Don't do as I do, do as I say.

[lisvaneblue]

The second point deserves its own thread, but it has been spoken about a few times here.

The first point, what makes us hypocritical? By and large I think the majority of people have been following the guidelines. I remember one guy travelling to Brecon for some posh meat, but that is about it.

Well I did ask for advice and some of the replies were sensible and I thank those for their help. But so far Ive not been to Brecon, and I'm not sure that posh meat is sold there, but what is sold is good quality Welsh meat, direct from the farm.

[CCFCC3PO]

Well I did ask for advice and some of the replies were sensible and I thank those for their help. But so far Ive not been to Brecon, and I'm not sure that posh meat is sold there, but what is sold is good quality Welsh meat, direct from the farm.

Ah right. I'm just wondering what makes the rest of us hypocritical?

[Baloo]

Hypocrite or not, here’s an article from a leading English QC about recent events. Perhaps interesting to at least try to understand the legal position:
https://insights.doughtystreet.co.uk...ly-and-legally

[The Lone Gunman]

Hypocrite or not, here’s an article from a leading English QC about recent events. Perhaps interesting to at least try to understand the legal position:
https://insights.doughtystreet.co.uk...ly-and-legally

From that article:

"Currently there are questions to be answered as to how Mr. Cummings says that he acted legally. Indeed, unlike all those people who have been prosecuted to date, Mr. Cummings' household actually did have COVID-19.

"As to the responsibility of his actions, it is completely clear that Mr. Cummings breached government guidance which is presumed to be responsible. Whilst the strategy of attempting to argue that Mr. Cummings' conduct was within government guidelines is insulting and distressing to those who have made terrible sacrifices by staying indoors away from family, it also clears the "we're all in this together" smokescreen to reveal a political plane where different rules apply."

That is absolutely bang on. The government are thumbing their noses at us. Their laughable defence of Cummings is a genuine insult to the public's intelligence.

[MacAdder]

Hypocrite or not, here’s an article from a leading English QC about recent events. Perhaps interesting to at least try to understand the legal position:
https://insights.doughtystreet.co.uk...ly-and-legally

"Whilst the strategy of attempting to argue that Mr. Cummings' conduct was within government guidelines is insulting and distressing to those who have made terrible sacrifices by staying indoors away from family, it also clears the "we're all in this together" smokescreen to reveal a political plane where different rules apply."

This is the crux of it and why the arrogant fool should fall on his sword.
If he doesn't he should have his collar felt like the many others beforehand referenced in the article.
His boss too!

[The Lone Gunman]

A friend has just copied onto Facebook a government tweet from the Prime Minister's office on 15/04/20. It reads:

Don't break the rules. If you do, it won't just impact you.

If one person breaks the rules, we will all suffer.

Stay home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives.

Obviously Dominic Cummings was exempt from this instruction.

[Baloo]

One thing the article clarified for me was that the inclusion of "keep following this advice to the best of your ability, however we are aware that not all these measures will be possible." was designed to recognise that distancing in the home with children, for example, may be challenging but nevertheless people should do their best.

It was not intended, as suggested, as an opt-out clause for people to just follow their own instincts and ignore the central message which was to stay at home.

[CCFCC3PO]

One thing the article clarified for me was that the inclusion of "keep following this advice to the best of your ability, however we are aware that not all these measures will be possible." was designed to highlight that distancing in the home with children, for example, may be challenging but nevertheless people should do their best.

It was not intended, as suggested, as an opt-out clause for people to just follow their own instincts and ignore the central message which was to stay at home.

As much as it pains me to say this, but people who have been rightly fined for breaching the guidelines should consider appealing because the guidelines appear to have a huge element of flexibility and ambiguity.