General Discussion on Current Situation 2/

[Maiden Stone]

I found it interesting that Prof Van-Tam was pretty firm in his reply when asked whether those in power should follow the rules. The specific topic was about DC  ~

Should people in authority give a lead and obey the rules above all?

I’m quite happy to answer.
In my opinion the rules are clear & they have always been clear.
In my opinion they are there for the benefit of all & in my opinion they apply to all

He sounded very forceful in his reply, unlike previous colleagues.

PM prevented either expert from answering the other day. He said it was a political question.
The minister at today's briefing was Culture & Sport, nobody I've heard of, maybe not sufficiently forceful or authoritative to stop the prof answering. They seem to wheel out 3rd Division ministers on Saturday. Patel does an occasional Saturday appearance.
Theresa May's letter to her constituents - Cummings actions were not in the spirit of the guidelines.

[Guy Etchells]

I too was delighted to hear Professor Van-Tam say that lockdown rules apply to everybody.  Obvious really.  No point in having lockdown rules which allow the entitled and/or stupid to travel all over the place spreading the virus.  Interesting that the incidence of the disease in Durham was low when the Cummings family arrived, but thereafter the area became - and remains - one of the high-scorers.  A fine example of why lockdown should apply to everyone, and why we who have been obeying the rules (and many suffering great hardships to do so) feel most aggrieved at the flippancy with which some still regard it.  I'm not 'moving on' because moving on implies that I should forget.  60.000 dead people, each with grieving families and friends, say we must not move on. 

I also agree with Professor Van-Tam the lockdown rules apply to everyone, however the trip up to Durham was legal and allowed by the rules, this has been confirmed by the Durham Police statement
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01pj2/
and even Suella Braverman, the Attorney General.

If anyone can point me to any legislation the Dominc Cummings broke by going up to Durham I would change my view but repeatedly claiming he did without saying what law he broke is just political point scoring.
For instance the main Act is

The Coronavirus Act 2020
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7

Then there are various Statutory instruments such as

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/contents/made

There is also Guidance which is good advice but it must be remembered that this advice is not legally enforcable unless backed by legislation.

Examples
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01pj0/

http://www.rootschat.com/links/01pj1/

This is like the Highway Code, sound advice but only part of which is backed by legislation, I believe that this is why some are confused because the do not understand the difference, many people think the guidance in the Highway Code is law.

There are other examples and downloads of various types available including the National Police Chiefs Council guidance 'What constitutes a reasonable excuse' and other similar guidance they have published as PDF texts.

If you want to educate yourself and have an informed debate read through such documents but if you simply want to score political points then obviously they will hold no interest to you.

Cheers
Guy

[KGarrad]

I am fortunate in living in a place where the advice has been backed up by legislation.

So far, 26 people have been imprisoned for breaking lockdown

Just so glad I no longer live in the UK

[sugarfizzle]

Guy, there is a difference between law and guidance, most of us are aware of this, and you do not have to insult your fellow Rootschatters.

There is also spirit of the law, unenforceable. Drive to Durham.
There is also flatant breach of the law, which is enforceable. Approx 60 mile round trip to test one's eyesight (coincidentally to a beauty spot on his wife's birthday).
Potentially invalid insurance if it had not been up to scratch, endangering the lives of other road users and his wife and child.

The police didn't enforce it as the policy was, and still is, to a certain extent, engagement and encourage to return etc etc

Please stop repeatedly insulting Rootschatters intelligence.
If you have to insult Rootschatters with a different opinion to yourself, perhaps you could drop the 'Cheers'?

Margaret

[Gaie]

Guy, please practice what you preach, in reply#154 of this thread you stated that the Highway Code is not law it is guidance.

Gaie

[pharmaT]

Guy, I am not remotely confused, I understand the legislation perfectly, same with the Highway Code.  I can assure you that I am not a member of any political party and am not trying to make a political point I just believe he has acted in the wrong and his attempt in defending it has compounded that.  Having seen the suffering Covid can cause it has made me especially angry.  As you appear to be confused as to what my standpoint is (despite me explaining myself more than once) please let me clarify.

1. I believe that is possible to obey the law and still be in the wrong.

2. I am perfectly able to understand that being in the wrong does not necessarily mean that you will be charged with an offence but not being charged with an offence is not sufficient proof in itself that  you as an individual have acted with integrity and I think this applies in this situation.

3. I believe you can act in accordance with the letter of the law whilst breaking the spirit of the law.  I believe that this applies in this case as the aim of the regulations and guidelines was to discourage people from travelling large distances and thereby seeding further outbreaks. 

4.  I believe that he acted contrary to the guidelines, specifically where it states that when a member of your household has symptoms you must isolate for 14 days in your main residence.  He openly admitted to returning to work the afternoon of the day his wife developed symptoms and then the trip to Durham.

5. I believe that there were multiple options open to him, including options involving his family in Durham that did not necessitate driving while unwell.

6.  In terms of the drive to Barnard Castle. Although I understand that there is not specific offence of driving while visually impaired that does not make the action legal. If you are unable to notice potential hazards in the road you are driving without due care and attention.  The fact that there was no accident is luck, not judgement.  Furthermore driving while medically unfit invalidates your insurance.  Driving without insurance is an offence.  My colleagues and I have on numerous occasions clarified this with legal experts, the police and the DVLA when we have had to advise someone not to drive.  And No, I'm not claiming that we legally enforce this I said advise not prevent. 

7. In relation to point 6 above if we ignore the legal standpoint for a second I cannot consider driving while unfit to be a responsible action and it is certainly not something you should be stating publicly that you have no regrets over doing.

8.  I consider the political party to which he is associated to be irrelevant.  His position within the Government is only relevant in as much as I believe that people in power and in powerful positions have a moral obligation to lead by example and I consider his actions to have been a bad example as if everyone did the same it would be quite literally carnage.

9.  In addition to point 8 above I consider all the politicians and senior scientists who have acted in the wrong.  Catherine Calderwood was wrong and I was angry with her, the reason I am now less angry with her is that she stood up and said acted wrongly and resigned and she wasn't part of a symptomatic household at the time.  Same with Steven Kinnock I am annoyed with him too but again he aplogised and to the best of our knowledge was from an asymptomatic household.  Same with the SAGE scientist and the Labour front bencher today.  In summary how his actions have been dealt with has compounded my anger.

[derekwg]

 
 It like a Lynch Mob on here.

[Jed59]

I agree...... it is  not    necessary to belittle and sneer at people who are justifiably angry at   effectively having 2 fingers stuck  up to them
.Guy  will understand,  I   have  no doubt, the  meaning of the phrase "reductio ad hominem"  "if you cant play the ball play the  man" It is a logical fallacy.Look up "fallacy"
Perhaps  Guy  might  like to also  look up the meaning of the word "political".. to save him the trouble,it  means "of or concerning the state , government or political affairs  generally". (OED)
Therefore all points expressed in this discussion are "political"  but not "party political". since they relate to the actions  of a senior   official who seems to think that rules don't apply to him ,  nor do the rules of common decency, ie  at the very least apologise. when you are so  blatantly obviously in the wrong .

[Jed59]

 It like a Lynch Mob on here.

  Are you surprised?