Youâd nearly swear he was making it up as he goes along. Did he not say masks were useless too.
Lads will be happy as they ate their turkey burger watching RTE playing solemn music followed by the Munster Final 2004 on Christmas Day.
This disease is so deadly most people wonât even bother to get the vaccine.
They are already killed sure at Level 3. How many bars and restaurants are able to operate in an outdoor setting, let alone an outdoor setting at winter time. Retail is also much more difficult at Level 3 due to footfalls in towns being significantly reduced.
Yeah maybe itâs all the one - shopping centres were open at Level 3 with thousands inside. None of it is logical.
If you behave yourselves youâll get to have 6 people around for Christmas and youâll be fucking glad of it.
And what about going around to other peoples houses?
As if you are invited
I donât know how to put this but Iâm kind of a big deal. People know me. Iâm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany
If thatâs the case the mother in law might be balloted out
Youâve typed manure as mahogany there.
Thereâs money in shite.
Tough decisions will need to be made
Unlikely he gets to make any of them.
was the authors intention to be as confusing and misleading as the data he is reporting on?
If thatâs the lesson they take we are fucked. In and out of lockdown is the worst result.
Well, exactly. Typical Spectator stuff â except in the sense there is a move afoot, I detect, to âsoften upâ people for an extended period of âtiersâ. Word has clearly come down from on high that this virus is considerably more serious than a flu.
Fraser Nelson is a chump, Andrew Neilâs fluffer. But I would say that article is a kite in the wind. The kite that gets flown in The Spectator often comes to earth in the Daily Express.
Any data on masks and the increased rate of infection in Europe. Is social distancing being sacrificed for masks which donât really work.
Sageâs RWC âpredictionsâ (not really fair to call them predictions as they are worst case scenario predictions) have been, understandibly, miles off. If every government prepared for the RWC in every scenario weâd be broke in a few weeks
Excellent analysis of the legality of U.K. lockdown actions a lot of which is applicable here.
The most draconian of the governmentâs interventions with the most far-reaching economic and social effects have been imposed under an Act which does not appear to authorise them. The sheer scale on which the government has sought to govern by decree, creating new criminal offences, sometimes several times a week on the mere say-so of ministers, is in constitutional terms truly breathtaking. The government has routinely made use of the exceptional procedure authorizing it in urgent cases to dispense with advance Parliamentary approval, even where the measure in question has been mooted for days or weeks. Thus the original lockdown was imposed without any kind of Parliamentary scrutiny until the middle of May, seven weeks later. Thereafter, there was little scope for further scrutiny. Even the powers which the government purported to exercise were gratuitously expanded by tendentious and misleading âguidanceâ, generally announced at press conferences.
A special word needs to be said about the remarkable discretionary powers of enforcement conferred on the police. The police received power to enforce the lockdown regulations by giving directions to citizens which it was a criminal offence to disobey. Fixed
penalty notices are normally authorised in modest amounts for minor regulatory infractions, parking and the lesser driving offences. The governmentâs Regulations, however, authorised them for a great variety of newly created offences and sometimes in very large amounts. On 26 August the government introduced by decree an offence of âbeing involvedâ in a gathering exceeding thirty people, and empowered any policeman in the land to issue a fixed penalty notice of ÂŁ10,000. This sum, enough to ruin most people, was far in excess of any fine that would be imposed by a court for such an offence. The power, which was originally advertised as being intended to deal with âravesâ has of course been widely exercised for other purposes. In particular, it has been used to suppress protests against the governmentâs coronavirus policies. On 30 August, the police served a ÂŁ10,000 fixed penalty notice on Mr Piers Corbyn for addressing a rally against masks in Trafalgar Square. The regulations contain an exception for political protest, provided that the organisers have agreed a risk assessment and taken reasonable steps to ensure safety. On 26 September the police broke up a demonstration against the governmentâs measures, whose organisers had agreed a risk assessment and had taken reasonable steps. The police claim to have done this because some of the demonstrators had not acted in accordance with the arrangements made by the organisers. They cleared the square using batons with considerable violence, injuring some 20 people who were guilty of nothing other than attending an apparently lawful protest. There is a noticeable process of selection involved in these actions. No such fines, arrests or assaults have been seen in other demonstrations, such as those organised by Black Lives Matter, or Extinction Rebellion which did not observe social distancing but were thought to have greater public support. The Mayor of London applauded the police action. The silence from civil rights organisations such as Liberty was deafening.
Has He/She/It/They (delete as appropriate) come back with any auld suggestions yet?
Thinking about this now, our case trajectory is lining itself up beautifully for loosey-goosey restrictions for Crimbo, whilst the rest of Europe is still in lockdown. We should fling open the borders for a few weeks and become a haven for festive fun. Weâd make milluns. The inevitable ensuing rise in cases will be dealt with by the inevitable Lockdown 3.0 (This Time Itâs Personal) anyway.