Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Absolutely superb line by line analysis of the statement Cummings read out. Definitly worth a listen.

Dominic Cummings's statement: a guided tour

A good listen, thanks. It was carefully scripted where it was needed then suddenly on some crucial details he didn't know and was incredibly vague (after being extremely detailed about earlier dates).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sonyc said:

A good listen, thanks. It was carefully scripted where it was needed then suddenly on some crucial details he didn't know and was incredibly vague (after being extremely detailed about earlier dates).

I also thought DAG thought he would be in danger of perjury if he attempted that in a court of law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BigFish said:

I also thought DAG thought he would be in danger of perjury if he attempted that in a court of law

He was a confident man reading out all those paragraphs but less convincing under questioning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Dominic **** and the rules (the Law).

I'm at a total loss how ANYBODY rational, law abiding, thinking of their role in a greater society could possibly interpret the rules (law) as per Cummings.

There were so many better choices he could of made especially given his income and position. In desperation a quick call to No. 10 and private child care could of been arranged or even his put upon niece coming to London to help. Nobody would of questioned it indeed he would of gained credit.

Instead we have the most selfish, crass decisions possible being made totally at odds with the intent, the spirit and I suspect the law itself - a real two fingers FO to everybody sensible.

I really hope the Police do investigate and bring it to a trial. It is in the 'Public Interest'.

As to Gove et al and all who try and excuse his behaviour - it's just pathetic.

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

It's as meaningful as yours, like it or not.

Trouble is Winky's aren't that meaningful to start with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Exactly that.

It isn't about chicken! Yet, posters feel this is the area to extract a joke from, thereby cheapening one's own point and making you feel a fool (I don't need help with that!).

It's a serious point but not one that looks like a debate here. Never mind, it doesn't really matter.

It does matter especially in an area like Norfolk. Pork producers, sugar beet etc. A lot of the local economy will be hit hard by lowering standards all to get slightly cheaper imports. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think that’s the thing KG, we’re all free to buy chicken or any meat from local butchers without CI, Free range growers, you might pay a little more, for others who aren’t fussed have a choice too.

Its like eating chocolate, we know it’s not healthy for you but it’s your choice.

Fair point except we are running out of Butchers, Greengrocers. Luckily in Cornwall, because of Pasties, there are plenty of bread shops.
In Redruth where I live, there are 4 male, hairdressers, 5 female hairdressers, 3 nail bars, two tanning shops against one butcher and one greengrocer. That isn't allowing for the 3 supermarkets and three co-ops.
I'm afraid choice is being directed not respected.
Edited by keelansgrandad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And does it really matter if Cummings broke three or just one regulation/guidance? He broke at least one that he helped construct, got the PM to lie in public and has showed no remorse for the damage he has done to the Government that employs him.

For the workers that have now become so valuable and heroes every time there is a Government briefing, I think there would have been instant dismissal for risking the life of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Herman said:

It does matter especially in an area like Norfolk. Pork producers, sugar beet etc. A lot of the local economy will be hit hard by lowering standards all to get slightly cheaper imports. 

It does. But on second thoughts it is probably better on the B thread rather than this C thread! 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im happy to pay around €20 for a free range organically raised chicken, pricey I know but at almost twice the weight of your supermarket four quid squishy deformed beast , I buy a bird with meat on the wings and the legs....because it has been able to stretch ,run and flap its wings during its short life. Compared to a factory bird its taste is exceptional....it tastes of chicken. Used well it can provide 2 meals for 4 people. I apreciate some people feel they have no choice but buy the cheapest. They would get better value by buying a pack of thighs, at least they have flavour...and because the,prime cut of breast has been separated, they are very cheap in comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

And does it really matter if Cummings broke three or just one regulation/guidance? He broke at least one that he helped construct, got the PM to lie in public and has showed no remorse for the damage he has done to the Government that employs him.

For the workers that have now become so valuable and heroes every time there is a Government briefing, I think there would have been instant dismissal for risking the life of others.

There are three types of allegation here. One is that he acted unlawfully up to three times by leaving his house without reasonable excuse.  The three times being when he left ans returned from london and when he went to bernard castle.

There is a separate but related allegation that he  reached the advice.

The third allegation is that although he might not have broken any 'rule' he nonetheless contravened the spirit.

Breaching the advice or spirit of the sdvice is not in itself an offence.

As to the first the facts are well known it's a question of judgement about how reasonable and how believable the excuse was.   This is a matter almost entirely of opinion for the decision maker. 

To the advice the two sides of the argument are well rehearsed. One says the advice is clear 'go straight home and stay at home'.  The other side is that the advice clearly invites autonomy to be applied if there are (for example) children involved.  

