1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on May 28, 2020 16:01:02 GMT
Of course the "safety aspects" of ending remote participation in Parliament were never a consideration. The government's only priority was to make sure there would be a chorus of compliant grinning idiots (anybody with a functioning moral compass or a backbone or an IQ greater than mud was either pushed out of the Tory party before the last election or has left of their own accord) cheering their Messiah from the benches behind him, and never mind whether or not it's safe for them to be there.
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on May 28, 2020 16:06:20 GMT
I see your point for sure. But now the police investigation has returned a result (and many thanks to the poster above me for quoting the Secret Barrister tweet regarding âmightâ), should the BBC not retract that statement? I understand *at the time* some viewed it as an opinion. Many viewed it as fact, which is what it turned out to be. And why does the BBC not afford the same practice to Laura Kuenssburg who appeared to be personally defending Cummings when replying to other reporters when this story first broke? And numerous other occasions which seemed to demonstrate a clear political bias. Or when Andrew Neil gives his own view in his monologues? Or even when Maitlis herself sat in front of a screen showing Jeremy Corbyn photoshopped in front of the Kremlin wearing a Russian-style hat? I'm pontificating, of course, I don't expect you to have the answers, but it's something to think about. If you can entertain the idea that Maitlis lied on her twitter about taking a night off, surely you have the entertain the question why? If what you mean is you think the BBC punished her (possibly as some kind of sop to Johnson?), I fail to see why sheâd cover for them. By your account she could rightfully feel aggrieved for being reprimanded. In her shoes, if someone then took me off screen, Iâd be even more furious and nobody would stop me being open about that! Emily Maitlis could choose to leave the Beeb. Sheâs apparently the hero of the hour, so I doubt sheâd struggle to find a new role with another media provider... So I tend to believe her account: she took a night off (to let things calm down a bit). An adult and sensible thing to do. Kuenssberg wasnât defending Cummings the other night, she was doing her job and moving the story on. The Guardian ran an earlier story. She had a later update. Thatâs all. She didnât say âbut these people say this and I believe them!â She just said âbut these people say thisâ. Maybe Maitlis could learn something from her! No need for the Beeb to retract the statement... at the time Maitlis spoke, no investigation was complete. If the police statement today had exonerated Cummings completely, she (and the Beeb) could potentially have been shown to have libelled him. It was a case of careless reporting (and even worse editing). I don't need the police to confirm something that I have seen someone confess to before my very own eyes on national television. We were told something was against the law and not to do it and then someone admitted to doing that very thing, why is confirmation of the crime from an official source even necessary? |
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on May 28, 2020 16:10:55 GMT
@jeanhunt politically for the opposition having Cummings still in the role is advantageous as they now have a âCorbynâ of their own who is on the right politically.
Do not envy this Government with the challenges ahead especially as they have already used up a lot of goodwill protecting Cummings.
- One of the highest if not the highest Covid-19 death rates of any equivalent EU Country and by population maybe even the US which will filter into the consciousness of everyone especially as we look back in 4 years time.
- A Covid-19 recession greater than any seen in recent history, the furlough scheme is holding off the inevitable, lots of jobs will be lost and with the debt load most people are holding the âbad debtâ being held by banks is most probably worse than 2008
- A Brexit especially a no-deal one from the Governments own figures will hit GDP by between 5-10% thereby adding more pressure on the economy when it is likely to be at its most weakest. Working in supply chain already seeing EU companies who buy items from the U.K. looking at dual sourcing within the EU, previously this was hampered by capacity but as Covid-19 hits there is likely to be excess capacity within the EU in the short term. There is very little that can be sourced only from the U.K.
4 years is a long time but Starmer must be pleased with the cards he has been dealt, an easily outflanked PM, his own personal bogeyman and having introduced a lot of socialist ideas to get us through Covid-19 these ideas will not be as scary for the electorate and may be what they now want.
