Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Motes and beams. Leading a response to a pandemic without mora
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Motes and beams. Leading a response to a pandemic without moral authority
So now we know: as in Pirates of the Caribbean, the rules of the C aren’t so much rules, they’re more what you’d call guidelines. Robert Jenrick has confirmed that the public could always exercise “a degree of personal judgement”.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Meanwhile some of the world is returning to normal. Ringtons are delivering again and it's boom time for their staff, they can't fill their vans up enough to last the day.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
I would doctor your text and do the ftfy thing, but I am better than that.
It reminds me a little bit of Rachel Maddow. Maddow also has got in trouble for stating things as facts that aren't, and while it plays great to her audience, again is used by Trump defenders as a get out e.g. repeated errors in reporting over Russian interference allows her to be painted as promoting "Russian hoax".
I don't think the Government has lost any moral authority, people are still social distancing in a very polite way.
Two households CAN meet from next week: Lockdown loosening could see socially-distanced family reunions
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8360963/Two-households-meet-week-larger-family-friend-bubble-reunions-delayed.html
But I agree entirely that in this case she let her standards slip (I did not see the other 'diatribe').
Maddow reminds me more of Carole Cadwallader.
The Barnier story is slightly weird. There's very little chance of it going ahead.
But... it depends how pissed off Conservative backbenchers are.
"Axe Cummings or we give a two year extension" could be the threat. If they're angry enough.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
"From this evening I must give the British people a very simple instruction - you must stay at home. Because the critical thing we must do is stop the disease spreading between households."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8360915/Gypsies-field-3am-raid-dump-1-000-TONNES-rubble-12-trucks.html
Get them building HS2, they will have it done in a few months.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/of-no-materiality/
There are many things Cummings could have done which would have ensured the safety of his family without putting others at risk. Instead, he chose to break isolation & drive hundreds of miles. Then he doesn’t even have the grace to apologise to those who have put up with far, far worse in order to maintain the lockdown.
Common sense is not "do whatever’s easiest". It’s do whatever it takes to stay in place unless that turns out to be impossible, in which case there’s a legal escape hatch for you (put there to enable battered women to escape their violent partners with their children btw). It was clearly possible for Cummings and his wife to stay in London & therefore they ought to have done so.
That's why the Cummings thing cut through.
If a person is suffering from mental health and a call to the Samaritans isn't enough should they seek a loved one even if it means breaking the rules?
There's all sorts of what ifs. Life is complicated and we are sentient.
Too many people want to dispose their critical thinking to others. Everyone should always do what they think is right in the circumstances.
I was composing a reply in a similar vein, and thankfully abandoned it as longwinded.
Which would make their scoop the most irresponsible piece of journalism in modern times.
Anecdotally, I noticed (only because it was unusual) that I was the only one wearing a mask when shopping yesterday. Saw a pub terrace occupied by drinkers over the weekend.
My best guess is, who knows ?
Proof that the Cummings story was more about a personal vendetta for some than any breach of the lockdown.
I suspect his viewpoint represents a good 30-70% of the population which is going to make phase 2 impossible...
For me, the issues the government face are the reopening of the economy, the wind down of the excellent furlough scheme, the financial help for particular industries such as the French did yesterday with their car industry, the absolute crisis in our hospitality and tourism industries, the disaster for Universities who have grown fat on far eastern fees, the chronic failure to develop either an App or a method of tracing in the last 2.5 months, the speed with which tests are being turned around, even now the capacity to test, I could go on all day, it is terrifying.
Cummings is not even a deckchair on the Titanic which we are arguing about throwing overboard as the iceberg rips an ever bigger hole in the ship of state and the pathetic, irrational, disproportionate and frankly mad obsession with Cummings shows so much of what is wrong with this country today. People should grow up. There is plenty to be angry about, plenty to be genuinely worried about.1 job in Whitehall is not even close to making the list.
It is not that Cummings is a cock or a Brexiteer but that the guy who set the rules drove a coach and horses through them and the government has now retconned the rules to exonerate him.
If someone is ill enough to be off work, that's assault. If they're hospitalised, it's grievous bodily harm. And if they're killed, it's manslaughter at the least.
We don't usually go for that because, you know, it's a disease, but if we're looking at handling it with personal responsibility, then the consequences of getting it wrong must be held accountable.
Very specific aren't they?
Do you exercise your own judgment as to how much tax you should pay, what guns and recreational drugs you should own, how fast you should drive and how much you can safely drink before you do so, whether you should practise medicine or law or fly aeroplanes in your spare time, whether you should build a house in your garden, whether your car really needs an mot more than, say, once every three years, and which side of the road you should drive it on?
Unlike a Blair or Cameron, he is rubbish at Q&A at the best of times, but post-covid he had lost any of the blustering approach to take a question, spin it and make a witty remark. It is painful watching him do the daily pressers where even the softer questions he seems to get the wrong end of the stick.
Where is it getting this date from?
Basically as long as you stay 2 metres from anyone not in your household you can do whatever you like now.
CummingsSenior Source no doubt.But frankly ludicrous to have that applied to outdoors. Beer gardens should be open already with indoors restrictions until then.
Grasping
At
Straws
Ladbrokes: 7/4 go, 2/5 stay
PP/Betfair: 2/1 go, 1/3 stay
Starsports: 5/2 go, 2/7 stay
(in order of bookmakers suspecting he might still be at risk, so if you are confident he will still be there in a few days time, Shadsy's paying the best interest rate, and higher than the Building Society)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
So yes room for judgement. Others answers may vary.
'And if we want to follow the dark logic of some critics that Cummingsgate has weakened the lockdown and will cost lives, then it follows incontrovertibly that in choosing to publish the story, the Guardian and Mirror deliberately chose to risk thousands of lives for the sake of trying (and failing) to destroy their political opponent.'
'Which would make their scoop the most irresponsible piece of journalism in modern times.'
Really indefensible.
Of course he could look after his child. They have family in London and are rich enough it would be trivial to arrange childcare at short notice if needed.
Has there been a single child in the country who has had a serious accident because their parents had covid?
At best he acted on irrational fear. Far more likely natural selfishness.
Would a reasonable person drive halfway up the country with a family member with a suspected Covid-19 infection in order to access the possibility of childcare from family members when they had a) access to other family members far closer to home and b) were the government’s chief advisor & had the resources of the government available to them on tap if they simply lifted the phone to ask? No.
The test is not "I thought I made a reasonable choice". It’s "does the polity (or in court, case law & potentially a jury of peers) think that would be a reasonable action to take".
It’s entirely obvious that a majority of the country do not find Cummings actions to be reasonable. You don’t have to like that Philip, but it is what it is.
AToW no-one has had Conovid-19 symptoms.
Off to the gulag for you.
The government has got itself in a super cautious box where no one will say take the risk in case the finger subsequently gets pointed and it needs to get out of that box but it has no clear idea of how to do so whilst making it consistent with everything that they have said and done to date.
I do recall George Bush used that very statement on vanquishing Sadam.
If you wanted to follow the advice strictly, you could drive together and see them one at a time outside their house, in a park or a road, but not their garden. The advice doesnt cover how far back the second person needs to be whilst the first is speaking to them. Perhaps 2.01m would be reasonable?
If someone says they have a reasonable reason and it's not been proven unreasonable then they are not guilty. That a majority may think they are guilty doesn't make them so. You don't have to like that Phil, but it is what it is.
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.