Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Bugger BTL

Members
  • Posts

    237
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bugger BTL

  • Rank
    Newbie
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

1,037 profile views
  1. I would say probably not long, but supposedly they all hate Hancock so maybe this is the end for him.
  2. The thing with the 'spirit of the rules' concept is that it's completely nebulous. It's perfectly reasonable to say you think a person is being an arsehole, irresponsible, whatever. Those are all things that are fine in themselves without needing the appeal to authority too. Whenever people talk about the spirit of the covid legislation, they usually mean someone's done something they don't agree with and they're making a moral judgement. They should just say that. Given the vast confusion over the last 15 months about what's permitted and at least one police force overstepping their powers and wasting public money by arresting someone for not complying with the spirit of the rules, perpetrating the idea that this concept actually exists is unhelpful. And yes, I am talking about Derbyshire but not the drones. The incident in January where they wrongly fined the two women (and various others, as it turned out) for having lawfully travelled to their exercise. It is relevant here because they used the concept of the spirit of the rules as justification. They've been at it throughout a lot of the pandemic, I live down the road so am aware of a few examples. You're no doubt correct about people not understanding the legislation given the contradictory messages, and certainly the government didn't help with that. This is all part of that problem. Re evidence, no as far as I'm aware he didn't as he never had to. He could of course be lying, about the reasons for both events. I certainly see no reason to take his word for it: I tend towards David Cameron's view of the man, on this subject though on virtually no other. This doesn't affect my post responding to someone claiming that Cummings broke the covid rules because of worry about looking after his family, and basing that on the discussion of his motives. There's no way of making the Barnard Castle explanation a pro family welfare one!
  3. Well the spirit of the rules isn't a thing. Although a few police forces made that mistake too. The issue is whether the law permitted the action or not. Below are the regulations in force at the time, and the relevant one is Regulation 6. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (legislation.gov.uk) The argument is that a parent might need to leave the home in order to provide care to the child ie to take them somewhere they can get it. Of course, there was no case law about this at the time and afaik still isn't. Now Cummings may of course have been lying about the reason for the London to Durham leg, but the account he gave is of an action that was at least arguably permitted by the regulations. It's the Barnard Castle trip that was blatantly illegal. There's just nothing whatsoever in the regulations that comes anywhere close to covering it and the account he gave has sod all to do with the covid risk either.
  4. Cummings broke the rules because he apparently felt it wise to test his eyesight by going for a drive with his wife and child in the car. The initial trip that you're referring to here, the one from London to Durham, was probably legal. There's a decent argument it fell within one of the permitted reasons to leave the home at the time, whereas there's no way the eye test thing did. Personally I've already decided I am exempt, so various VIPs etc doesn't affect my position.
  5. I can see people going for it if they're changing job, much more controversial if it's the same role.
  6. You would've been quicker writing 'waaaaaah I don't like what you're saying' and it would've achieved precisely the same effect.
  7. Also the reduction in childcare options. There are people who were only able to be in the workforce because of a particular breakfast club, or a childminder collecting from their kid's school who now doesn't, and for some of them the logistics will no longer work.
  8. One hopes you have sufficient self-awareness to understand that that's your argument, not mine.
  9. Whether it's relevant or not will depend entirely on who's doing the assessing. You are of course free to make that assessment for yourself, and yourself only. There are some people for whom the presence of more Indian immigrants will be extremely important, both pro and anti, and others who will take your view. The individuals being discussed initially were those for whom it comes as a surprise, who did not foresee that it was a consequence, and will indeed find it relevant. These facts independently of anyone's feelings about the issue now, and any implications you choose to invent because you don't like it being pointed out are a matter for you alone. My own concern is the wider consequences.
  10. 'Blame' is a loaded term: it's simply a consequence of Brexit. It became inevitable once Brexit happened when and as it did. Sure, it's possible to conceive of situations, leaders and systems where the UK leaving the EU wasn't going to lead to this happening. None of them are the situation we're in.
  11. 'Blame' is a loaded term: it's simply a consequence of Brexit. It became inevitable once Brexit happened when and as it did. Sure, it's possible to conceive of situations, leaders and systems where the UK leaving the EU wasn't going to lead to this happening. None of them are the situation we're in.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.