Bugger BTL

Genuinely deranged.

I would say probably not long, but supposedly they all hate Hancock so maybe this is the end for him.

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!

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.

repeat post

repeat post

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.

I can see people going for it if they're changing job, much more controversial if it's the same role.

You would've been quicker writing 'waaaaaah I don't like what you're saying' and it would've achieved precisely the same effect.

You evidently can't.

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.

One hopes you have sufficient self-awareness to understand that that's your argument, not mine.

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.

'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.

'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.

It's a consequence of Brexit that the UK has entered into trade talks with India, which were needed due to us leaving the EU, and has been obliged to accept the Indian desire for improved visa access. That wouldn't have happened if not for Brexit. There is no getting round this fact. It exists as well as, not instead of, the elite not giving a crap about the population generally.

Whether it's relevant will depend on the person making the assessment, which of course includes those who didn't understand that this was going to happen if we left the EU and won't be happy when they realise. It is still a consequence of Brexit insofaras it would not be happening if we were not renegotiating trade deals. There is no getting round this.

You are arguing against a point I haven't made. I have said that Brexit will lead to more Indian immigration as a consequence of India requiring this as part of the new trade deals. The framework for this is already being put in place. I have given no view as to whether this is a positive or negative thing. It is simply something that is going to happen in the near future as a consequence of Brexit. It may be that in the long term, we see much less migration here, but that isn't going to happen straight away, and in the short term, Indian citizens will take advantage of the opportunity that didn't exist before Brexit and has only come into being because of it. Whether you or I approve or disapprove of this has absolutely no bearing on either the issue or my argument.

If you accept that there is going to be more immigration, not necessarily skilled, from India and potentially others as a consequence of Brexit, accept the consequences and have decided that this is your preference, you aren't one of the Brexiters I'm talking about. Ideally you would also understand that some of them will end up marrying British people, settling and therefore actually having access to the things you talk about eventually in order for it to be a fully informed decision, but still, you're plenty of the way there. Still, it is a fact that there are others who do not come at the issue with this level of understanding, and yes, some of them are racists. I'm related to more than one.

Yes, the seeds of this are already being planted. We need a trade deal with India, they want better visa access for their nationals, we agree. The Brexiters wouldn't hear of it, but it's what's going to happen, and anyone who thinks it'll only be for the skilled ones is naive.

Especially if they can drag it out longer than the actual mortgage term. Very nice money indeed for the banks.

I don't think most people do, but rather a sufficiently critical mass of those who vote.

Let's not pretend we actually know what market rent is anyway. That would require leaving the market to set it rather than government interference to prop up prices, and it's been some time since we had anything resembling that.

Yes, it's this idea that there's some moral right to at least not lose money. The number of people I've seen and heard talking about feeling they shouldn't sell for less than they paid. The fact that property can go down as well as up has been forgotten over the past decade or so, in some areas at least.

I think this is the likeliest outcome. The commonest being two days one and three of the other, either way. Plus the reduction in business travel, conferences etc is likely to be permanent and also more training courses will stay online. Or at least offer online options. I'm not saying everyone will be able to negotiate flexibility around wfh, but for those with skills to offer an employer it's going to be part of the package.