Britain - The Official Thread

[SuperDiscoDaz]

It's always been 🤬 Hartlepool.

No it’s always been 🤬 Darlo

 

[UKMikey]

Looks like there are more than three.

 

[Touring Mars]

Looks like there are more than three.

There are two in Glasgow alone.

 

[TenEightyOne]

There are two in Glasgow alone.

I thought there was one, but which one depends on who you ask.

 

[Liquid]

There are two in Glasgow alone.

I thought there was one, but which one depends on who you ask.

Yeah. I :censored:ing hate Partick and Queen's Park.

 

[Robin]

Not much confidence in doing business going forward in UK then eh Nissan

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yeah. I :censored:ing hate Partick and Queen's Park.

I've let Glasgow down, I've let the forum down, and worst of all I've let myself down. I'm ashamed.

 

[Submerged]

I guess everyone's just accepting that the R number is going to increase from Monday onwards.

Not being a Negative Nelly.... but its a bit cheeky of the government to turn around and say to the public:

Now its your turn to follow our rules that we have set into place for the foreseeable future, even though the government advisors doesn't follow it during the most dangerous part of it.

Meeting 6 people outside, provided you do social distancing, even a BBQ in a garden too! Oh wow....That's going to go well(!)

Police can't do anything anyway as they are shown to be unable to have any power over that (not that I want a police state, far from it, its more respect for the police and society as a whole as working towards a common goal).

Personally, it just feels that social distancing just doesn't happen anymore from today.

In the local supermarket, most people were going their own way once inside the store, no one cared how close they were and people were in and out as quick as, because it was a lovely day outside.

I just get the overriding feeling that the government has seriously cocked it up this week.

 

[PzR Slim]

I guess everyone's just accepting that the R number is going to increase from Monday onwards.

Not being a Negative Nelly.... but its a bit cheeky of the government to turn around and say to the public:

Now its your turn to follow our rules that we have set into place for the foreseeable future, even though the government advisors doesn't follow it during the most dangerous part of it.

Meeting 6 people outside, provided you do social distancing, even a BBQ in a garden too! Oh wow....That's going to go well(!)

Police can't do anything anyway as they are shown to be unable to have any power over that (not that I want a police state, far from it, its more respect for the police and society as a whole as working towards a common goal).

Personally, it just feels that social distancing just doesn't happen anymore from today.

In the local supermarket, most people were going their own way once inside the store, no one cared how close they were and people were in and out as quick as, because it was a lovely day outside.

I just get the overriding feeling that the government has seriously cocked it up this week.

Saw this from Burnham earlier.

Who knows what effect the two recent bank holiday shenanigans has had on those figures. So in the North East we could be over 1 but lets ease lockdown and get some of the kids back to school. I'll be treading lightly until I see how the next few weeks play out.

 

[Famine]

Now its your turn to follow our rules that we have set into place for the foreseeable future, even though the government advisors doesn't follow it during the most dangerous part of it.

The statement from Durham is pretty clear that Cummings' trip to and isolation in Durham did not constitute a breach of the law, but that his trip to Barnard Castle might have constituted a breach of the law based on available evidence (statement this week, ANPR, CCTV) and may have resulted in being spoken to by the police if seen but not a fine ("enforcement action") and they will not retroactively pursue the matter as they have not done so with anyone else.

At best we can say that the trip out to Barnard Castle could have, if seen, resulted in him being turned back to Durham if he was not able to provide a reasonable excuse (under 6(1) of the Regulations) to an officer at the time. Other than that possibility, no part of it was against the law.

On 27 March 2020, Dominic Cummings drove to Durham to self-isolate in a property owned by his father.

Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. (We are concerned here with breaches of the Regulations, not the general Government guidance to “stay at home”.)

On 12 April 2020, Mr Cummings drove approximately 26 miles from his father’s property to Barnard Castle with his wife and son. He stated on 25 May 2020 that the purpose of this drive was to test his resilience to drive to London the following day, including whether his eyesight was sufficiently recovered, his period of self-isolation having ended.

Durham Constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR, witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.

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.

By way of further context, Durham Constabulary has followed Government guidance on management of alleged breaches of the regulations with the emphasis on the NPCC and College of Policing 4Es: Engage, Explain and Encourage before Enforcement.

Finally, commentary in the media has suggested that Mr Cummings was in Durham on 19 April 2020. Mr Cummings denies this and Durham Constabulary have seen insufficient evidence to support this allegation. Therefore Durham Constabulary will take no further action in this matter and has informed Mr Cummings of this decision.

Which...

The police in Durham interviewed him on March 31st and were satisfied enough to leave it there.

I'm still not sure what law it was he has broken, especially given that the police declined to charge or caution him with anything. The reportage seems light on it too, just fury that he did something that other people didn't think they could do.


If he did drive from Houghall Woods to Barnard Castle for a walk some time in mid-April, before the restrictions eased enough for people to do that, sure. The evidence on that seems flimsy right now, but should that turn out to be true, it's not on.