I am looking forward to the next 4 years politically as it will be entertaining and personally believe in the next General Election Starmer will not be facing Johnson.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2020 16:13:52 GMT
Ferguson and Calderwood were forced to resign and their breaches were of a similar level to the Barnard Castle trip and they actually apologised which he has refused to do. Anyway I don't think the legal point really affects the anger and the impression of one rule for us and another for them. Still there's no real explanation for why his circumstances were exceptional to the point where the family didn't self isolate when they should have done but millions of other people's weren't. That's not a legal position but one of fairness and civic duty which the government has again stressed this week over test and trace. Also the willingness of the government to undermine their own guidance, take a completely different stance than they did over Ferguson and Calderwood, imply that people who followed the rules are bad parents and try and claim driving was a good way of testing your eye sight all to protect one unelected advisor would look dodgy at the best of times but right now it looks horrific. Interesting Beeb piece by Brian Taylor on Calderwood... By his account, Sturgeon initially took the same line as Johnson, until she eventually made a call it wasnât worth the risk of retaining that trusted adviser. So maybe it just comes down to who your boss is and how many risks theyâre willing to take! Iâm not sure if Ferguson could legitimately maintain the âbut I adhered to social distancingâ defence, but since nobody else was with them I suppose he could have tried ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2020 16:16:47 GMT
@jeanhunt politically for the opposition having Cummings still in the role is advantageous and they now have a âCorbynâ of their own who is on the right politically. Do not envy this Government with the challenges ahead especially as they have already used up a lot of goodwill protecting Cummings. Agreed 100%. Though politically it could turn out OK for the Tories if Cummings makes reforms popular with the public - thatâs Johnsonâs gamble, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2020 16:21:12 GMT
If what you mean is you think the BBC punished her (possibly as some kind of sop to Johnson?), I fail to see why sheâd cover for them. By your account she could rightfully feel aggrieved for being reprimanded. In her shoes, if someone then took me off screen, Iâd be even more furious and nobody would stop me being open about that! Emily Maitlis could choose to leave the Beeb. Sheâs apparently the hero of the hour, so I doubt sheâd struggle to find a new role with another media provider... So I tend to believe her account: she took a night off (to let things calm down a bit). An adult and sensible thing to do. Kuenssberg wasnât defending Cummings the other night, she was doing her job and moving the story on. The Guardian ran an earlier story. She had a later update. Thatâs all. She didnât say âbut these people say this and I believe them!â She just said âbut these people say thisâ. Maybe Maitlis could learn something from her! No need for the Beeb to retract the statement... at the time Maitlis spoke, no investigation was complete. If the police statement today had exonerated Cummings completely, she (and the Beeb) could potentially have been shown to have libelled him. It was a case of careless reporting (and even worse editing). I don't need the police to confirm something that I have seen someone confess to before my very own eyes on national television. We were told something was against the law and not to do it and then someone admitted to doing that very thing, why is confirmation of the crime from an official source even necessary? Iâd rather not live in that dystopian future, thank you very much! |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on May 28, 2020 16:28:16 GMT
I don't need the police to confirm something that I have seen someone confess to before my very own eyes on national television. We were told something was against the law and not to do it and then someone admitted to doing that very thing, why is confirmation of the crime from an official source even necessary? Iâd rather not live in that dystopian future, thank you very much! And yet you seem completely fine living in a present where you fully support and justify the actions of a government who lie to and gaslight the public and get away with it on a daily basis? |
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on May 28, 2020 18:58:50 GMT
The thing is Iâm still not sure what the government are trying to achieve? Are they trying to do a âNew Zealandâ and get rid of the virus until we have a vaccine/better treatments, or are they trying to make sure we keep R below but maybe near to 1, so that we continue having cases but the NHS can cope? If thatâs the case how do the shielding people ever emerge? I feel like each time they donât know what they are trying to achieve long term so they are whishy washy and achieve the worst outcome....at the start they locked down too late after dithering with ideas about herd immunity...but achieved neither an effective eradication (our lockdown was not as tight as other badly hit European countries) or a herd immunity or kept the economy going in any meaningful way. It would have been cheaper to lockdown tight much earlier and eradicate and then enjoy being an island where borders can be guarded relatively easily......
So what are we actually trying to achieve here? Does anyone know?
|
|
7,190 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 28, 2020 19:31:36 GMT
I am looking forward to the next 4 years politically as it will be entertaining and personally believe in the next General Election Starmer will not be facing Johnson. I wouldn't be surprised if Boris gets the boot the year before the election although who knows who will replace him. I imagine the likes of Javid and Hunt are biding their time. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 28, 2020 19:36:02 GMT
I don't think they have a long term plan beyond re-open bit by bit and hope not too many people die.
|
|
2,340 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on May 28, 2020 19:51:43 GMT
I am looking forward to the next 4 years politically as it will be entertaining and personally believe in the next General Election Starmer will not be facing Johnson. I wouldn't be surprised if Boris gets the boot the year before the election although who knows who will replace him. I imagine the likes of Javid and Hunt are biding their time. Gove has always been Cummings man. And Murdoch also for that matter |
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on May 28, 2020 20:13:32 GMT
The thing is Iâm still not sure what the government are trying to achieve? To stay in power, and to push Brexit through at any cost. EVERYTHING else comes second. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2020 20:50:38 GMT
Just as Jeremy Clarkson did when testing a high-performance car on Top Gear, I imagine Boris Johnson sitting in Number 10 going "POWER!!!"
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 28, 2020 20:51:19 GMT
We are governed by incompetent ideologues whose one skill is manipulating the media via appealing to their vested interest, thatâs why they donât have a proper plan for anything beyond spin.
