Emergency legislation - information and commentary
Discussion
RSTurboPaul said:
blueg33 said:
Do you not see the irony in your statements?
There are those that would suggest you are facing an impossible challenge that is better abandoned sooner rather than later... lolEdited by blueg33 on Thursday 18th March 14:51
randlemarcus said:
Slightly back on track, Parliament will debate the repeal of the Coronavirus Act on the 22nd of March. I suspect that's a date set before we come out of lockdown purely coincidentally . Hmmm.
Still, at least it means it gets an airing.
I thought they'd just announced it was going to be extended by another 6 months?Still, at least it means it gets an airing.
The spineless MPs outside of the Covid Recovery Group will all nod it through like obedient Yes (Wo)Men
The point being missed about the Clapham protest is that restricting the protest in the name of C19 had no rational basis and was an invasion of civil liberties that has no justification based on health risks. The protesters offered marshalling and organisation. In Australia last weekend similar protests went off OK with the attendees standing apart from one another. The risks of catching Covid outdoors are tiny. This is very well established and you do not need to be a doctor to say this, any more than you need to be a doctor to say that if you cut off your own leg you might bleed to death.
Policing requires discretion and proportionality. This is why, for example, speeding at 36 in a 30 is prosecuted but 31 in a 30 is not, although driving at 31 in a 30 is a breach of a rule. Policing of the Covid rules, not just in relation to protests, has displayed too much unthinking "you can't do that" jobsworthery as well as large amounts of gold plating and overreach. Thus we end up with the insane spectacle of people getting violently close to other people in order to stop those people peacefully standing apart in a park.
The apologists for authoritarianism told us after the policing excesses of the first lockdown "don't worry, they are just a bit keen and this is all new for them, cut them some slack, they will calm down in a bit", but, if anything, the heavy handed policing has been worse this time around, fueled perhaps by the increasingly deranged tone of the Government and media as they find new ways to keep going a crisis that has on any calm and objective view ended. The media are by their nature bad news misery-junkies, but the Government has no such excuse.
Policing requires discretion and proportionality. This is why, for example, speeding at 36 in a 30 is prosecuted but 31 in a 30 is not, although driving at 31 in a 30 is a breach of a rule. Policing of the Covid rules, not just in relation to protests, has displayed too much unthinking "you can't do that" jobsworthery as well as large amounts of gold plating and overreach. Thus we end up with the insane spectacle of people getting violently close to other people in order to stop those people peacefully standing apart in a park.
The apologists for authoritarianism told us after the policing excesses of the first lockdown "don't worry, they are just a bit keen and this is all new for them, cut them some slack, they will calm down in a bit", but, if anything, the heavy handed policing has been worse this time around, fueled perhaps by the increasingly deranged tone of the Government and media as they find new ways to keep going a crisis that has on any calm and objective view ended. The media are by their nature bad news misery-junkies, but the Government has no such excuse.
Short points. Goalposts.
Lockdown because -
1. Protect the NHS.
2. Hide from the virus until vaccines arrive.
1. OK, that's done.
2. Vaccines are here, they work.
So now we wait for the goalposts to move and for someone to magic up
3. er...something, something.
So far, the best stab at 3 is "might spike again". But, really, so what if it does? If will bounce off most people. It cannot seriously be suggested that we are now to allow national policy to be dictated by anti-vaxxer nutjobs.
blueg33 said:
Do you not see the irony in your statements?
There is no irony as I’ve translated both those statements as examples and not given an opinion on whether either view is right or wrong whereas you have taken one side and decided that’s what was intended. You might be right but equally you might not. Edited by blueg33 on Thursday 18th March 14:51
As I said. Confirmation bias.
Breadvan72 said:
The point being missed about the Clapham protest is that restricting the protest in the name of C19 had no rational basis and was an invasion of civil liberties that has no justification based on health risks. The protesters offered marshalling and organisation. In Australia last weekend similar protests went off OK with the attendees standing apart from one another. The risks of catching Covid outdoors are tiny. This is very well established and you do not need to be a doctor to say this, any more than you need to be a doctor to say that if you cut off your own leg you might bleed to death.
Policing requires discretion and proportionality. This is why, for example, speeding at 36 in a 30 is prosecuted but 31 in a 30 is not, although driving at 31 in a 30 is a breach of a rule. Policing of the Covid rules, not just in relation to protests, has displayed too much unthinking "you can't do that" jobsworthery as well as large amounts of gold plating and overreach. Thus we end up with the insane spectacle of people getting violently close to other people in order to stop those people peacefully standing apart in a park.
