did say Mr C broke the regulations, see the Secret Barrister tweet.

And I don't then understyand why the same plod were/are fining folk for driving up to Co Durham.

No they didn't, see their statement.

It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"

Why would they use that rather than "was" if there was a breach?

Why didn't they say "was NOT a breach"?

They explain in their statement, they would have needed more information but because its so minor they're not investigating further. Therefore they're not in a position to judge either way.

That's just sheer invention.

This is what they really said about Barnard Castle:
"Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.
"In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.

That matches what I said. These are the key words "the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts" . . . the officers haven't spoken to him, haven't established the facts, which is why the word that follows is "likely"

No. What you wrote was your interpretation. The statement didn't say any of what you claimed.

The difference between opinion and fact.

Chris said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Chris said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RobD said:

eek said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/tomfrench85/status/1265985151319801856

What does Ian Blackford know that the Durham constabulary don't?

Well, the plod did say Mr C broke the regulations, see the Secret Barrister tweet.

And I don't then understyand why the same plod were/are fining folk for driving up to Co Durham.

No they didn't, see their statement.

It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"

Why would they use that rather than "was" if there was a breach?

Why didn't they say "was NOT a breach"?

They explain in their statement, they would have needed more information but because its so minor they're not investigating further. Therefore they're not in a position to judge either way.

That's just sheer invention.

This is what they really said about Barnard Castle:
"Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.
"In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.

That matches what I said. These are the key words "the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts" . . . the officers haven't spoken to him, haven't established the facts, which is why the word that follows is "likely"

No. What you wrote was your interpretation. The statement didn't say any of what you claimed.

The difference between opinion and fact.

Philip_Thompson said:

bigjohnowls said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RobD said:

eek said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/tomfrench85/status/1265985151319801856

What does Ian Blackford know that the Durham constabulary don't?

Well, the plod did say Mr C broke the regulations, see the Secret Barrister tweet.

And I don't then understyand why the same plod were/are fining folk for driving up to Co Durham.

No they didn't, see their statement.

It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"

Why would they use that rather than "was" if there was a breach?

Why didn't they say "was NOT a breach"?

They explain in their statement, they would have needed more information but because its so minor they're not investigating further. Therefore they're not in a position to judge either way.

Why would they have turned him back and warned him about the dangers of travelling if it wasnt a breach?

They don't say they would have. They say the "likely" would have, ie it depends upon the further conversation that they never had.

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/tomfrench85/status/1265985151319801856

What does Ian Blackford know that the Durham constabulary don't?

And I don't then understyand why the same plod were/are fining folk for driving up to Co Durham.

Wasn't that case people from two different households?

NerysHughes said:

Flatlander said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1265986473955819520

Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.

Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?

Can you bring a private prosecution for the equivalent of a parking ticket?

We could all become traffic wardens. Just think of the fun!

As I said earlier this site has gone mad, the police have confirmed that his trip to Durham to self isolate was fine and no offence has been committed. His trip to the Castle might have been a minor breach, thats it, so far less than speeding and even far less than a parking ticket. Yet some on this site said that this was the biggest story of the past 20 years, even bigger than 9/11. For something less than a parking ticket????

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris said:

algarkirk said:

Chris said:

Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).

The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.

Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.

Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?

Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.

IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.

Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.

Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?

Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.

Thank you for a sensible answer.

But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.

Just for accuracy. It was not his second home

anotherex_tory said:

MarqueeMark said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Brom said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Will Cummings still be in position on 1st June?

A big jump in the betting following the Durham statement.

PP/Betfair: 4/1 go, 1/7 stay
Ladbrokes: 5/2 go, 1/4 stay
Starsports: 7/2 go, 1/6 stay

Perhaps some of those convinced he had to go will take advantage of these generous odds unless they have changed their minds of course.

I don't admire Cummings action but I do think Boris has been astute in accepting short term polling pain for long term gain. If Dom had gone there is no suggesting the polling would have changed direction and then the government would have been considerably weaker at least until he is reappointed.

