:covid_19: 😷 🏥 Corona Virus the thread for all your fears ❓

There hasn’t been much to report recently and like a lot of people we had got into a bit of an endless routine where days, weeks and months are starting to blur into one. However as we come back onto dayshifts over a sunny Bank Holiday weekend there are a few things worth mentioning.

As I have driven around today there have been no obvious signs to me that we are still in the middle of a world health pandemic with the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of people in this country alone. The volume of traffic on the roads is high, with caravans, mobile homes and camper vans all moving about along with a large number of motorcyclists having group ‘ride outs’, there are queues outside most of the shops I have passed and there are people walking and cycling all over the place enjoying the sun.

This has appeared slightly at odds with current government guidance which is:

‘It is still very important that people stay home unless necessary to go out for specific reasons set out in law. These include:
• for work, where you cannot work from home
• going to shops that are permitted to be open – to get things like food and medicine, and to collect goods ordered online or on the phone
• to exercise or spend time outdoors for recreation
• any medical need, to donate blood, avoid injury or illness, escape risk of harm, or to provide care or to help a vulnerable person.’

I fully appreciate that there is what appears to be a lack of clarity around some of this guidance but for me (as one of the people asked to try and achieve what the government wants its citizens to do) the focus is on the words: ‘stay at home unless necessary’. There has been a lot of discussion about the wording and interpretation of the legislation currently in force and in the last 24 Hrs this has become a bit personal at the heart of the government with a debate raging over whether a senior advisor could have done what he did legally under the legislation.

As a police supervisor I occasionally get asked ‘Can we…….’ questions similar to these:

-Can we make probationary officers make tea for the whole shift.
-Can we stop and search someone because they ‘don’t look right’.
-Can I claim overtime for being off late because I’ve spent too much time chatting and not doing the work I needed to do.
-Can we arrest people for annoying us.
-Can we tell the CPS how poor we think their understanding of the law is when they make a decision we don’t like.
-Can we use force against someone without it being proportionate, legal and necessary.

The answer to all of these is of course, no. (I appreciate for some of the retired officers reading this, that may not always have been the case). But the question shouldn’t be ‘can we’, more: ‘should we’. Police officers in the UK have several hundred years’ worth of laws to guide them but I have found that for the majority of what uniformed officers deal with, a little knowledge and a lot of common sense will get you through.

We have been tasked with delivering the aims set out by Government around the lock down. We have been asked to; Educate, Encourage and Explain the legislation prior to Enforcing it. If we take Enforcement action it will be expensive for the recipient and ultimately time consuming for us. We are being asked to interpret words like ‘reasonable’ which can often mean different things to different people, depending on experience and circumstances.

It may well be that riding your motorbike with your mates on a sunny day feels like ‘essential exercise’ or going camping in the New Forest with your family is good for your ‘emotional wellbeing’ (not that this is my experience of going camping with my children……), so maybe the question shouldn’t be; ‘can you’ do these things but; ‘should you’.

I’m no scientist and I’m certainly not a politician but I watch documentary’s and the news and it doesn’t feel to me like we are out of harm’s way yet. So before you look to enjoy the bank holiday away from home please consider if this is something you ‘should do’ at this stage of the Country’s recovery.

The speeding vehicles are easy, we have calibrated speed guns and we are out in force conducting checks on the County’s roads in line with Force and National Priorities. The Covid legislation is less ‘black and white’ and if we end up having a disagreement with you over whether what you are doing is or isn’t legal we may have to let a magistrate make the final decision. I’m not sure that this will be helpful for anyone, so please try to focus on what you ‘should’ be doing in order to reduce the spread of Covid, rather than concentrating on the many different interpretations of the current legislation that are available online, from my mate John’s cousin or via several different newspapers………….

Stay safe (ideally at home).
PS Dave Whitby and Salisbury CPT 5.