The apologists for authoritarianism told us after the policing excesses of the first lockdown "don't worry, they are just a bit keen and this is all new for them, cut them some slack, they will calm down in a bit", but, if anything, the heavy handed policing has been worse this time around, fueled perhaps by the increasingly deranged tone of the Government and media as they find new ways to keep going a crisis that has on any calm and objective view ended. The media are by their nature bad news misery-junkies, but the Government has no such excuse.
https://news.sky.com/story/sarah-everard-vigil-what-sparked-the-ugly-scenes-and-were-the-police-tactics-warranted-12247074Policing requires discretion and proportionality. This is why, for example, speeding at 36 in a 30 is prosecuted but 31 in a 30 is not, although driving at 31 in a 30 is a breach of a rule. Policing of the Covid rules, not just in relation to protests, has displayed too much unthinking "you can't do that" jobsworthery as well as large amounts of gold plating and overreach. Thus we end up with the insane spectacle of people getting violently close to other people in order to stop those people peacefully standing apart in a park.
The apologists for authoritarianism told us after the policing excesses of the first lockdown "don't worry, they are just a bit keen and this is all new for them, cut them some slack, they will calm down in a bit", but, if anything, the heavy handed policing has been worse this time around, fueled perhaps by the increasingly deranged tone of the Government and media as they find new ways to keep going a crisis that has on any calm and objective view ended. The media are by their nature bad news misery-junkies, but the Government has no such excuse.
Does this timetable and coverage, really look like they didn't use discretion or that, even before things deteriorated, the attendees were standing apart from each other?
It does appear there were several hours where no one was talking about enforcement, protest was being encouraged and every indication they did use discretion. It was not until later in the evening, when they decided and posted that the crowd was unsafe, too tightly packed and risking public health that they started to ask and then tell people to go home. The numbers, the deployment and the demeanour of the officers, even at 6.18pm, looks very low key.
Breadvan72 said:
The point being missed about the Clapham protest is that restricting the protest in the name of C19 had no rational basis and was an invasion of civil liberties that has no justification based on health risks. The protesters offered marshalling and organisation. In Australia last weekend similar protests went off OK with the attendees standing apart from one another. The risks of catching Covid outdoors are tiny. This is very well established and you do not need to be a doctor to say this, any more than you need to be a doctor to say that if you cut off your own leg you might bleed to death.
Policing requires discretion and proportionality. This is why, for example, speeding at 36 in a 30 is prosecuted but 31 in a 30 is not, although driving at 31 in a 30 is a breach of a rule. Policing of the Covid rules, not just in relation to protests, has displayed too much unthinking "you can't do that" jobsworthery as well as large amounts of gold plating and overreach. Thus we end up with the insane spectacle of people getting violently close to other people in order to stop those people peacefully standing apart in a park.
The apologists for authoritarianism told us after the policing excesses of the first lockdown "don't worry, they are just a bit keen and this is all new for them, cut them some slack, they will calm down in a bit", but, if anything, the heavy handed policing has been worse this time around, fueled perhaps by the increasingly deranged tone of the Government and media as they find new ways to keep going a crisis that has on any calm and objective view ended. The media are by their nature bad news misery-junkies, but the Government has no such excuse.
You might not believe it has any rational basis, but the law says it does. You continually harp on about the law and doing what it says, yet now you seem to be shifting to a position based on your own layman’s knowledge of medicine. Offering to self-police an illegal activity seems a bit of a weak argument. Comparing it to self amputation is facile. Policing requires discretion and proportionality. This is why, for example, speeding at 36 in a 30 is prosecuted but 31 in a 30 is not, although driving at 31 in a 30 is a breach of a rule. Policing of the Covid rules, not just in relation to protests, has displayed too much unthinking "you can't do that" jobsworthery as well as large amounts of gold plating and overreach. Thus we end up with the insane spectacle of people getting violently close to other people in order to stop those people peacefully standing apart in a park.
The apologists for authoritarianism told us after the policing excesses of the first lockdown "don't worry, they are just a bit keen and this is all new for them, cut them some slack, they will calm down in a bit", but, if anything, the heavy handed policing has been worse this time around, fueled perhaps by the increasingly deranged tone of the Government and media as they find new ways to keep going a crisis that has on any calm and objective view ended. The media are by their nature bad news misery-junkies, but the Government has no such excuse.
You ridiculed people not long ago who used other countries to make their point, yet here you are using Australia to do just that. I’ll put it down as a lack of consistency, rather than hypocrisy.
There was plenty of discretion used. Was every single person immediately arrested and detained? If not discretion must have been applied. Your speeding analogy is a bit vague. It’s more like a street racing event being organised, the organisers promised to police it themselves, that rightly being rejected and the police detaining the organisers once things got out of hand with the organisers being the primary cause of it and dispersing the rest of the attendees with minor incidents along the way.
Good news: half of the UK's adults have had the first jab. I wonder what percentage of holdouts there will be. Will it matter? The numbers who cannot be vaccinated as opposed to choose not to may be fairly small. FTAOD: I support vaccination, but I do not support compulsory vaccination or vaccine passports. I can see that the practical reality is that the latter may happen anyway, internationally. Internal vaccine passports would be anathema.
The LibDems have finally started to to do some LibDemming, and pushing back a bit (just a bit) against restrictions.
