The virus. PPE. Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
arclight said:
On the basis that the two people to whom you refer are as thick as you say, how would you describe your own intelligence level ?
Click to expand...

Yawn, you again? mate you are not in the slightest bit funny, you really are not.
 
myotis said:
And you don't seem able to realise that you cannot separate a law from the guidance (opinions) on how that law should be interpreted and implemented.
Click to expand...

Ummm, yes, as an ex-police officer I'll tell you can definitely separate a law from any guidance offered by the government, the guidance might be sensible (and you should probably follow it) but it is not the law so you cannot be prosecuted for what isn't illegal in terms of the law.

CPS don't charge and Courts don't convict on the breaking of a guideline.

myotis said:
Not sure of the relevance of the beer question, but I suspect many many years ago, I may well have drunk more than 7 pints of beer in a week on occasions.
Click to expand...

Current government guidance is "you should not drink more than 14 units of alcohol in a week", so do you think you can be taken to court and convicted for it as you've admitted breaking the guidelines?
 
Dave1 said:
Legally it is quite permissible to take a 3 hour walk with a break in the middle for lunch, as long as you do so alone or with other people who live with you. It's also legally permissible to go exercise more than once a day in England and Scotland, Wales seems to vary on this (check the second link for details).

Current government guidance is "you should not drink more than 14 units of alcohol in a week", so do you think you can be taken to court and convicted for it as you've admitted breaking the guidelines?
Click to expand...
Going by The WHO's recommendations on how much exercise people need to take per week to be healthy,

https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/factsheet_adults/en/

A 3hr walk per day, even if it includes a break for lunch, is taking the p***.
1hr per day will suffice.
 
Fuji Dave said:
So folk who think Boris is thick need to read this then look in the mirror :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson#Eton_and_Oxford:_1977–1987
Click to expand...

'In 1984, Johnson was elected secretary of the Oxford Union,[63] and campaigned for the career-enhancing and important position of Union President, but lost to Neil Sherlock.[64] In 1986, Johnson ran for president again, aided by undergraduate Frank Luntz; this time his campaign focused on reaching out beyond his established upper-class support base by emphasising his persona and playing down his Conservative connections.[65] Hoping to court their vote, Johnson associated with university groups affiliated with the centrist Social Democratic Party (SDP) and Liberal Party.[66] Luntz later alleged that Johnson portrayed himself as an SDP supporter during the campaign, of which Johnson later said he had no recollection.[66][67] Johnson won the election[68] but his term was not particularly distinguished or memorable[69] and questions were raised regarding his competence and seriousness.[70] Finally, Johnson was awarded only an upper second-class degree,[71][72] and was deeply unhappy that he did not receive a first.[73]'
 
mex said:
Both are both as thick as pig s***.
Click to expand...

I appreciate you feel antipathy to both, Nigel and tempting to use the phrase in the light of the actions and words of both but one was the President of the Oxford Union, amongst other achievements, not least Mayor of London for 8 years and the other President of the United States and thick people don't get to those positions. Plenty of other adjectives to describe them but definitely not thick. Infact, it takes a smart person to be 'in tune,' to resonate with people to the extent that they vote for him/her. Trump certainly has some,many infact, personality flaws, disorders some would say. Both have massive egos and put that in the mix with power and arrogance and you get blind spots on how they see the world. Quite a complex subject.

I don't think Trump will be President in January 2021 and neither Boris be PM in 2023/4.
 
Retune said:
'In 1984, Johnson was elected secretary of the Oxford Union,[63] and campaigned for the career-enhancing and important position of Union President, but lost to Neil Sherlock.[64] In 1986, Johnson ran for president again, aided by undergraduate Frank Luntz; this time his campaign focused on reaching out beyond his established upper-class support base by emphasising his persona and playing down his Conservative connections.[65] Hoping to court their vote, Johnson associated with university groups affiliated with the centrist Social Democratic Party (SDP) and Liberal Party.[66] Luntz later alleged that Johnson portrayed himself as an SDP supporter during the campaign, of which Johnson later said he had no recollection.[66][67] Johnson won the election[68] but his term was not particularly distinguished or memorable[69] and questions were raised regarding his competence and seriousness.[70] Finally, Johnson was awarded only an upper second-class degree,[71][72] and was deeply unhappy that he did not receive a first.[73]'
Click to expand...

