• Hi and welcome to Betnod. Please register for even more tips, analysis and chat.

UK Politics betting

Seen said:
I'm not sure which is more galling...the Tory voters who are saying he did nothing wrong or the Labour voters who are acting as if no Labour MP (or Labour party advisor etc) would have ever done a similar thing (they already have).

All as bad as each other.
Click to expand...

Not sure that a Labour party advisor doing the same thing would be as bad. They're not in charge, they're not the ones giving the guidelines to the population. Cummings is.

One of the key underlying ideas of the lockdown was that people need to think of the greater good. Yes, you personally might be fine, but if you help to spread the virus among those more vulnerable, you can still cause a lot of harm. There were specific requests for people not to travel to second homes, AirBNBs, etc. in more rural areas, where the health service is adapted to the local community and can't cope with an influx of people from big cities looking to get away. Cummings was involved, directly or indirectly, in establishing those guidelines.

I don't like the bloke's politics, but I do have every sympathy for his situation and his concerns about childcare. But I also have the same sympathy for thousands of others who were in similar situations, and did what they were asked to do. Stay at home. Save lives. Protect the NHS. What made his situation so much more special than theirs?

The government's defence of him, claiming that you can't blame him for looking out for his family, is quite frankly insulting to all those who did as they were asked and stayed at home. "Hey you - worried about your child while you're ill and stuck at home self-isolating? Don't blame us, it's not our fault you don't care enough about your family to take them somewhere away from it all".

As for the bit about driving to Bernard Castle, I'm sorry, but he's taking the piss there. He wasn't sure if his eyesight was up to driving so instead of, say, finding a half-empty car park or an industrial estate, he chose to go on a 60-odd mile round trip. To a popular tourist destination. With his wife and kid in the car with him. As excuses go, it's like getting caught by your wife with a copy of Playboy, and telling her that it's because there's a really interesting article on car engines you wanted to read. And no, I'm not talking from experience on that one :lol

If I lived in the UK I wouldn't be demonstrating or rioting and demanding his resignation, but I do think his position is untenable. He's undermined the whole message from the government of thinking of the greater good, all in it together, etc.
 
There is an equation to be made in these kinds of decisions on whether to sack someone or not and its something like

Degree to which person has done wrong multiplied by the amount of shit it's going to kick up divided by your value to the party

In this instance, he has done wrong (or at the very, very least, exercised poor judgement which doesn't do his advisory credentials a great deal of credit) and he it could hardly have kicked up any more shit than it has and that just demonstrates how massively important he is viewed by Boris. If he is as massively intelligent as people say he is and his input could make a difference to save lives (notwithstanding any negative impact on "the message") then getting rid of the bloke could end up being a bad thing.

Either way, this whole shit storm has been drummed up by the press because they hate the bloke because he treats them like the cunts they are and it has been fuelled by other people who hate him with input from politicians who want to make political gain from it and nothing that anyone says will convince me otherwise.

A public slap on the wrist would have been plenty. The police took no formal action which clearly demonstrates that they considered that he had no broken any laws.
 
ONEDUNME said:
If he is as massively intelligent as people say he is and his input could make a difference to save lives (notwithstanding any negative impact on "the message") then getting rid of the bloke could end up being a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt for a minute that it's only because he's so important that he's being spared (important to the country, to the party or to Boris Johnson personally, I'm not so clear on). But you have to weigh up the lives he could save through the policies he helps to implement, versus the lives that will be lost due to people (and there will be plenty) who think "Fuck it, if he can do it and get away with it, so can I", and decide not to bother following the government's guidelines any more.

ONEDUNME said:
A public slap on the wrist would have been plenty. The police took no formal action which clearly demonstrates that they considered that he had no broken any laws.
Click to expand...

That's just it, he didn't break any laws. The UK was far more permissive than Spain, it's only ever been requests, recommendations, etc., never laws. But if everyone in his position decided to act the same way, the whole lockdown would've been a waste of time. They appealed to the greater good, that everyone has to be responsible in order for this to work. And then one of the key people involved in deciding on how to proceed decides that those guidelines don't apply to him (or at least, he can take a very liberal approach to them). If the government wants to ask people to follow their guidelines, and then decide that one of their own can just ignore them to suit his own circumstances, why the hell should anyone else bother? It's that undermining of their (his?) own policy which is the key here for me.
 
rcgills said:
I don't doubt for a minute that it's only because he's so important that he's being spared (important to the country, to the party or to Boris Johnson personally, I'm not so clear on). But you have to weigh up the lives he could save through the policies he helps to implement, versus the lives that will be lost due to people (and there will be plenty) who think "Fuck it, if he can do it and get away with it, so can I", and decide not to bother following the government's guidelines any more.



That's just it, he didn't break any laws. The UK was far more permissive than Spain, it's only ever been requests, recommendations, etc., never laws. But if everyone in his position decided to act the same way, the whole lockdown would've been a waste of time. They appealed to the greater good, that everyone has to be responsible in order for this to work. And then one of the key people involved in deciding on how to proceed decides that those guidelines don't apply to him (or at least, he can take a very liberal approach to them). If the government wants to ask people to follow their guidelines, and then decide that one of their own can just ignore them to suit his own circumstances, why the hell should anyone else bother? It's that undermining of their (his?) own policy which is the key here for me.
Click to expand...


Yeah you're right mate. I can't argue with any of that.
 