Sadly the net effect of the Brexit saga has been to remove anyone competent at the job of governing from government.
|
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on May 28, 2020 20:59:58 GMT
We are governed by incompetent ideologues whose one skill is manipulating the media via appealing to their vested interest, thatâs why they donât have a proper plan for anything beyond spin. Sadly the net effect of the Brexit saga has been to remove anyone competent at the job of governing from government. And - as I think I said somewhere else - to remove anyone with either a moral compass or a functioning backbone from the parliamentary Conservative Party. Every MP who was not prepared to Follow Blindly has either been forced out, or has left of their own accord. |
|
396 posts
|
Post by djp on May 28, 2020 22:08:20 GMT
If what you mean is you think the BBC punished her (possibly as some kind of sop to Johnson?), I fail to see why sheâd cover for them. By your account she could rightfully feel aggrieved for being reprimanded. In her shoes, if someone then took me off screen, Iâd be even more furious and nobody would stop me being open about that! Emily Maitlis could choose to leave the Beeb. Sheâs apparently the hero of the hour, so I doubt sheâd struggle to find a new role with another media provider... So I tend to believe her account: she took a night off (to let things calm down a bit). An adult and sensible thing to do. Kuenssberg wasnât defending Cummings the other night, she was doing her job and moving the story on. The Guardian ran an earlier story. She had a later update. Thatâs all. She didnât say âbut these people say this and I believe them!â She just said âbut these people say thisâ. Maybe Maitlis could learn something from her! No need for the Beeb to retract the statement... at the time Maitlis spoke, no investigation was complete. If the police statement today had exonerated Cummings completely, she (and the Beeb) could potentially have been shown to have libelled him. It was a case of careless reporting (and even worse editing). I don't need the police to confirm something that I have seen someone confess to before my very own eyes on national television. We were told something was against the law and not to do it and then someone admitted to doing that very thing, why is confirmation of the crime from an official source even necessary? No we weren't.
The police found nothing wrong with moving to be near relatives for child care. As was clear from the written government instructions ,the people writing them explicitly acknowledged that child care would produce exceptions. Indeed its pretty obvious that many or most families facing both parents being ill would have a contingency plan to move near/move the children to relatives . if the alternative was the children being taken into care who wouldn't if they had other options?? That's why the exception is mentioned- there's no point government demanding what just won't be complied with. And that care alternative would risk even more transmission of the virus.
The police did query whether an officer might accept the later argument for going for a test drive, though it would clearly be unsafe to head down the MI without one , so he might struggle to think of an alternative . But as no police officer stopped them, no case was made and accepted, or not accepted, so we don't know what that individual police officer might have concluded. As nothing happened , you just have a series of what ifs - that the police have closed.
Basically, there's nothing to see without any new evidence, though the Opposition parties, leftwing papers, past over Tory far right MPs, and remain lobby, will probably keep on trying to drag it out.
|
|
396 posts
|
Post by djp on May 28, 2020 22:38:02 GMT
The thing is Iâm still not sure what the government are trying to achieve? Are they trying to do a âNew Zealandâ and get rid of the virus until we have a vaccine/better treatments, or are they trying to make sure we keep R below but maybe near to 1, so that we continue having cases but the NHS can cope? If thatâs the case how do the shielding people ever emerge? I feel like each time they donât know what they are trying to achieve long term so they are whishy washy and achieve the worst outcome....at the start they locked down too late after dithering with ideas about herd immunity...but achieved neither an effective eradication (our lockdown was not as tight as other badly hit European countries) or a herd immunity or kept the economy going in any meaningful way. It would have been cheaper to lockdown tight much earlier and eradicate and then enjoy being an island where borders can be guarded relatively easily...... So what are we actually trying to achieve here? Does anyone know? You seemingly can't get rid of the virus when it tends to spread in clusters .It pops up again whenever you have an incident that produces one - be it a rogue barber , choir meeting, or religious service, So you try to keep the numbers going down slowly by keeping the R number below 1.You reduce the transmission with social distancing, and keeping the things that cause large numbers to gather in confined spaces ,and activities that create more viral particles, closed - unfortunately including theatres . As the virus caused such a problem here, because we had people returning from Italian holidays, and seeding multiple areas at once with clusters , you cut out as much international travel as possible - not least because the virus will be surging somewhere, while it declines here.
Tracking, testing, and isolating, knocks a bit off the R number, and it tries out procedures for the probable next stage- which is that you test all possible cases and issue the positive tests with a bag full of drugs to inhibit viral reproduction , and control the body's immune system so it doesn't over respond. And the, even fewer, bad cases this produces, benefit from the experience learnt on how to fight the infection. And you then wait for the vaccine.
