The new "rule of six" -- and the absence of an SI

[anonymous-user]

In addition, you would not be penalised for looting by the issue of a ticket.

[unident]

vaud said:

unident said:

death sentences for looting,

No-one was ever sentenced to death.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33566789

"The government was so concerned about looting it brought in the death penalty and life sentences as a deterrent. However, perhaps with a view to the importance of morale, no-one was actually executed for looting and most were given heavy fines or shorter sentences."

They might not have executed anybody but the sentence was there if needed. I don’t see one currently in place for breaking any laws. It’s soooooo much worse now though

[carinaman]

'Police officers do not give or take unlawful orders'.

[anonymous-user]

Sam.M said:

BV - did you watch Lord Sumptions lecture, posted on youtube by the Cambridge Law Faculty?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0

I've not yet watched but would be keen to hear your take.

It is well worth watching and Sumption is correct . Unident, however, knows more about the law than Sumption, so unident will tell you that Sumption is wrong, and if you disagree with that you must be a contrarian who is arguing for the sake of arguing. Unident also knows more about medicine than Professor Heneghan does. You are worse than Piers Corbyn if you disagree with anything that unident says. He has been telling everybody to shut up and obey since March. It's really too bad that people are not doing as he says.

[anonymous-user]

Thanks, I have it in my watch later queue and will do this evening.

[carinaman]

Breadvan72 said:

Sam.M said:

BV - did you watch Lord Sumptions lecture, posted on youtube by the Cambridge Law Faculty?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0

I've not yet watched but would be keen to hear your take.

It is well worth watching and Sumption is correct . Unident, however, knows more about the law than Sumption, so unident will tell you that Sumption is wrong, and if you disagree with that you must be a contrarian who is arguing for the sake of arguing. Unident also knows more about medicine than Professor Heneghan does. You are worse than Piers Corbyn if you disagree with anything that unident says. He has been telling everybody to shut up and obey since March. It's really too bad that people are not doing as he says.

I wouldn't be surprised if the dissent shown in this thread is not responsible for the deaths of thousands of vulnerable people.

[markyb_lcy]

carinaman said:

Breadvan72 said:

Sam.M said:

BV - did you watch Lord Sumptions lecture, posted on youtube by the Cambridge Law Faculty?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0

I've not yet watched but would be keen to hear your take.

It is well worth watching and Sumption is correct . Unident, however, knows more about the law than Sumption, so unident will tell you that Sumption is wrong, and if you disagree with that you must be a contrarian who is arguing for the sake of arguing. Unident also knows more about medicine than Professor Heneghan does. You are worse than Piers Corbyn if you disagree with anything that unident says. He has been telling everybody to shut up and obey since March. It's really too bad that people are not doing as he says.

I wouldn't be surprised if the dissent shown in this thread is not responsible for the deaths of thousands of vulnerable people.

What a load of overly dramatic codswallop. Give your head a wobble.

Discussing things on a forum is not responsible for killing people from a respiratory virus. Jesus H Christ.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you were unable to tie your shoelaces or tell the time. Btw you also might want to check your double negative.

[anonymous-user]

Whoosh?

[gareth_r]

unident said:

...All the arguing about infringements on liberties is really just arguing for the sake of it. Would you have been as opposed to restrictions placed on people during other national crises. You love to reference the Stasi, so I’ll go extreme too. Would you have kicked off about the relocation of children out of London during WWII? What about black out restrictions? Outlawing Mosley? It’s easy to dismiss these as “what ifs”, but on that basis, your whole argument is flawed as it’s hypothetical and bemoaning a future that hasn’t happened.

Of course, another notable thing about WWII was the willingness of the government, and the country, to make the difficult decision to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives in order to protect the lives and future of millions. Unfortunately, the current government is demonstrating its willingness to sacrifice the lives and future of millions in order to protect thousands.

Johnson is like some terrible test tube hybrid of an inverse Churchill, a mediaeval monarch, one of King Knut/Canute's courtiers, and a smarmy middle manager who takes credit for success but always has a scapegoat for failure.

[Tommo87]

Countdown said:

Admittedly I'm a simple man but these are the "facts" as I see them;

There is currently a worldwide pandemic
CV19 spreads as a result of people being in close proximity
The spread of CV19 is a negative on society
Stopping people from meeting in large groups to minimise Cv19 transmission makes sense
We have an Opposition and a Free Press - neither of whom are kicking up a strom about infringement of civil liberties

TL:DR Is it really that big a deal?

This makes sense.

Edited by Tommo87 on Thursday 29th October 16:07

[RSTurboPaul]

unident said:

I know your response will be to sneer and mock, as you don’t like challenge, as evidenced on other threads, but I’ll make a couple of points to the last few comments.

Firstly, this thread is supposedly about the legal arguments, but as I’ve pointed out previously it drifts into medical discussions all too willingly and acts as if the two are interlinked. They aren’t. You can disagree with the legal response without disagreeing with the medical arguments.