Oh dear. I was obviously writing my post when you posted yours. I finished and just hit submit then saw your post. Never mind. Can I say 'great minds think alike ?..lol Except from what I've read of your posts yours is far greater..:)

Edit..and Arnie too,I see :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Fuji Dave said:
So folk who think Boris is thick need to read this then look in the mirror :D
Click to expand...

Not thick just:
School reports complained about his idleness, complacency, and lateness.

He was elected a member of Pop, the small self-selecting elite and glamorous group of prefects.
Well he has always classes himself as one of the elite so why wouldn't he.

To his later regret, he joined the Old Etonian-dominated Bullingdon Club, an exclusive drinking society notorious for acts of vandalism on host premises.
Bullingdon members “found it amusing if people were intimidated or frightened by their behaviour. I remember them walking down a street in Oxford in their tails, chanting ‘Buller, Buller’ and smashing bottles along the way, just to cow people.”
“Boris was one of the big beasts of the club. He was up for anything. They treated certain types of people with absolute disdain, and referred to them as ‘plebs’ or ‘grockles’, and the police were always called ‘plod’. Their attitude was that women were there for their entertainment.”
I bet he did but only because he was found out. He still uses these terms to this day when referring to anyone he believes is beneath him, which is just about everyone.

In 1986, Johnson ran for president again, this time his campaign focused on reaching out beyond his established upper-class support base by emphasising his persona and playing down his Conservative connections. Hoping to court their vote, Johnson associated with university groups affiliated with the centrist Social Democratic Party(SDP) and Liberal Party. Luntz later alleged that Johnson portrayed himself as an SDP supporter during the campaign, of which Johnson later said he had no recollection. Johnson won the election but his term was not particularly distinguished or memorable and questions were raised regarding his competence and seriousness.

So his political opportunism started early, of course he had no recollection just like now when he can't even remember what he said yesterday, he never did have any scruples.

Finally, Johnson was awarded only an upper second-class degree.

So given all the opportunities of a first class education he through this idleness, complacency, and lateness gets a second.

So like I said not thick just arrogant, lazy, conceited and full of his own self importance.
 
Gremlin said:
We can all criticise the actions taken in this crisis, but it's not something that has happened in recent times, the governments of all countries can only act on the information and advice they are given by the so called experts and we don't know who have been advising them and who have just spoken to the press.
A short while ago there was complaints about not having enough ventilators, now it seems these may do more harm then good
in some cases, yet there was a mass effort to make and supply them.
We now have conflicting statements about protective clothing, the internet causes far too much confusion and arguments.
Click to expand...

But “but it's not something that has happened in recent times,” is just not true. I think maybe you mean ’not here’, ie that the other recent novel viruses only affected Johnny Foreigner?

Edit to add: 2005 H5N1 Bird flu, 2009,H1N1 Swine flu, 2002 SARS, 2012 MERS plus Ebola.
 
Last edited:
tarric said:
So like I said not thick just arrogant, lazy, conceited and full of his own self importance.
Click to expand...
The one thing I've noticed is that neither wealth nor academic excellence make of an unattractive pig a silk purse.

Some of the finest humans I have met were poor and not especially knowledgeable. They were, however, kind, caring and generous with what they had, when others needed it. It's easy enough to give a few million dollars away when your name is Bill Gates. It seems to me to be much more generous to give £5 when you live on the minimum wage.
 
Gremlin said:
We can all criticise the actions taken in this crisis, but it's not something that has happened in recent times, the governments of all countries can only act on the information and advice they are given by the so called experts and we don't know who have been advising them and who have just spoken to the press.
A short while ago there was complaints about not having enough ventilators, now it seems these may do more harm then good
in some cases, yet there was a mass effort to make and supply them.
We now have conflicting statements about protective clothing, the internet causes far too much confusion and arguments.
Click to expand...

No, people who proffer opinions and vaguaries thinking they are fact cause confusion and arguments.
 
nilagin said:
Going by The WHO's recommendations on how much exercise people need to take per week to be healthy,

https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/factsheet_adults/en/

A 3hr walk per day, even if it includes a break for lunch, is taking the p***.
1hr per day will suffice.
Click to expand...

I'm talking from a strictly legal viewpoint, not what's sensible or what is the best thing to do, (or the opinion of the health secretary or the WHO). Just the law as it was passed by Parliament and the offences that can be committed under that law.