 

[Touring Mars]

Dominic Cummings had coronavirus for 10 days. "It was the scariest and most horrendous ten days I've ever had", said coronavirus.

 

[Submerged]

The statement from Durham is pretty clear that Cummings' trip to and isolation in Durham did not constitute a breach of the law, but that his trip to Barnard Castle might have constituted a breach of the law based on available evidence (statement this week, ANPR, CCTV) and may have resulted in being spoken to by the police if seen but not a fine ("enforcement action") and they will not retroactively pursue the matter as they have not done so with anyone else.

At best we can say that the trip out to Barnard Castle could have, if seen, resulted in him being turned back to Durham if he was not able to provide a reasonable excuse (under 6(1) of the Regulations) to an officer at the time. Other than that possibility, no part of it was against the law.

Which...

Not to beat an already dead horse to a pulp, but its pretty strange situation all told, given what came out about the whole thing and all.

What you are suggesting is that the law and rule put in place, did not even match the government percieved tone when it was first sent out, especially in the post that came from Downing Street.

Its a bit of a confusing situation for anyone to really navigate around. While DC, the weasel, may have done something legally, morally, it was so far outside most people's expectations along with the Barnard Castle adventure that it just makes no sense, gives an impression that DC, the weasel, is above the law and the government.

I get why @Famine is keen to point it out to bring the conversation to the point of the law, but morally and from what the whole country was told, given DC, the weasel, comments and explanation that was televised, it makes it really hard to go "oh, yeah, that makes sense, yeah, I would have done that in his shoes".

Also, he already broke the guidelines when he visited his wife with suspected Covid-19 symptoms and then went straight back to work rather than just calling ahead and saying that they were isolating.



Anyway, next one is the new easing of lockdown. I guess June 14th is when we start seeing whether the cases numbers stay down or not.

 

[PeterJB]

So I guess social distancing's off the cards for the time being:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52868465

All this is doing is creating an unnecessary ballache for the police and the NHS over something they've got nothing to do with.

 

[PzR Slim]

Sorry nature, the humans are back.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/shocking-scenes-beer-bottles-laughing-18338179

So I guess social distancing's off the cards for the time being:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52868465

All this is doing is creating an unnecessary ballache for the police and the NHS over something they've got nothing to do with.

I totally agree, however, at least they have a cause unlike this lot in Bournemouth yesterday. They estimated there were 300,000 people between Bournemouth and Poole.

 

[BobK]

So it's now illegal for people from different households to have sex?

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-sex-lockdown-illegal-093127804.html

 

[Famine]

While DC, the weasel, may have done something legally, morally, it was so far outside most people's expectations

I've seen this and "spirit of the law" trotted out a lot, pretty much because people want to be able to beat on Cummings but it's entirely obvious that there is no legal basis for doing so - at least for the trip as a whole. The incident with Barnard Castle would have merited attention at the time, but would not have resulted in any enforcement action - and I'm not sure you can point at this being "morally" wrong even though it wasn't actually lawful; his argument was that after recovering from a debilitating disorder, he wanted to undertake a small journey to ensure he was well enough before embarking on a longer one. He was not willing to risk the lives of his family and those around him by driving for four hours without being sure he was capable of doing so.

What's the negative moral implications of that? Why was it immoral? It seems a pretty responsible thing to do to me; one could make the argument that he could have set off for London and turned back if he wasn't feeling well, but then every mile he got away from Durham would have been a mile he'd have to drive back while feeling unwell...

The initial quarantine process as presented by Boris Johnson in mid-March was for people to take responsibility for themselves, isolating where appropriate, distancing where appropriate, and doing what they felt was necessary to mitigate the spread of the virus. The thought process of "we might both become unwell, which would leave us incapable of caring for our child, and the appropriate place for us to isolate while also having childcare is a cottage on the in-laws' estate in Durham, so let's go there before we both become too ill to do so" would appear to entirely meet that "spirit".

Of course that moved to a full lockdown a week later, because people couldn't take responsibility for themselves. It's pretty damning that the Netherlands essentially continued throughout with what we tried first of all, but our population couldn't be trusted with it.


I get that Cummings is a hate figure, and why, but I don't get why he's in the stocks for this one. I've barely seen a mention of - as a rough example - the MP who broke lockdown to go **** her married boyfriend, or the MP who broke lockdown to go to his (ex-party leader) dad's birthday on a 300-mile round trip, or the MP who broke lockdown twice - also with the PM's permission - because the internet in his constituency is slow, but Cummings is morally questionable for ensuring the best care for his family in the safest way he could think of?

 

[PeterJB]

So it's now illegal for people from different households to have sex?

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-sex-lockdown-illegal-093127804.html

It doesn't mention coitus specifically but unless you're extremely well-endowed, staying two metres apart while doing the deed is not gonna be easy.

 

[Touring Mars]

So it's now illegal for people from different households to have sex?

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-sex-lockdown-illegal-093127804.html

Any Cummings beyond a 5-mile radius of home ought to have a very good explanation...

 

[PeterJB]

BREAKING NEWS: Dawn Butler discovers a cure for the coronavirus. It turns out, if you choose to violate social distancing, you just need to say it's for basic human rights and you're totally immune!

https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/06/blame-government-coronavirus-12814284/#metro-comments-container

 

[Touring Mars]

One of the biggest questions on everyone's lips in the UK is when will pubs reopen?

Unfortunately, pubs vary greatly in terms of available space, and one rule will not fit all... some of my favourite pubs are tiny and will struggle to stay afloat even if they are allowed to reopen soon.

There are, however, things that can and should be done to help pubs survive the pandemic, including relaxing some laws on outdoor drinking, opening hours etc., not to mention physical measures to protect staff like perspex screens and, of course, social distancing.

I was wondering, however, if pubs could possibly benefit from the 'social bubble' concept... i.e. instead of only allowing big pubs or pubs with outdoor spaces to reopen (and presumably allowing smaller pubs to go bust), perhaps all pubs could reopen with a 'pass' system i.e. a regular clientelle who register with one and only one pub, thus limiting the number of people who can mix socially (temporarily), while allowing pubs to operate at higher capacity...

I'm not sure if it is even remotely plausible, but it does seem possible at least. Indeed, some bars around me are usually around 50% regulars anyway, and I know that my friends tend to stick to a small number of pubs (well, we have 9 or 10 'regular' haunts) anyway, so perhaps if that was made a bit more 'official' i.e. registered visitors only, or indeed booking a time where your party can go to a specific pub.

It would, of course, be a privacy nightmare and open to all sorts of manipulation, but it would probably better than nothing - and possibly save a few businesses in the process.

 

[MatskiMonk]

So, we want to tear down statues because of Slavery...

... perhaps we need to look into the House of Lords too ...

 

[polysmut]

So, we want to tear down statues because of Slavery...

... perhaps we need to look into the House of Lords too ...

There's plenty wrong with the house of lords but treating people as if they are their ancestors isn't the way forward.

 

[MatskiMonk]

There's plenty wrong with the house of lords but treating people as if they are their ancestors isn't the way forward.

I'm not suggesting we dunk them in a river, but I'd suggest removing the extreme position of privilege bestowed by their birthright, thanks to these ancestors - in our democratic system - would be a far more useful statement that the nation takes equality seriously, than taking down a lump of bronze.

 

[Liquid]

You don't need to prey on a slavery angle to want to abolish the House of Lords. It's an antiquated anachronism.

 

[polysmut]

Get the 26 church of england bishops out of government along with the rest of the upper house. Not because of their ancestors actions though.

Edit: @MatskiMonk, I think we're agreed that ancestry is an inappropriate route to qualify to serve in government.
That alone is reason to remove them.

 

[Dotini]

Get the 26 church of england bishops out of government along with the rest of the upper house. Not because of their ancestors actions though.

Edit: @MatskiMonk, I think we're agreed that ancestry is an inappropriate route to qualify to serve in government.
That alone is reason to remove them.

I do not take issue with your business. But could other nation's governments headed by ancestral leaders also be characterized as inappropriate? What if they only serve in a ceremonial or advisory capacity as with your upper house? Is ancestry ultimately an appropriate way for individuals to acquire property, wealth and power of any kind?

 

[polysmut]

I do not take issue with your business. But could other nation's governments headed by ancestral leaders also be characterized as inappropriate? What if they only serve in a ceremonial or advisory capacity as with your upper house? Is ancestry ultimately an appropriate way for individuals to acquire property, wealth and power of any kind?

The upper house, the house of lords, is a functioning part of the legislature. You might be thinking of the monarchy which doesn't currently intervene in a real way.

Democracy seems to be the least bad system of rule. Though that could be debated. In a democracy, heredity is inappropriate.

 

[Dotini]

The upper house, the house of lords, is a functioning part of the legislature. You might be thinking of the monarchy which doesn't currently intervene in a real way.

Democracy seems to be the least bad system of rule. Though that could be debated. In a democracy, heredity is inappropriate.

Regarding Athenian democracy:

...not all Greeks believed that a democracy was a beneficial type of government. Powerful speakers sometimes persuaded ordinary citizens to vote unwisely. Frequently, an assembly reversed important decisions after merely a few weeks. Conflicts like these led most city-states to return to earlier forms of government, such as dictatorship and oligarchies.

 

[polysmut]

However, not all Greeks believed that a democracy was a beneficial type of government. Powerful speakers sometimes persuaded ordinary citizens to vote unwisely. Frequently, an assembly reversed important decisions after merely a few weeks. Conflicts like these led most city-states to return to earlier forms of government, such as dictatorship and oligarchies.

Regarding Athenian democracy:

I forget the term for it but the system where everybody has to take their turn serving in government sounds interesting to me.

 

[Liquid]

I forget the term for it but the system where everybody has to take their turn serving in government sounds interesting to me.

Sortition was the random lottery used in Athenian-style democracies.