This saga has weakened Boris slightly but perhaps it has weakened his enemies in the media a little bit more. As I suggested Pippa Crear and co just lacked a little bit more evidence and overplayed their hand slightly.

I've backed both sides, and would like Cummings and Boris to stay provided they stick to the anti-austerity, pro-investment platform on which they won the last election -- by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, as I've often expressed it.

What mystifies me is what in the past two months makes Cummings' supporters believe he is an asset. What exactly is it that Britain has done better than any other country? It seems to me some PB Tories are so caught up in cheering for their side against Remoaners and the MSM that they've forgotten to ask themselves if Cummings is actually any good.

The next four years will show why Cummings is an asset.

The assassins have failed.

There will be concern now in the BBC. The wider media. And especially in the Civil Service. After all, Cummings had the temerity to unravel the nice little stitch-up of a two year Brexit extension with Brussels, done whilst Boris was out the loop in hospital.

There's going to be quite a reckoning for that. Because Cummings is now bomb-proof.

Its amazing that people actually think in such a way. The UK falling out of the Single Market and every single trading agreement it currently has, on 1 January 2021 is going to lead to massively undermine the UK's economy at exactly the moment it is at it weakness.

When the UK continues to struggle without trade agreements and a crippled economy incapable of regrowing itself there will be plenty of people pointing to "damaged goods" Cummings and the interestingly shaped sock-puppet he operates as the causes of it.

This was inevitable; there is no cunning plan or something around the corner, there is only Brexit and then see what comes up. The thing that is coming up? The ground and fast.

Philip_Thompson said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

@Philip_Thompson

Hi Philip

Do you believe Cummings story about the Castle expedition? I mean do you, personally, actually believe he was telling the truth?

Sort of.

In the full context of he felt like it was a good idea to drive to see if he was up to the pressures of driving then yes I do. I've done similar before. I think a half hour trip is a great idea before a cross country drive if you have any concerns and I've done that before.

On the out of context word of "eyesight" and an eyesight discussion alone? No.

Does that make sense?

kinabalu said:

NerysHughes said:

Flatlander said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1265986473955819520

Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.

Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?

Can you bring a private prosecution for the equivalent of a parking ticket?

We could all become traffic wardens. Just think of the fun!

As I said earlier this site has gone mad, the police have confirmed that his trip to Durham to self isolate was fine and no offence has been committed. His trip to the Castle might have been a minor breach, thats it, so far less than speeding and even far less than a parking ticket. Yet some on this site said that this was the biggest story of the past 20 years, even bigger than 9/11. For something less than a parking ticket????

Will people please stop LYING.

The police did NOT say the trip to Durham was fine. They said it was not a breach of the law. It was still prima facie a breach of the guidelines - presented by the government as instructions.

Chris said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anabobazina said:

Lord above.

Not more Cummings chat.

Somebody make it stop.

185 new deaths in England, last 3 days, 19 / 73 / 29. Not great numbers really. Bit larger than usual back dating due to bank holiday in there, but I think we have hit a plateau.

Do you not find the wild variation of the figures with the day of the week, combined with the effect of bank holidays, makes the daily figures almost impossible to interpret sensibly?

Philip_Thompson said:

Chris said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Chris said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RobD said:

eek said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/tomfrench85/status/1265985151319801856

What does Ian Blackford know that the Durham constabulary don't?

Well, the plod did say Mr C broke the regulations, see the Secret Barrister tweet.

And I don't then understyand why the same plod were/are fining folk for driving up to Co Durham.

No they didn't, see their statement.

It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"

Why would they use that rather than "was" if there was a breach?

Why didn't they say "was NOT a breach"?

They explain in their statement, they would have needed more information but because its so minor they're not investigating further. Therefore they're not in a position to judge either way.

That's just sheer invention.

This is what they really said about Barnard Castle:
"Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.
"In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.