As to the third everyone's opinion on the 'spirit' will be different.

As so much of this is personal opinion and subjective there really isn't any point shouting at each other.  Everyone has had their say, one opinion is as valid as another and unless there is anything new to say lets move on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Indy said:

And I’ve read on a Trump tweet chlorinated chicken protects you from Covid 19.

What about wearing chlorinated latex? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

The real issue is not 'chlorinated chicken' or any other food standards (provided that they are safe) but the undercutting to the point of uneconomic of vast amounts of our agricultural industry. The same also goes for other 'protected' industries and services in a new free trade UK. I doubt most who voted for this will like the ruthless reality but who cares. We have now to make it work.

If you can't do a job/product/service at a competitive rate against the rest of the world the you'll have to do something else. 

 

Fine words, but what do we do in this country which isn't done more cheaply by someone else somewhere in the world?

People cite New Zealand as an example to support the call for Free Trade, but I was in NZ at the time and stayed on farms and a lot of people suffered. The ones who now say it was a good thing are the ones whose businesses survived. The current situation here is that few arable farms make a profit which is larger than the total of their subsidies. And that's with farming on a large scale.

There is no simple answer, otherwise we'd be doing it. The customer in the UK wants cheap food and quality is a tertiary consideration, but our costs in the UK are high - labour, fuel, sprays and fertilizer, so we cannot compete in a Free Trade situation.

Someone once wrote about travelling around Norfolk in the 1930s, and they said that in the countryside the only sound was the front doors of the abandoned farmhouses banging in the wind. Don't expect the landscape to stay as it is now without support. It will change, and maybe not in ways you'd like it to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Monty13 said:

Amazingly I was out today in multiple places and saw people social distancing still. I literally queued to get lunch in a 2m spaced collection line, I must have imagined it though because “no one was distancing or anything else” according to you.

I had no idea your powers had advanced to omnipresent, good to know.

Just cycled down to New Brighton, along the prom and to the Mersey ferry terminal and back in my lunch hour.

It was quite busy but less so than in other half term weeks, social distancing was still being observed by pedestrians on the pavements, on the beaches, the prom, on the dips and in the queues for shops, chips and ice cream, and by other cyclists on the cycle paths.

#nodeathwishonthewirral

Although maybe this is explained by the story that was on the front page of the local newspaper waiting for me when I got in, which states that The Wirral is likely to be the 3rd worst area affected by coronavirus 😱😱😱

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bill said:

Well, you were right about one thing

................ the wishful thinking 😆

 

Johnson - Get him gone

Well it hasn’t left the news cycle, he failed to kill it as a story. I was hoping he’d be gone but expected it to die out and him to stay, I’ll be happy to be proved wrong in that expectation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

The real issue is not 'chlorinated chicken' or any other food standards (provided that they are safe) but the undercutting to the point of uneconomic of vast amounts of our agricultural industry. The same also goes for other 'protected' industries and services in a new free trade UK. I doubt most who voted for this will like the ruthless reality but who cares. We have now to make it work.

If you can't do a job/product/service at a competitive rate against the rest of the world the you'll have to do something else. 

 

We will have to subsidise the UK industry though. Food security is a genuine massive concern.

Either way the UK taxpayer is paying. Direct to farmers if we uphold standards or through taxes if we subsidise them extra to keep them.

Letting farming die out and be even more reliant on imports than we already are isn’t part of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Trevor Hockey's Beard said:

Fine words, but what do we do in this country which isn't done more cheaply by someone else somewhere in the world?

People cite New Zealand as an example to support the call for Free Trade, but I was in NZ at the time and stayed on farms and a lot of people suffered. The ones who now say it was a good thing are the ones whose businesses survived. The current situation here is that few arable farms make a profit which is larger than the total of their subsidies. And that's with farming on a large scale.

There is no simple answer, otherwise we'd be doing it. The customer in the UK wants cheap food and quality is a tertiary consideration, but our costs in the UK are high - labour, fuel, sprays and fertilizer, so we cannot compete in a Free Trade situation.

Someone once wrote about travelling around Norfolk in the 1930s, and they said that in the countryside the only sound was the front doors of the abandoned farmhouses banging in the wind. Don't expect the landscape to stay as it is now without support. It will change, and maybe not in ways you'd like it to change.

THB - I agree with you - Actually I think there will large upheavals in many parts of the agricultural sector - especially in those areas that were largely 'Brexity'. Nobody will wish to cross subsidize dead uneconomic industries when you can't even look after your own.  What they wanted is 'protectionism' but what they'll get is global market rates. Nevermind. The US deal is just a start. Workfare anybody ?