A 3 hour walk with an hour break for lunch may well be taking the p***, unfortunately it is not prohibited by the Coronavirus Regulations. Parliament in their wisdom, saw fit to pass Regulations without any reference to duration or distance (except in Wales iirc).
 
Dave1 said:
Ummm, yes, as an ex-police officer I'll tell you can definitely separate a law from any guidance offered by the government, the guidance might be sensible (and you should probably follow it) but it is not the law so you cannot be prosecuted for what isn't illegal in terms of the law.

CPS don't charge and Courts don't convict on the breaking of a guideline.
Click to expand...

Of course, it isn't the law, and of course you cannot be prosecuted for breaking guidance, where have I even remotely suggested that you can. Nor was I suggesting that laws and guidance are one and the same thing, reread what I said, "guidance on how the law should be interpreted". You can't just make a new law, and expect it to be crystal clear to everyone how it should be applied across every possible situation where it might be applicable, but I've already said this.

So to continue repeating myself, laws need to be interpreted before they can be implemented so that people (including the police and the CPS) know what is an offence under that law. The NPCC guidance on "What constitutes a reasonable excuse to leave the place where you live" is a professional interpretation (opinion) of what a "reasonable excuse" means (laws are full of terms like this that have no clear meaning"), and there will be other opinions on what a "reasonable excuse" is from various other organisations (including the Government, and it would seem the Welsh and Scottish Police Forces, who in association with the respective devolved governments are interpreting it differently from the NPCC).

Again, as I said in earlier posts, over time, these interpretations may be challenged in court, and how a law is applied will change over time through case law, or arguments made to Government and amended directly, or through new laws that will replace sections from a previous law, but as an ex-police officer, you will know this.

But the Government are still leading the fight against the virus, and just because they have now pushed through a law to help with that fight doesn't mean you can suddenly ignore their guidance (ie in terms of the guidance given by Cabinet ministers who are still the people running the country), even if you can't be prosecuted for ignoring it. But most (all) the laws I have been involved with, have had Government guidance on their interpretation, along with case law and other legal opinions on how that law should be applied. At the moment there is no formal Government written guidance on how this law should be interpreted and applied, which may well come.

So meanwhile in terms of how we should behave, and If you take the core messages from the Government on the need to stay at home except for specific purposes, including exercise (which should be local and around an hour) and only making essential journeys, then for me there seems to be no contradiction between the general government guidance and the Regulations.

I just can't rationalise all of the NSPCC guidance with all of the Regulations and all of the Government guidance. It's easier to rationalise the Scottish and Welsh approach, even if I (for what that is worth) don't fully agree with it.
 
Donnie said:
No, people who proffer opinions and vaguaries thinking they are fact cause confusion and arguments.
Click to expand...

That sounds very intellectual, but makes no sense
Vagaries are not vague ideas or statements.
 
Last edited:
tijuana taxi said:
That sounds very intellectual, but makes no sense
Vagaries are not vague ideas or statements.
Click to expand...
@Donnie wrote “Vaguaries” which conveys the meaning and is perfectly cromulent ;) not “vagaries” so your statement that ”Vagaries are not vague ideas or statements” may well be correct but is irrelevant :).
 
sphexx said:
@Donnie wrote “Vaguaries” which conveys the meaning and is perfectly cromulent ;) not “vagaries” so your statement that ”Vagaries are not vague ideas or statements” may well be correct but is irrelevant :).
Click to expand...

Vaguaries is not a word or at least not one I can see in the dictionary
b*****ks is in there though as in load of old
 
Last edited:
myotis said:
Of course, it isn't the law, and of course you cannot be prosecuted for breaking guidance, where have I even remotely suggested that you can. Nor was I suggesting that laws and guidance are one and the same thing, reread what I said, "guidance on how the law should be interpreted". You can't just make a new law, and expect it to be crystal clear to everyone how it should be applied across every possible situation where it might be applicable, but I've already said this.

So to continue repeating myself, laws need to be interpreted before they can be implemented so that people (including the police and the CPS) know what is an offence under that law. The NPCC guidance on "What constitutes a reasonable excuse to leave the place where you live" is a professional interpretation (opinion) of what a "reasonable excuse" means (laws are full of terms like this that have no clear meaning"), and there will be other opinions on what a "reasonable excuse" is from various other organisations (including the Government, and it would seem the Welsh and Scottish Police Forces, who in association with the respective devolved governments are interpreting it differently from the NPCC).

Again, as I said in earlier posts, over time, these interpretations may be challenged in court, and how a law is applied will change over time through case law, or arguments made to Government and amended directly, or through new laws that will replace sections from a previous law, but as an ex-police officer, you will know this.

But the Government are still leading the fight against the virus, and just because they have now pushed through a law to help with that fight doesn't mean you can suddenly ignore their guidance (ie in terms of the guidance given by Cabinet ministers who are still the people running the country), even if you can't be prosecuted for ignoring it. But most (all) the laws I have been involved with, have had Government guidance on their interpretation, along with case law and other legal opinions on how that law should be applied. At the moment there is no formal Government written guidance on how this law should be interpreted and applied, which may well come.

So meanwhile in terms of how we should behave, and If you take the core messages from the Government on the need to stay at home except for specific purposes, including exercise (which should be local and around an hour) and only making essential journeys, then for me there seems to be no contradiction between the general government guidance and the Regulations.

I just can't rationalise all of the NSPCC guidance with all of the Regulations and all of the Government guidance. It's easier to rationalise the Scottish and Welsh approach, even if I (for what that is worth) don't fully agree with it.
Click to expand...

If only you'd read the supplied links you'd likely not have to write a wall of waffle.

Fact: The law is the law, and the only enforceable rules that currently stand are in that law.

The second link I helpfully supplied to try and educate you even makes that point.

There have, moreover, been significant inconsistencies in public communication about the new Regulations.

There are a number of different sources of information, in particular: (i) the Regulations which set out the law; (ii) Government guidance that is intended to try to explain the Regulations, for example to give examples of what might be a “reasonable excuse”; and (ii) Government advice that has no relation to the Regulations (or to criminal law) but suggests recommended best practice or behaviour. All of these differ in material respects and have become confused.

Not least as the Government and police seem at different times to refer to all three as the “rules” even though only one of these three is legally binding law.

A prominent example is the guidance and the law relating to how often people can take exercise outside of their homes.

This is an important issue for tens of millions of people so guidance and law must be as clear as possible. The current guidance states that “you can [...] still go outside once a day for a walk, run, cycle” (original emphasis in guidance) 20 and “you can still go to the park for outdoor exercise once a day”. The regulations for England, Northern Ireland and Scotland allow for a person to leave the house for a “reasonable excuse”, which explicitly includes for taking exercise. However, there is no limit on the number of times a person can take exercise.
Click to expand...

Try and read the briefing rather than just repeating your opinion that somehow the government advice is legally binding and adds restrictions not present in the Regulations...
 
Dave1 said:
Fact: The law is the law, and the only enforceable rules that currently stand are in that law.


Try and read the briefing rather than just repeating your opinion that somehow the government advice is legally binding and adds restrictions not present in the Regulations...
Click to expand...

OK, I will give up trying to explain this to you, but repeat I have never ever disputed your first statement, and have never ever suggested the guidance from the government was legally binding, just that we should be following it and that it doesn't appear to contradict the Regulations.

I still can't work out why you think, I think anything different to this.

EDIT: OK, although I was keen to leave behind reading such documents now that I am retired, I have now skimmed the briefing you linked to, which is indeed a useful document, but I don't see how it disputes anything I have been saying.

"The ‘lockdown’ restriction (Regulation 6) allows for people to leave their homes provided they have a “reasonable excuse”. There is a non-exhaustive list of what could be a reasonable excuse. In order to be proportionate, “reasonable excuse” must be interpreted broadly and in the way that least infringes with the right to private and family life and other civil liberties."

Note the phrase "interpreted broadly" which reflects the general point I have been making about all laws having elements open to interpretation, hence the need for caselaw and guidance to help define the interpretation.
 
Last edited:
sphexx said:
But “but it's not something that has happened in recent times,” is just not true. I think maybe you mean ’not here’, ie that the other recent novel viruses only affected Johnny Foreigner?

Edit to add: 2005 H5N1 Bird flu, 2009,H1N1 Swine flu, 2002 SARS, 2012 MERS plus Ebola.
Click to expand...


I think I may be mean not world wide effecting every country in the same way this has affected countries or are we just panicking more this time round because internet access is more widely available and everyone suddenly becomes an expert on everything from running the country to how to cure /stop diseases spreading that even scientist are struggling with
 
Dave1 said:
A 3 hour walk with an hour break for lunch may well be taking the p***, unfortunately it is not prohibited by the Coronavirus Regulations. Parliament in their wisdom, saw fit to pass Regulations without any reference to duration or distance (except in Wales iirc).
Click to expand...