That matches what I said. These are the key words "the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts" . . . the officers haven't spoken to him, haven't established the facts, which is why the word that follows is "likely"

No. What you wrote was your interpretation. The statement didn't say any of what you claimed.

The difference between opinion and fact.

Chris said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Chris said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RobD said:

eek said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/tomfrench85/status/1265985151319801856

What does Ian Blackford know that the Durham constabulary don't?

Well, the plod did say Mr C broke the regulations, see the Secret Barrister tweet.

And I don't then understyand why the same plod were/are fining folk for driving up to Co Durham.

No they didn't, see their statement.

It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"

Why would they use that rather than "was" if there was a breach?

Why didn't they say "was NOT a breach"?

They explain in their statement, they would have needed more information but because its so minor they're not investigating further. Therefore they're not in a position to judge either way.

That's just sheer invention.

This is what they really said about Barnard Castle:
"Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.
"In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.

That matches what I said. These are the key words "the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts" . . . the officers haven't spoken to him, haven't established the facts, which is why the word that follows is "likely"

No. What you wrote was your interpretation. The statement didn't say any of what you claimed.

The difference between opinion and fact.

It does say that.

anotherex_tory said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.

It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52829348

Is this a despite Brexit? or because of it?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.

It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52829348

Is this a despite Brexit? or because of it?

Its actually because of Brexit, Nissan have said before that they want to become a major player in the UK market becasue they expect reduced sales of European cars into the UK after the imposition of tarrifs. Renault of course will cover the European market but is firmly in control of the trio of companies in the group.

There is a strong priviso here and a downside:

Provisio: everyone in the UK switches from Euopean cars to Nissans; this is vital as the plant will have far excess capacity as it will only be for the UK market. If the demand in the UK isn't met and thanks again to the tarrif barriers the plant's future will be back in jeapordy as Renault is covering the European market.

Downside: having a UK plant manufacturing cars for the UK market alone does nothing to help the UK's already terrible balance of payments.

Essentially the focus of the group is Nissan in the UK without any connections to the wider manufacturing enterprise. Clearly they want to retain the sunk cost of the factory but they have also segregated should it need lopping off if there is not sufficient take-up of Nissan cars in the UK.

kinabalu said:

NerysHughes said:

Flatlander said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1265986473955819520

Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.

Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?

Can you bring a private prosecution for the equivalent of a parking ticket?

We could all become traffic wardens. Just think of the fun!

As I said earlier this site has gone mad, the police have confirmed that his trip to Durham to self isolate was fine and no offence has been committed. His trip to the Castle might have been a minor breach, thats it, so far less than speeding and even far less than a parking ticket. Yet some on this site said that this was the biggest story of the past 20 years, even bigger than 9/11. For something less than a parking ticket????

Will people please stop LYING.

The police did NOT say the trip to Durham was fine. They said it was not a breach of the law. It was still prima facie a breach of the guidelines - presented by the government as instructions.

NerysHughes said:

Im confused, the police saying that no breach of the law was committed is not the same as them saying that the trip was fine in their eyes?

Brom said:

tlg86 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Wonder how long Carole leaves this up, considering David Allen Green has deleted the tweet she refers to?

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1265987790237511685?s=20

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1265995037785182209
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1265990970862075905

Neil Sedaka was incredibly prescient when he wrote "Oh Carol"

Chris said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris said:

algarkirk said:

Chris said:

Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).

The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.

Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.

Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?

Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.

IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.

Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.

Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?

Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.

Thank you for a sensible answer.

But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.

Just for accuracy. It was not his second home

Please try to keep up. Apparently it is claimed that it was his second home. DougSeal posted a bit earlier:
"It appears he owns the cottage he self isolated in - making it his second home."

Please also note that I don't believe a word of these multitudinous contradictory excuses that have been put forward on Cummings's behalf.

If I say "would the regulations really justify X", don't imagine for a moment that I accept that X was really the situation. Only that someone or other trying to defend Cummings has said that X was the situation!

I am still sceptical about whether this "cottage" even exists!