Add to that the Covid depression and its quite difficult to see how this well end well for most.

As they say - "Be careful what you wish for"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

We will have to subsidise the UK industry though. Food security is a genuine massive concern.

Either way the UK taxpayer is paying. Direct to farmers if we uphold standards or through taxes if we subsidise them extra to keep them.

Letting farming die out and be even more reliant on imports than we already are isn’t part of the game.

Ther CAP was exactly that - to make sure Europe could feed itself via subsidy (yes it got abused at times and still does - wine, butter lakes & mountains and payments on acreage etc). We are returning  to the days prior to that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

There are three types of allegation here. One is that he acted unlawfully up to three times by leaving his house without reasonable excuse.  The three times being when he left ans returned from london and when he went to bernard castle.

Not true. The regulations were, at the time, that travel was valid if you were returning to work. He continues to obfuscate over the question of whether he, his wife or both demonstrated symptoms when travelling. If they did they should have quarantened for 14 days. The regulations are clear they shouldn't have travelled. The child is a smokescreen, it is not applicable where there isn't danger to life bryonf Covid.

There is a separate but related allegation that he  reached the advice.

That is not a allegation, it is a matter of public record. Cummings admitted as much

The third allegation is that although he might not have broken any 'rule' he nonetheless contravened the spirit.

Breaching the advice or spirit of the sdvice is not in itself an offence.

As to the first the facts are well known it's a question of judgement about how reasonable and how believable the excuse was.   This is a matter almost entirely of opinion for the decision maker. 

Since when has the law been a matter of opinion of the decision maker. Completely unfounded.

To the advice the two sides of the argument are well rehearsed. One says the advice is clear 'go straight home and stay at home'.  The other side is that the advice clearly invites autonomy to be applied if there are (for example) children involved.  

Again completely untrue, the child is immaterial in this case. There were no safeguarding issues.

As to the third everyone's opinion on the 'spirit' will be different.

As so much of this is personal opinion and subjective there really isn't any point shouting at each other.  Everyone has had their say, one opinion is as valid as another and unless there is anything new to say lets move on.

Two thirds of the country have the opinion that Cummings should go, the other opinion is for the flat earthers and axe grinders.

@Barbe bleu probably still worth debate until we get satisfactory answers. You remain confused, thinking the law is a matter of opinion when applied to the great and the good. That way lies autocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''think that’s the thing KG, we’re all free to buy chicken or any meat from local butchers without CI, Free range growers, you might pay a little more, for others who aren’t fussed have a choice too.

Its like eating chocolate, we know it’s not healthy for you but it’s your choice.''

Dear god, that is quite a concern.

That after all time folk are still trotting that guff out

How on earth would the consumer know what they are buying if the UK has to agree to the US requirement if 'source of origin' on meat products - likewise the US wants far less stringent labelling. Having this chewed over (no pun) endlessly here you are still bleating out the above nonsense.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/full-list-of-mps-who-voted-to-lower-our-food-standards-during-the-covid-pandemic/26/05/?fbclid=IwAR2vePTQYi99FdLEXY-pSPp35EmQ_9Yzqbf_ReWmE_-Sp6Ap69J6JBssu1o

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

We will have to subsidise the UK industry though. Food security is a genuine massive concern.

Except any trade deal is likely to block this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are three types of allegation here. One is that he acted unlawfully up to three times by leaving his house without reasonable excuse.  The three times being when he left ans returned from london and when he went to bernard castle.

There is a separate but related allegation that he  reached the advice.

The third allegation is that although he might not have broken any 'rule' he nonetheless contravened the spirit.

Breaching the advice or spirit of the sdvice is not in itself an offence.

As to the first the facts are well known it's a question of judgement about how reasonable and how believable the excuse was.   This is a matter almost entirely of opinion for the decision maker. 

To the advice the two sides of the argument are well rehearsed. One says the advice is clear 'go straight home and stay at home'.  The other side is that the advice clearly invites autonomy to be applied if there are (for example) children involved.  

As to the third everyone's opinion on the 'spirit' will be different.

As so much of this is personal opinion and subjective there really isn't any point shouting at each other.  Everyone has had their say, one opinion is as valid as another and unless there is anything new to say lets move on.

There are corrections to be made. And the main one is that when the child was ill, they both took him to hospital. He stayed in the car and she went inside with the child. So, knowing she had the virus, it was their only reason for being in the area, she took it into a hospital.

They had gone to his parent's farm to isolate and to take advantage of the sister in law if both should have the virus. So why didn't the sister in law take the child to hospital?