Secondly, how does this virus “run out of stock”? There has been quite a bit of coverage over recent days that antibodies levels reduce over time, thus reducing any potential immunity

Third (to play to the medical part of the discussion) death isn’t the only outcome of Covid. Many people who have survived are now facing significant medium / longer health term issues and these are a bigger financial burden on society. Harsh as it sounds it’s better for the economy if people die. Viruses are pretty simple things in some ways. They infect and they live, but if they are too powerful they kill the host and themselves. This leads to them naturally mutating into a softer version that infects, but doesn’t kill, a survival of the weakest for the virus. As is stands we clearly can’t stop the spread, but trying to slow it, minimise the impact and delay, delay, delay to create time for a vaccine, or a cure, or something has to make sense.

All the arguing about infringements on liberties is really just arguing for the sake of it. Would you have been as opposed to restrictions placed on people during other national crises. You love to reference the Stasi, so I’ll go extreme too. Would you have kicked off about the relocation of children out of London during WWII? What about black out restrictions? Outlawing Mosley? It’s easy to dismiss these as “what ifs”, but on that basis, your whole argument is flawed as it’s hypothetical and bemoaning a future that hasn’t happened.

Link to numbers and source?

[CrutyRammers]

RSTurboPaul said:

Link to numbers and source?

Oh, everyone knows at least three. I've just had someone on facebook tell me he knows 2 who have died, 2 twenty year olds and a 30 year old who have ended up in ICU. It's everywhere you know.

[unident]

Breadvan72 said:

It is well worth watching and Sumption is correct . Unident, however, knows more about the law than Sumption, so unident will tell you that Sumption is wrong, and if you disagree with that you must be a contrarian who is arguing for the sake of arguing. Unident also knows more about medicine than Professor Heneghan does. You are worse than Piers Corbyn if you disagree with anything that unident says. He has been telling everybody to shut up and obey since March. It's really too bad that people are not doing as he says.

I see your attempt to not reply to me, failed miserably and you did it by via a third party instead. I have not, nor have I ever claimed any expertise in law, medicine, epidemiology, or macro-economics, in fact I’ve been very clear on that a few posts up. You, however, use your legal expertise to drift into the latter and others seem to suck it up.

Have you ever asked yourself why words that you see on a screen, typed by someone you have never met, matter so much to you? Is that what you would describe as a healthy thing, mental-equilibrium wise?

Advice, that can be taken or left: It's only the internet. It's not a real thing.

[unident]

RSTurboPaul said:

Link to numbers and source?

It’s called Long Covid. It isn’t a secret and there’s lots of stuff been published about it.

Here’s a link from The Guardian which you’ll dismiss because it’s left wing. Feel free to google your favoured right wing source for their take on it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/15/long...

[markyb_lcy]

unident said:

I have not, nor have I ever claimed any expertise in law, medicine, epidemiology, or macro-economics, in fact I’ve been very clear on that a few posts up.

Good. This is a start. Maybe a good next step would be to stop attempting to lecture us all on it.

[anonymous-user]

unident said:

It’s called Long Covid. It isn’t a secret and there’s lots of stuff been published about it.

Here’s a link from The Guardian which you’ll dismiss because it’s left wing. Feel free to google your favoured right wing source for their take on it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/15/long...

Begone with you, Grima.

[unident]

markyb_lcy said:

Good. This is a start. Maybe a good next step would be to stop attempting to lecture us all on it.

By that you really mean “how dare you have an opinion that differs from mine. I expect this place to be an echo chamber for me and you’re spoiling it”

[markyb_lcy]

unident said:

markyb_lcy said:

Good. This is a start. Maybe a good next step would be to stop attempting to lecture us all on it.

By that you really mean “how dare you have an opinion that differs from mine. I expect this place to be an echo chamber for me and you’re spoiling it”

I welcome differing opinion ... there would be no good debate without it.

What is quite unwelcome is your intolerance for opinion different to yours and your unjustified and unqualified style of talking down to (lecturing) people, especially those who disagree with your authoritarian masters.

[RSTurboPaul]

unident said:

RSTurboPaul said:

Link to numbers and source?

It’s called Long Covid. It isn’t a secret and there’s lots of stuff been published about it.

Here’s a link from The Guardian which you’ll dismiss because it’s left wing. Feel free to google your favoured right wing source for their take on it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/15/long...

Thank you for the link, I have seen similar on the 'potentially four syndromes' discussion.

Still no firm figures available, though, and 'lots' does not really stand up to scrutiny.

Edited by RSTurboPaul on Thursday 29th October 20:40

[unident]

RSTurboPaul said:

Thank you for the link, I have seen similar on the 'potentially four syndromes' discussion.

Still no firm figures available, though, and 'lots' does not really stand up to scrutiny.

Edited by RSTurboPaul on Thursday 29th October 20:40

The problem there is that it’s a new virus, with new discoveries on a regular basis. If we have to wait for significant numbers before considering that significant numbers may be affected then it’s a bit reactive. Whatever the numbers are there is evidence that it is affecting some. Those affected will be a far bigger drain on the NHS and economy than those who die, so there’s an economic aspect to worry those of you who only know the price of things and the value of nothing.

markyb_lcy said:

I welcome differing opinion ... there would be no good debate without it.

What is quite unwelcome is your intolerance for opinion different to yours and your unjustified and unqualified style of talking down to (lecturing) people, especially those who disagree with your authoritarian masters.

You might want to review what and I’ve written and how I’ve written it, then compare it with the approach taken by Breadvan.