It is prohibited if it's your second walk of the day, unless of course you have a reasonable excuse, ie medical requirements for example, etc.
Overall the legislation seems pretty straight forward and not that difficult to understand, but I guess you'll always get those types who think it doesn't apply to them or thicko Police officers who simply cannot comprehend the limit of their powers.
 
Dave1 said:
I'm talking from a strictly legal viewpoint, not what's sensible or what is the best thing to do, (or the opinion of the health secretary or the WHO). Just the law as it was passed by Parliament and the offences that can be committed under that law.

A 3 hour walk with an hour break for lunch may well be taking the p***, unfortunately it is not prohibited by the Coronavirus Regulations. Parliament in their wisdom, saw fit to pass Regulations without any reference to duration or distance (except in Wales iirc).
Click to expand...

Strangely, in spite of our dispute elsewhere, I largely agree with this, except I think it would have been difficult to have specified duration or distance, but I have made that point before.
 
Gremlin said:
I think I may be mean not world wide effecting every country in the same way this has affected countries or are we just panicking more this time round because internet access is more widely available and everyone suddenly becomes an expert on everything from running the country to how to cure /stop diseases spreading that even scientist are struggling with
Click to expand...

They're not struggling with it everywhere. It's almost like those who've been through it before, and those who listened to the WHO advice are dealing with it just fine. And those that aren't, aren't, but trying to blame it on "the science" rather than their decisions.
 
Gremlin said:
I think I may be mean not world wide effecting every country in the same way this has affected countries or are we just panicking more this time round because internet access is more widely available and everyone suddenly becomes an expert on everything from running the country to how to cure /stop diseases spreading that even scientist are struggling with
Click to expand...
The point is that SARS, MERS, Ebola were combatted in other countries and so never got here but they, or similar, could have but the U.K. govt did not take this onboard and make preparations. This CV is bad but it could have been a much worse one, and the latter may yet happen. I don’t see why you talk about “panic”.
 
The Emma Barnett show on Five Live has just started and she's asking people if they want to call in re PPE they can do so anonymously because some Trusts have sent Emails out instructing staff not to talk politics and quote PPE specifically. I wonder if HMG has had a hand in that ? Ian Duncan Smith was very forceful, even aggressive, responding Nolan (Five Live) last night when challenged on the points raised in the Times article. The issue of whether raising the shortcomings now as opposed to when its all over has become an issue in itself.

We're off to Sainsburys soon and I thought how strange that the highlight of our day is click and collect.:rolleyes:
 
JohnC6 said:
The Emma Barnett show on Five Live has just started and she's asking people if they want to call in re PPE they can do so anonymously because some Trusts have sent Emails out instructing staff not to talk politics and quote PPE specifically. I wonder if HMG has had a hand in that ? Ian Duncan Smith was very forceful, even aggressive, responding Nolan (Five Live) last night when challenged on the points raised in the Times article. The issue of whether raising the shortcomings now as opposed to when its all over has become an issue in itself.

We're off to Sainsburys soon and I thought how strange that the highlight of our day is click and collect.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Also, all conservative mp's have been banned from speaking about coronavirus without clearance from no.10.
 
Marc said:
!!!

Click to expand...

And that is why Trump is President.

Alas, intelligent, sensible, moderate politicians have vastly underestimated the power of stupid.

Those politicians possessed of a contempt for democracy have weaponised this power to bring them into office or win referenda based on lies.

The lie that appeals is a potent weapon indeed and leads to the above situation were people will protest for the ‘freedom’ which will could lead their own demise.
 
Rapscallion said:
Also, all conservative mp's have been banned from speaking about coronavirus without clearance from no.10.
Click to expand...

As we all know that's what goes on in China. Infact that was a big part of why the virus got a hold before the rest of the world became aware.They actually arrested scientists for speaking about it.

Just been told we're off to Sainsburys click and collect. Could have taken sandwiches and a flask :LOL:
 
Rapscallion said:
Also, all conservative mp's have been banned from speaking about coronavirus without clearance from no.10.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, this is where our democracy is failing. I think that the primary function of all our MPs is to represent all their constituents. It seems to me that they should do this by questioning everything the current government does. I do not think that they should ever be loyal to their political party at the expense of that primary function.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top