There may perhaps be a rational basis for not returning to full normality by, say, Whitsun, but, if such a rational basis exists, the Government is not doing a good job of explaining what it is. All we get are vague generalities about caution. I can see why the Government is anxious not to be criticised again after its many panics and cockups last year, but I think that it has, as mentioned above, backed itself into a corner by giving people false expectations that Covid will be ended rather than managed. I am surprised that the vote machinists do not think that they can spin out of the corner by doing a great big "We've fixed it, back to the pub, vote for us in May" PR push. Is Johnson having a fit of frit?
As for data not dates, the vaccine project appears to be going better than anticipated in the UK (some European countries appear to be screwing up). That sounds a bit like like data to me, but it seems that data not dates is only allowed to work as a brake, and not as an accelerator. I am still looking very hard to see what emergency is currently happening (you know, the sort of thing for which you might have emergency rules), but it's quite well camouflaged.
The LibDems have finally started to to do some LibDemming, and pushing back a bit (just a bit) against restrictions.
There may perhaps be a rational basis for not returning to full normality by, say, Whitsun, but, if such a rational basis exists, the Government is not doing a good job of explaining what it is. All we get are vague generalities about caution. I can see why the Government is anxious not to be criticised again after its many panics and cockups last year, but I think that it has, as mentioned above, backed itself into a corner by giving people false expectations that Covid will be ended rather than managed. I am surprised that the vote machinists do not think that they can spin out of the corner by doing a great big "We've fixed it, back to the pub, vote for us in May" PR push. Is Johnson having a fit of frit?
As for data not dates, the vaccine project appears to be going better than anticipated in the UK (some European countries appear to be screwing up). That sounds a bit like like data to me, but it seems that data not dates is only allowed to work as a brake, and not as an accelerator. I am still looking very hard to see what emergency is currently happening (you know, the sort of thing for which you might have emergency rules), but it's quite well camouflaged.
The international risk is clearly not reducing as quickly as our domestic risk, so that's a headache the government has to deal with.
Our vaccination strategy and execution of it is a fantastic achievement.
It's a fair question.
I'd assume it helps build in an even greater margin of error / buffer by being ahead of where we expect, whilst at the same time people have their expectations managed with the dates being published ahead of time.
I think as a compromise the government could commit to the most immediate changes rather than leaving them unconfirmed. The 12th of April you will be able to go to the gym, and X businesses can re-open, for example.
Our vaccination strategy and execution of it is a fantastic achievement.
Oceanrower said:
La Liga said:
To be fair, the dates were stated from the start as 'no earlier than' when the 'roadmap' was released.
But, if things are going better than expected, why not?I'd assume it helps build in an even greater margin of error / buffer by being ahead of where we expect, whilst at the same time people have their expectations managed with the dates being published ahead of time.
I think as a compromise the government could commit to the most immediate changes rather than leaving them unconfirmed. The 12th of April you will be able to go to the gym, and X businesses can re-open, for example.
Port control has been weird throughout. I am talking about legal entry to the UK, not people entering illegally. All countries can if they wish take steps to control their own borders (yes, even EU ones).
I think that by keeping some of the the restrictions until as late as June the Gov is looking for nothing more than rather timid and weak minded CYA. That is now a fait accompli, it appears, but again I ask: why the Hell do we need ANY more emergency rules lasting a full six months from the end of April?
Yep, the vaccine thing is great. Well done, HMG.
I think that by keeping some of the the restrictions until as late as June the Gov is looking for nothing more than rather timid and weak minded CYA. That is now a fait accompli, it appears, but again I ask: why the Hell do we need ANY more emergency rules lasting a full six months from the end of April?
Yep, the vaccine thing is great. Well done, HMG.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 21st March 19:32
Update: some minor [EDIT: and some not so minor] changes to the rules are now on the legislation website. I assume that some more changes may be made over the next week or two, but there tends to be a lag between rules being made or amended and the new or amended rules appearing on the website.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 21st March 19:02
Breadvan72 said:
Update: some minor changes to the rules are now on the legislation website. I assume that some more changes may be made over the next week or two, but there tends to be a lag between rules being made or amended and the new or amended rules appearing on the website.
Any chance of a summary? Last update I could see was January. I have been faffing about with an old motorbike and have abandoned that faff-fest in favour of cooking, so my Summarising Fu is weak just now. The quickest answer may be to look at this, in force since 8 March 2021 -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/247/conte...
Some of the changes are minor, but some are a bit more important, eg stuff about travel declarations, and clarity on going out for recreation.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/247/conte...
Some of the changes are minor, but some are a bit more important, eg stuff about travel declarations, and clarity on going out for recreation.
Breadvan72 said:
Note as usual the following -
"the Secretary of State is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make this instrument without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
Urgency, yeah right.
Y’know, that was the first thing that struck me..."the Secretary of State is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make this instrument without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
Urgency, yeah right.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff