Man On The Clapham Omnibus Posted May 31, 2020 Share Posted May 31, 2020 Stephen Kinnock was accused of breaking the lockdown rules when he went to see his father. Not newsworthy because? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man On The Clapham Omnibus Posted May 31, 2020 Share Posted May 31, 2020 2 hours ago, Captain Colonial said: When it gets reported as fact by an unbiased, reliable source of news, I’ll take notice. Did Radio 4 say “The Mail on Sunday reported today...” in their report? Biased the Mail might be. A worthless paper that reports trivia as if it matters while ignoring more important stuff, but this is readily checkable, was already reported on Radio 4 (the made-up sighting), and sensational maybe, but almost certainly true. However if in your unbiased opinion Cap'n, the DM should never, ever be given the time of day, well that's your choice, obviously. Their story of the concerned neighbours who harassed Cummins at his home being not entirely independent is less valid - probably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted May 31, 2020 Share Posted May 31, 2020 On 30/05/2020 at 13:02, corsechris said: driving a round trip of 60 miles, which seems a but excessive Which is my problem with this whole thing. What metric is "seems excessive" being measured against? One persons "seems excessive is another persons local. It all depends if you live in a city or the middle of butt-f*** nowhere... 60 miles in Norfolk or the Highlands could still be "next door"... relatively... Remember the law has no such restrictions on how far is "too far". Never has been... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted May 31, 2020 Share Posted May 31, 2020 4 hours ago, Steve (sdh2903) said: surely the whole crowded beach thing is breaking all the mass gathering rules regardless of distancing? Again, social distancing isn't law, it's a guideline From what I understand of the science a pretty good one that we should all try our best to adhere to. But there is no law being broken in those pictures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingster Posted May 31, 2020 Share Posted May 31, 2020 25 minutes ago, Blatman said: But there is no law being broken in those pictures. It is a bit mad - you aren’t (currently 30th May) allowed to meet with more than one person outside your household (not sure if that’s law or or guideline though?) Yet it’s totally fine to herd that lot together (as in the beach pic I posted) but you still can’t meet meet two people in your garden even if they are over 2m apart - until tomorrow, then it’s ok - as long as there’s less than 6 of you - because that’s a magic number that comes into play on June 1st. It’s so easy to understand. edit - more than happy to be corrected if I’ve completely misunderstood this - let’s face it, it’s clear as mud! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted May 31, 2020 Share Posted May 31, 2020 31 minutes ago, Chris King - Webmaster and Joint North East AO said: It is a bit mad - you aren’t (currently 30th May) allowed to meet with more than one person outside your household (not sure if that’s law or or guideline though?) Guideline... especially when I'm sure we all would agree that if we keep 6 feet distant, why does the number of people we keep 6 feet distant from make any difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_l Posted May 31, 2020 Share Posted May 31, 2020 6 hours ago, jeff oakley said: This morning a Labour MP for Canterbury has resigned her position as a shadow whip She's an MP, 'steps back from a front bench role' but still keeps her job, after them all baying for Cummings to be sacked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve (sdh2903) Posted May 31, 2020 Share Posted May 31, 2020 So what exactly were all the thousands of fines for? Was the issuing of fines against a guideline illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted May 31, 2020 Share Posted May 31, 2020 11 minutes ago, Steve (sdh2903) said: So what exactly were all the thousands of fines for? Was the issuing of fines against a guideline illegal? Yes. Guidelines aren't law, even though they sound like it when delivered from a podium on TV by the Prime Minister. That's not how laws are made... But people are too scared to challenge in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corsechris Posted May 31, 2020 Share Posted May 31, 2020 2 hours ago, Blatman said: Which is my problem with this whole thing. What metric is "seems excessive" being measured against? One persons "seems excessive is another persons local. It all depends if you live in a city or the middle of butt-f*** nowhere... 60 miles in Norfolk or the Highlands could still be "next door"... relatively... Remember the law has no such restrictions on how far is "too far". Never has been... The metric I applied was based upon the fact that there are willing volunteers to shop for these folk no more than a hundred yards from their front door, who could have added to home delivery lists or failing that, added to existing shopping trips amounting to an 8 mile round-trip that was already being made. They don't live alone in the wilds of Norfolk. Their relative was travelling from Birmingham to Evesham and back to deliver a couple of bags of groceries. I stand by 'seems excessive'. I didn't say illegal. Blatters, you seem utterly determined to apply a test of legality to everything - that's fine and well of course, but there are many cases where a bit of common sense, that remarkably uncommon resource, would seem more appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted May 31, 2020 Share Posted May 31, 2020 24 minutes ago, corsechris said: Blatters, you seem utterly determined to apply a test of legality to everything - that's fine and well of course, but there are many cases where a bit of common sense, that remarkably uncommon resource, would seem more appropriate. I fundamentally agree with you. But common sense isn't a law irrespective of how shrill the press becomes. Re-interpreting "common sense" is not on any list of offences on any spot-fine ticket issued by the police. I do have some sympathy for the police here. I'm not surprised they are confused because they seem to be responsible for not just the actual law, but the laws of common sense spouted forth by the Daily Mail or Laura Keunssberg or Emily Maitliss or The Mirror or whichever reporter has a bee up their bonnet today. I am keen to apply law because it is a hard and fast document that is both quite short and easy to read. In other words it is fact and whilst it is open to interpretation (as all laws are) it is still the most important thing that should count when presented with an accusation of wrong-doing. The ONLY place common sense is taken as actual law and fought for is in the press and the court of public opinion. But as I mentioned elsewhere if we ran the country on public opinion the pubs would never have shut, football would still be being played and we'd have no 5G masts left... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.