The rest is just semantics. But what they did that day risked many peoples lives.

  •  
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

We will have to subsidise the UK industry though. Food security is a genuine massive concern.

Either way the UK taxpayer is paying. Direct to farmers if we uphold standards or through taxes if we subsidise them extra to keep them.

Letting farming die out and be even more reliant on imports than we already are isn’t part of the game.

.Part of that subsidy is based on the UK being able to trade freely with the EU (exports) and imports allow us to meet a greater part of our food requirements - both will go.

Patrick Minford (brexit guru) has said that brexit will destroy much of farming as well as manufacturing.

Under WTO, Most Favoured Nation the UK will have to offer every country the same tariff rate, which will remove a huge bit of protection we already have.

Brexit is merely the belief that you can safely jump off the cliff...... as long as you don't intend to hit the ground.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, BigFish said:

@Barbe bleu probably still worth debate until we get satisfactory answers. You remain confused, thinking the law is a matter of opinion when applied to the great and the good. That way lies autocracy.

Big fish. I said what I said because I took the time to read the regulations.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/contents/made

The law says that you shouldnt leave your house without  a reaoanable excuse or more specifically "During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse".

there then follows a list of 13 example reasonable excuses. Work is one of them. It is not the only one.

What is 'reasonable' is by it's very nature based on the opinion of the decision maker.  He or she can be guided by precedent but there is a subjective element. 

I'm happy to have a debate on this, as I did with aggy, but I'll not bother unless you bother to read the document you claim to be commenting on.

As to the advice Cummings does not accept that he breached it, he says that the qualifiers allow him the freedom of movement he took. Other people have a different view.

I have an opinion on his actions but no interest in debating this matter further as the discussion would be political and my interest is with covid and the covid reaction and not party politics.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a huge number of the 'not too bright' believed Johnson last autumn. A man with a history of lying.

What is clear is that the man who seems to be running things (Cummings) is also an habitual liar - from the collapsed cover up to his doctoring an email post.

Of course their behaviour and attitude would not have impacted on the number of virus deaths in the UK. The highest (or in the top 3) deaths per capita. Nope, that is just a bit of bad luck. Remove the US and about one in every six deaths of covid-19 has been in the UK.

1% of the world's population and around 10% of deaths.

And we now have

"No 10 says it cannot explain why the daily announcement of the number of people being tested for coronavirus has been mysteriously dropped.

Boris Johnson’s spokesman said it was “not something I have noticed” – despite the department of health and social care failing to provide the statistic for four days."

So once again, the apologists need to ask themselves is the latter just bad luck as well

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

There are three types of allegation here.  

  •  

KG you have expressed your opinion on the reasonableness of his actions and the possible breach of the rules clearly.  Ron Obvious, for example, has done likewise. 

As to the law whether his reasons for leaving the house 3 times were reasonable is a matter for the individual.  You are both perfectly entitled to your opinion and neither is right or wrong in law. The only opinion that will actually matter is that of the bench and they wont get to hear the case.

As to the advice there are two ways of looking at it, its either absolute or it allows for discretion within a general framework.  Everyone can take their pick as to which they prefer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Big fish. I said what I said because I took the time to read the regulations.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/contents/made

The law says that you shouldnt leave your house without  a reaoanable excuse or more specifically "During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse".

there then follows a list of 13 example reasonable excuses. Work is one of them. It is not the only one.

What is 'reasonable' is by it's very nature based on the opinion of the decision maker.  He or she can be guided by precedent but there is a subjective element. 

I'm happy to have a debate on this, as I did with aggy, but I'll not bother unless you bother to read the document you claim to be commenting on.

As to the advice Cummings does not accept that he breached it, he says that the qualifiers allow him the freedom of movement he took. Other people have a different view.

I have an opinion on his actions but no interest in debating this matter further as the discussion would be political and my interest is with covid and the covid reaction and not party politics.

What is reasonable is a matter of law, NOT the opinion of the decision maker. Cummings statement was written by a lawyer to avoid implicating him, the facts therefore were revealed to support the excuse, the excuse wasn't applied to what may or may not happened in fact. By doing this Cummings has damaged the public health response to Covid, so it should fall within your field of interest.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Bagster said:

He has never joined the conservative party and has refused to earn more than a 100k a year as he believes that is enough for any man.

I bet his accountant would be surprised to hear that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

the waffle meister is now up in front of the Parliamentary liaison committee

watch here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcparliament

god, this is just rambling waffle - repeating himself and when challenged about making false claims unwilling or unable to back those claims

Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...