OnlyLivingBoy said:

anotherex_tory said:

MarqueeMark said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Brom said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Will Cummings still be in position on 1st June?

A big jump in the betting following the Durham statement.

PP/Betfair: 4/1 go, 1/7 stay
Ladbrokes: 5/2 go, 1/4 stay
Starsports: 7/2 go, 1/6 stay

Perhaps some of those convinced he had to go will take advantage of these generous odds unless they have changed their minds of course.

I don't admire Cummings action but I do think Boris has been astute in accepting short term polling pain for long term gain. If Dom had gone there is no suggesting the polling would have changed direction and then the government would have been considerably weaker at least until he is reappointed.

This saga has weakened Boris slightly but perhaps it has weakened his enemies in the media a little bit more. As I suggested Pippa Crear and co just lacked a little bit more evidence and overplayed their hand slightly.

I've backed both sides, and would like Cummings and Boris to stay provided they stick to the anti-austerity, pro-investment platform on which they won the last election -- by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, as I've often expressed it.

What mystifies me is what in the past two months makes Cummings' supporters believe he is an asset. What exactly is it that Britain has done better than any other country? It seems to me some PB Tories are so caught up in cheering for their side against Remoaners and the MSM that they've forgotten to ask themselves if Cummings is actually any good.

The next four years will show why Cummings is an asset.

The assassins have failed.

There will be concern now in the BBC. The wider media. And especially in the Civil Service. After all, Cummings had the temerity to unravel the nice little stitch-up of a two year Brexit extension with Brussels, done whilst Boris was out the loop in hospital.

There's going to be quite a reckoning for that. Because Cummings is now bomb-proof.

Its amazing that people actually think in such a way. The UK falling out of the Single Market and every single trading agreement it currently has, on 1 January 2021 is going to lead to massively undermine the UK's economy at exactly the moment it is at it weakness.

When the UK continues to struggle without trade agreements and a crippled economy incapable of regrowing itself there will be plenty of people pointing to "damaged goods" Cummings and the interestingly shaped sock-puppet he operates as the causes of it.

This was inevitable; there is no cunning plan or something around the corner, there is only Brexit and then see what comes up. The thing that is coming up? The ground and fast.

For what they want to do to the British economy, they need it to be as weak as possible.

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT Cummings didn't break the law with the Durham trip, he's been cleared of that. The Barnhard Castle trip might have or might not have but was so minor we will never know.

I was laughed at here by many people for accepting the Durham trip as legal but I was right, they were wrong, and I have been vindicated for my view. Who has the humility to apologise?

Time will roll on and the Tories will be judged at the next election by how good or bad a job they do over the next 4 years. As they should be. If Dom helps them do a good job then keeping him will win more votes in the long run.

You were laughed at for swallowing the Cummings story hook line & sinker.

The Cummings story is the truth unless there's evidence to the contrary. Which there isn't.

My default assumption is not to say everyone is lying just because its politically convenient to call them liars.

anotherex_tory said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.

It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52829348

Is this a despite Brexit? or because of it?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.

It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52829348

Is this a despite Brexit? or because of it?

Its actually because of Brexit, Nissan have said before that they want to become a major player in the UK market becasue they expect reduced sales of European cars into the UK after the imposition of tarrifs. Renault of course will cover the European market but is firmly in control of the trio of companies in the group.

There is a strong priviso here and a downside:

Provisio: everyone in the UK switches from Euopean cars to Nissans; this is vital as the plant will have far excess capacity as it will only be for the UK market. If the demand in the UK isn't met and thanks again to the tarrif barriers the plant's future will be back in jeapordy as Renault is covering the European market.

Downside: having a UK plant manufacturing cars for the UK market alone does nothing to help the UK's already terrible balance of payments.

Essentially the focus of the group is Nissan in the UK without any connections to the wider manufacturing enterprise. Clearly they want to retain the sunk cost of the factory but they have also segregated should it need lopping off if there is not sufficient take-up of Nissan cars in the UK.