The extremely vulnerable though may remain at too much risk - as they still may not have the margins to fight off the virus or be treated for it.
The idea of closing the borders earlier only works if you were prepared to do it before even small numbers had seeded the UK with hotspots. You would have had to leave the 30k tourists in Italy there being kicked out of their hotels. And you then had up to a million Brits elsewhere overseas demanding to come home. As the Opposition , press and relatives was demanding we got these people home, it wasn't a politically possible option, and, by then, there were already so many infected here, it didn't make much difference. Now we have all sensible Brits back home, smaller numbers infected here, and rampant disease in many countries overseas, it makes sense to try and keep as many infected people out as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on May 29, 2020 1:33:19 GMT
I don't need the police to confirm something that I have seen someone confess to before my very own eyes on national television. We were told something was against the law and not to do it and then someone admitted to doing that very thing, why is confirmation of the crime from an official source even necessary? No we weren't.
The police found nothing wrong with moving to be near relatives for child care. As was clear from the written government instructions ,the people writing them explicitly acknowledged that child care would produce exceptions. Indeed its pretty obvious that many or most families facing both parents being ill would have a contingency plan to move near/move the children to relatives . if the alternative was the children being taken into care who wouldn't if they had other options?? That's why the exception is mentioned- there's no point government demanding what just won't be complied with. And that care alternative would risk even more transmission of the virus.
The police did query whether an officer might accept the later argument for going for a test drive, though it would clearly be unsafe to head down the MI without one , so he might struggle to think of an alternative . But as no police officer stopped them, no case was made and accepted, or not accepted, so we don't know what that individual police officer might have concluded. As nothing happened , you just have a series of what ifs - that the police have closed.
Basically, there's nothing to see without any new evidence, though the Opposition parties, leftwing papers, past over Tory far right MPs, and remain lobby, will probably keep on trying to drag it out.
 |
|
951 posts
|
Post by vdcni on May 29, 2020 4:24:05 GMT
The exception was written to deal with domestic abuse cases not potentially needing childcare, which they never did in the end.
The idea that anyone with potential childcare 'issues' could travel across the country was news to every other parent out there who have done their best to struggle on. It's news because it's been invented by the government weeks later to protect Cummings.
Even if they really needed it someone should have travelled to them rather than risk spreading the virus across the country.
We know why they traveled across the country, because it was nicer to isolate there than in London but them focusing only on their comfort while millions stayed where there were as the government asked them to for the good of all is why people are so angry.
|
|
951 posts
|
Post by vdcni on May 29, 2020 4:29:58 GMT
And I'll say it again if you're worried about your eye sight you do not drive a 60 mile round trip to test it. You certainly do not do so with a child in the car.
That excuse is a lie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2020 9:40:36 GMT
Something to file in the "silver linings" folder:
With demand for passenger rail transport having fallen substantially during the lockdown National Rail has taken the opportunity to do some extensive repair and maintenance on the West Coast Main Line around Kilsby Tunnel. Usually such work would take months because of the need to do it overnight or at weekends and reinstate the line after each chunk of work, but thanks to the lockdown they've been able to take possession of the fast lines for as long as they need and get a whole load of major and minor projects completed without interruption.
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on May 29, 2020 9:43:31 GMT
Something to file in the "silver linings" folder: With demand for passenger rail transport having fallen substantially during the lockdown National Rail has taken the opportunity to do some extensive repair and maintenance on the West Coast Main Line around Kilsby Tunnel. Usually such work would take months because of the need to do it overnight or at weekends and reinstate the line after each chunk of work, but thanks to the lockdown they've been able to take possession of the fast lines for as long as they need and get a whole load of major and minor projects completed without interruption. Great! So bus replacement services will now only be every Saturday instead of all weekend |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on May 29, 2020 10:12:38 GMT
YouGov:
Conservatives 44% Starmer 38% Probably a low value poll - based on momentary public disillusionment, but if he did hang on to it a decent platform for the new Labour leader to start his project. I was very interested to see the word 'cronyism' reemerge this week; I know some think more John Smith-ish era, but the parallels to John Major >> Blair do keep cropping up. Roll on 2024  |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on May 29, 2020 11:18:04 GMT
Whilst Johnson was announcing the new lockdown measures yesterday, the two medical advisors present looked SO uncomfortable with how Johnson was presenting the information rather nonchalantly with hardly any warnings or caveats. They kept reminding people to still be careful and not to go crazy with these new rules. You can't help but wonder that Johnson was so desperate to get Cummings off the front pages that he announced these rules in the way he did.
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on May 29, 2020 13:08:12 GMT
Great news! Dentists can reopen from June 8th. Might have been an idea to tell dentists about it though.
|
|