2 Likes

image

6 Likes

5 Likes
1 Like

This is an interesting thread about Cummings claims to have been writing about Coronavirus since last year.

IMG-20200525-WA0018

2 Likes

1 Like

1 Like

How about this one - no masks this time

Perhaps they were just doing what any parent would - if they don’t sell pictures they can’t buy food for their (possibly unwell) family.

:cry:

4 Likes

Point is CB, People/journos being wnakers with no masks and not social distancing etc. is the kind of stupidity that the various slogans and policy was designed to prevent… had we ‘the Great British Public’ the discipline and common sense to adhere to them… its the fact that the Government’s own master of policy and spin can’t even stick to the stick to the guidelines that severely undermines any credibility in what they they to encourage the public to do…

HIs supporters have tried to deflect away from this by pointing to others being shit, or crowds on beaches … no shit, why bother listening to Government advice if they don’t stick to it?

And then doing a fucking Prince Andrew and claiming he was testing his eyesight…

I hate him for all he stands for, but that is no reason to resign. But his breaking of lockdown rules is, because it will indirectly lead to others ignoring the advice.

7 Likes

I think the guys a dick - I also think if he had come out and said straight away “Look I made a decision in haste etc” he might have killed it early doors but he is a gobshite who doesn’t give a fuck what you or I think.

The reason why this is such big news is that a lot of people see this as an opportunity to get rid of him - not because of he may or may not of broken the lockdown but for purely political reasons.

Labour (and the other parties) want him gone because he is effective
The civil service definitely want him and his reforms gone
A lot of Tories want him out for a variety of reasons, that they have been shafted by him, that it weakens Boris, that they get more power without him
And finally the media, who I suspect has feel that they have been snubbed and that they don’t like their access controlled by him

2 Likes

Will be interesting to see what the reaction to this is

Junior enough to be discounted?

But cant you see, just because there are some with alternative reasons for getting rid of the dick, does not mean he should not walk this this… he has completely undermined the Governments own policy, and this will lead to others doing the same.

1 Like

I’m not sure I buy that’s the reason many want him gone BUT if it’s true then you have to ask… So what? All you’ve done is list a long line of people from various backgrounds who want an unelected advisor (with vast power) dismissed. If what you say is true, he’s untied diverse groups.

or even united diverse groups :slight_smile:

2 Likes

All of this is (largely) true.

It doesn’t change the fact that he broke the lockdown rules.

image

It’s that simple. That, on its own, is a resigning issue.

Others did this and resigned. He should do the same. He’s not an elected official that might have to consider constituents or the ‘constitution’. He’s an adviser and should go.

The ‘young children exemption’ is simple misdirection to get us debating the rights and wrongs and an attempt to make us ignore the fact that he simply broke the rules.

For the record, the spirit of the young children exemption was to acknowledge, for worried parents, that they might not be able to keep 2m away from young children during their lockdown.

That’s why it stresses that (my words) you shouldn’t worry coming into close contact with your child during isolation as they are less affected by the disease.

The spirit of that exception was not to give tacit approve a 4 1/2 hour drive risking death to any first responder that might have to attend and revive you should you have crashed en route.

The spirit was not to give tacit approval to take your child and any diseases you may have brought 250 miles from London to a local hospital - via ambulance - exposing staff and other patients in the process.

The spirit was not to give tacit approval for you, unlike the rest of the population, to visit, see and communicate with your close family.

He broke the rules.

The rules are being re-interpreted before our very eyes.

We’re being taken for mugs and are victims of gaslighting on a massive scale.

They are laughing behind our backs. If we let this go, we will pay heavily through the already low quality of our political debate.

3 Likes

Yeah I can see it - which is why if he had killed it early doors, it would have been less damaging.

He should probably go now for allowing the story to get such traction, but he won’t.

Quite simply the journos should have asked, “Given that there were many parents finding themselves in the same situation and maybe more to come, would you recommend they take the same action as you?”

2 Likes