StuartDickson said:

At the start of lockdown Sturgeon’s SNP had poll leads of up to 14% – now the latest two surveys have that up at 25%.

At this rate independence might happen quite soon.

On the face of it the polling trends look worrying for the Conservatives and good for the SNP which is seeing a lot of progress in getting the gap larger.

For the SNP the really positive thing has been the improvement in the leader ratings.

The big question is how will this now go? Can BoJo/Dom stop any further erosion or is Sturgeon’s big ratings progress going to be translated into even better voting intention numbers? We don’t know, which is why the Unionist media commission so few Scottish polls.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

anotherex_tory said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.

It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52829348

Is this a despite Brexit? or because of it?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.

It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52829348

Is this a despite Brexit? or because of it?

Its actually because of Brexit, Nissan have said before that they want to become a major player in the UK market becasue they expect reduced sales of European cars into the UK after the imposition of tarrifs. Renault of course will cover the European market but is firmly in control of the trio of companies in the group.

There is a strong priviso here and a downside:

Provisio: everyone in the UK switches from Euopean cars to Nissans; this is vital as the plant will have far excess capacity as it will only be for the UK market. If the demand in the UK isn't met and thanks again to the tarrif barriers the plant's future will be back in jeapordy as Renault is covering the European market.

Downside: having a UK plant manufacturing cars for the UK market alone does nothing to help the UK's already terrible balance of payments.

Essentially the focus of the group is Nissan in the UK without any connections to the wider manufacturing enterprise. Clearly they want to retain the sunk cost of the factory but they have also segregated should it need lopping off if there is not sufficient take-up of Nissan cars in the UK.

Are you suggesting these cars will not be exported as well.

And Airbus have confirmed continuing wing manufacture in the UK

TGOHF666 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TGOHF666 said:

Premier League* to restart on 17th June.



* England.

A relief for you that it's all over up here, spared further humiliation and all that. Every cloud..

We will never know now - just a left with a big *

Philip_Thompson said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

@Philip_Thompson

Hi Philip

Do you believe Cummings story about the Castle expedition? I mean do you, personally, actually believe he was telling the truth?

Sort of.

In the full context of he felt like it was a good idea to drive to see if he was up to the pressures of driving then yes I do. I've done similar before. I think a half hour trip is a great idea before a cross country drive if you have any concerns and I've done that before.

On the out of context word of "eyesight" and an eyesight discussion alone? No.

Does that make sense?

eadric said:

Theuniondivvie said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/peterjukes/status/1265993742873513985?s=21

Shades of Nick Griffin and his pigs.
I'm sure the 'political correctness gone mad, he's only havin' a laff' merchants will be along shortly.

And Alan Clark with his dog called Eva Braun

This isn't entirely a rightwing thing, a lot of it is posh people being outrageous, pour epater les bourgeois, to show how posh they really are; ie, they can get away with it

anotherex_tory said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

anotherex_tory said:

MarqueeMark said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Brom said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Will Cummings still be in position on 1st June?

A big jump in the betting following the Durham statement.

PP/Betfair: 4/1 go, 1/7 stay
Ladbrokes: 5/2 go, 1/4 stay
Starsports: 7/2 go, 1/6 stay

Perhaps some of those convinced he had to go will take advantage of these generous odds unless they have changed their minds of course.

I don't admire Cummings action but I do think Boris has been astute in accepting short term polling pain for long term gain. If Dom had gone there is no suggesting the polling would have changed direction and then the government would have been considerably weaker at least until he is reappointed.

This saga has weakened Boris slightly but perhaps it has weakened his enemies in the media a little bit more. As I suggested Pippa Crear and co just lacked a little bit more evidence and overplayed their hand slightly.

I've backed both sides, and would like Cummings and Boris to stay provided they stick to the anti-austerity, pro-investment platform on which they won the last election -- by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, as I've often expressed it.

What mystifies me is what in the past two months makes Cummings' supporters believe he is an asset. What exactly is it that Britain has done better than any other country? It seems to me some PB Tories are so caught up in cheering for their side against Remoaners and the MSM that they've forgotten to ask themselves if Cummings is actually any good.

The next four years will show why Cummings is an asset.

The assassins have failed.

There will be concern now in the BBC. The wider media. And especially in the Civil Service. After all, Cummings had the temerity to unravel the nice little stitch-up of a two year Brexit extension with Brussels, done whilst Boris was out the loop in hospital.

There's going to be quite a reckoning for that. Because Cummings is now bomb-proof.

Its amazing that people actually think in such a way. The UK falling out of the Single Market and every single trading agreement it currently has, on 1 January 2021 is going to lead to massively undermine the UK's economy at exactly the moment it is at it weakness.

When the UK continues to struggle without trade agreements and a crippled economy incapable of regrowing itself there will be plenty of people pointing to "damaged goods" Cummings and the interestingly shaped sock-puppet he operates as the causes of it.

This was inevitable; there is no cunning plan or something around the corner, there is only Brexit and then see what comes up. The thing that is coming up? The ground and fast.

For what they want to do to the British economy, they need it to be as weak as possible.

But I don't see it like that: there is no cunning plan here. The idea that Cummings and the government he runs can realistically bomb the economy back to the stone age and start again with a pure Chicago school ideology doesn't fit with the populist anti-austerity messaging.

There is no political will for a major restructuring of the UK economy: there would be mass unrest if it was attempted and restructure to what anyway? The UK's Labour costs are too high and changing the infrastructure into a high tech post-industrial society would be close to impossible.

They're just chancers: having a blog with formulas in it doesn't mean you have a great vision for the country, Cummings may have opinions on how the UK works at the moment but a clear, consistent and most importantly achievable plan to change it for the better and in a way that doesn't cause mass unrest, he doesn't have. Nothing that has been said so far indicates it either.

anotherex_tory said:

eadric said:

anotherex_tory said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.

It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52829348

Is this a despite Brexit? or because of it?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.

It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52829348

Is this a despite Brexit? or because of it?

Its actually because of Brexit, Nissan have said before that they want to become a major player in the UK market becasue they expect reduced sales of European cars into the UK after the imposition of tarrifs. Renault of course will cover the European market but is firmly in control of the trio of companies in the group.

There is a strong priviso here and a downside:

Provisio: everyone in the UK switches from Euopean cars to Nissans; this is vital as the plant will have far excess capacity as it will only be for the UK market. If the demand in the UK isn't met and thanks again to the tarrif barriers the plant's future will be back in jeapordy as Renault is covering the European market.

Downside: having a UK plant manufacturing cars for the UK market alone does nothing to help the UK's already terrible balance of payments.

Essentially the focus of the group is Nissan in the UK without any connections to the wider manufacturing enterprise. Clearly they want to retain the sunk cost of the factory but they have also segregated should it need lopping off if there is not sufficient take-up of Nissan cars in the UK.

Piffle. We don't know what the FTA will be, twixt UK and EU. No one does. Nor does Nissan. Maybe there won't be a FTA. Or maybe there will and Nissan will be able to export freely. If there is a significant barrier to trade they will do what you say, and focus on the UK (and maybe export to other, non EU markets, from Sunderland)

The fact is there are so many variables, at such a fluid time, every move is a bet. And Nissan have just bet on the UK. That's it.

Its a hedge not a bet.

The segregation of the model reflects the expectations of trade barriers but also demonstrates that Nissan will make a go of what it already has in the UK.

That's what most multinationals would do in any restructure anyway.

algarkirk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris said:

algarkirk said:

Chris said:

Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).

The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.

Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.

Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?

Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.

IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.

Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.

Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?

Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.

Thank you for a sensible answer.

But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.

Just for accuracy. It was not his second home

Please try to keep up. Apparently it is claimed that it was his second home. DougSeal posted a bit earlier:
"It appears he owns the cottage he self isolated in - making it his second home."

Please also note that I don't believe a word of these multitudinous contradictory excuses that have been put forward on Cummings's behalf.

If I say "would the regulations really justify X", don't imagine for a moment that I accept that X was really the situation. Only that someone or other trying to defend Cummings has said that X was the situation!

I am still sceptical about whether this "cottage" even exists!

With respect the police statement is comprehensive and it really does not matter what you believe unless you want to take on the police statement

As far as the ownership of the cottage is concerned I have not seen the previous comment but it has not come into the issue as far as the police are concerned

The question of what 'to move house' means (Regs 6(l)) is interesting but safest to say it means exactly what it seems to mean in common sense - to go to live from one home of any sort to another home of any sort. Subject to any exemptions - like for holidays.

Theuniondivvie said:

StuartDickson said:

At the start of lockdown Sturgeon’s SNP had poll leads of up to 14% – now the latest two surveys have that up at 25%.

At this rate independence might happen quite soon.

On the face of it the polling trends look worrying for the Conservatives and good for the SNP which is seeing a lot of progress in getting the gap larger.

For the SNP the really positive thing has been the improvement in the leader ratings.

The big question is how will this now go? Can BoJo/Dom stop any further erosion or is Sturgeon’s big ratings progress going to be translated into even better voting intention numbers? We don’t know, which is why the Unionist media commission so few Scottish polls.

Yep, some Scottish Tories get it (though it could be said the ones visibly crapping themselves and spouting ever more virulent guff also get it).

https://twitter.com/akmaciver/status/1265980675007680512?s=20

TimT said:

For those interested, a very good video on the difference between indoor and outdoor transmission of COVID:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6QwnzbRUyA

algarkirk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris said:

algarkirk said:

Chris said:

Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).

The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.

Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.

Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?

Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.

IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.

Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.

Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?

Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.

Thank you for a sensible answer.

But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.

Just for accuracy. It was not his second home

Please try to keep up. Apparently it is claimed that it was his second home. DougSeal posted a bit earlier:
"It appears he owns the cottage he self isolated in - making it his second home."

Please also note that I don't believe a word of these multitudinous contradictory excuses that have been put forward on Cummings's behalf.

If I say "would the regulations really justify X", don't imagine for a moment that I accept that X was really the situation. Only that someone or other trying to defend Cummings has said that X was the situation!

I am still sceptical about whether this "cottage" even exists!

With respect the police statement is comprehensive and it really does not matter what you believe unless you want to take on the police statement

As far as the ownership of the cottage is concerned I have not seen the previous comment but it has not come into the issue as far as the police are concerned

The question of what 'to move house' means (Regs 6(l)) is interesting but safest to say it means exactly what it seems to mean in common sense - to go to live from one home of any sort to another home of any sort. Subject to any exemptions - like for holidays.

RobD said:

Chris said:

algarkirk said:

Chris said:

Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).

The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.

Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.

Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?

Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.

IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.

Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.

Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?

Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.

Thank you for a sensible answer.

But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.

On point three, wouldn't an offence have been committed in the Durham jurisdiction for the return leg?

kinabalu said:

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

NerysHughes said:

Flatlander said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1265986473955819520

Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.

Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?

Can you bring a private prosecution for the equivalent of a parking ticket?

We could all become traffic wardens. Just think of the fun!

As I said earlier this site has gone mad, the police have confirmed that his trip to Durham to self isolate was fine and no offence has been committed. His trip to the Castle might have been a minor breach, thats it, so far less than speeding and even far less than a parking ticket. Yet some on this site said that this was the biggest story of the past 20 years, even bigger than 9/11. For something less than a parking ticket????

Will people please stop LYING.

The police did NOT say the trip to Durham was fine. They said it was not a breach of the law. It was still prima facie a breach of the guidelines - presented by the government as instructions.

Do you know what we call things that are 'not a breach of the law'?

We call them LEGAL

Exactly.

As opposed to FINE.

Nice to see you backing me up today.