I am fed up of hearing about people who have missed funerals due to lockdown rules though. What the fuck has that got to do with this case?
 
rcgills said:
Not sure that a Labour party advisor doing the same thing would be as bad. They're not in charge, they're not the ones giving the guidelines to the population. Cummings is.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I did mean if Labour were in power. The opposition supporters (and they all do it, whichever party is in power) always have this thing where their party would have done things so much better, it pisses me right off.
 
ONEDUNME said:
I am fed up of hearing about people who have missed funerals due to lockdown rules though. What the fuck has that got to do with this case?
Click to expand...

Depends what circumstances you're talking about. If you're talking about cases where the funeral's been limited to X mourners, and some people have had to miss out on attending, you're right, it's not really relevant.

If you're talking about people who've missed out on attending a funeral due to having to self-isolate, then although it's not exactly the same thing, I do think it's relevant. They're cases of people who've had to make sacrifices, be apart from their family at a time when they needed them most, because that's what they were asked to do (for the greater good, to protect others, etc. etc.).
 
rcgills said:
Depends what circumstances you're talking about. If you're talking about cases where the funeral's been limited to X mourners, and some people have had to miss out on attending, you're right, it's not really relevant.

If you're talking about people who've missed out on attending a funeral due to having to self-isolate, then although it's not exactly the same thing, I do think it's relevant. They're cases of people who've had to make sacrifices, be apart from their family at a time when they needed them most, because that's what they were asked to do (for the greater good, to protect others, etc. etc.).
Click to expand...


If you've missed out on attending a funeral because you're self-isolating (presumably because you either have symptoms or are in the infection stage or are in an at-risk category), you're doing that to avoid contact with others. Whichever bits of DC's story you believe or don't believe, there is nothing to suggest that he wasn't avoiding contact with others at any stage (apart from when the idiot journalists crowded around him) so I don't see the relevance at all mate.
 
Some dizzy cunt called Hannah Hatt on TV now saying she's furious about DC because she couldn't be with her father when he died. What the absolute fuck? If someone can tell me how the fucking hell that is in any way connected to what he did.......

RC?
 
Given the limited number of mourners allowed at funerals during the lockdown, I'd say that avoiding contact with others would easily be possible.

Cummings may well have avoided contact with others, but with a young kid in the car with him, there was no way he could guarantee he'd avoid needing to come into contact with others. Kid feels sick or needs a piss. Need to get petrol. He wasn't feeling well, what if he'd had an accident, what about the risk to the medics in the ambulance that would've had to attend to him? Plenty of circumstances beyond his control where he may have had to come into contact with others.

So as I asked earlier this morning - what made his situation so special compared to the thousands of other people with similar family-related concerns?

As for Hannah Hatt, no idea mate, without seeing exactly what she's claiming I couldn't possibly comment.
 
upload_2020-5-26_18-10-8.png
 
rcgills said:
That's just it, he didn't break any laws. The UK was far more permissive than Spain, it's only ever been requests, recommendations, etc., never laws.
Click to expand...

Can Someone help me out here because I thought there were Laws about travelling. I also thought there were no UK laws but England,Scotland and Wales had different rules.

I am sure the police were fining people for breaking lockdown "Laws" when travelling and also breaking up parties when people were gathering together in breach of "social distancing"
 
Colbro said:
Can Someone help me out here because I thought there were Laws about travelling. I also thought there were no UK laws but England,Scotland and Wales had different rules.

I am sure the police were fining people for breaking lockdown "Laws" when travelling and also breaking up parties when people were gathering together in breach of "social distancing"
Click to expand...

He wasn't gathering with anyone. "Only travel if necessary" was the instruction. He could, in theory, have been stopped by the police and questioned as to whether his journey was necessary and if they found that it was not, then he could have been fined (this was at the time of the journey North as he would have been allowed to travel back down by the time that it did that). He would have said that it was necessary for the safety of his child and the police would have let him continue. He didn't break any laws because the laws where so vague as to be pretty open to a thousand variations of which his is just one.
 
rcgills said:
Trying to find out a bit more, found this document - https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-c...ion-Briefing-4-May-2020-Big-Brother-Watch.pdf

Section 2b (starting on page 10) sets out cases where there was a lot of confusion, including among the police, as to what exactly was the law and what was merely guidelines. But yes, there were laws, it wasn't just requests and recommendations
Click to expand...


But the laws were bollox mate. Work from home if you can. So what are the Police supposed to do if they pull me up in a morning? They haven't got a fucking clue whether I can work from home or not. And what if they see me out walking later in the afternoon? How do they know I haven't had more than one set of outdoor exercise that day? And what if they catch me a third time? I'm going to the shop for "essential supplies". And what the fuck even are "essential supplies"? No list was ever produced. And if I'm out yet again later that night, I'm taking asprin to my parents so that's providing medicine for someone who can't get out. Fuck all they can do about any of it. The only fines will be for people who were caught having boozy gatherings and who's neighbours grassed them up and the odd fucking idiot who drove 200 miles to buy a fucking caravan:lol
 
and shit like this

It is also not within the spirit of what we are trying to achieve if you drive from the north of the county to the coast for surng, regardless of whether that is 'lawful' or not.”28 The force has put posters near green open spaces saying “Driving to this locaon is not in the spirit of the Government restricons currently in place (…) You are entled to exercise once daily. You are being asked to stay at home and carry out your daily exercise from your home.”29

The police were making the fucker up as they went along and some were more enthusiastic than others in their endeavours.

So basically, assuming there is any kind of appeal process (and I'm not sure but surely there has to be) anybody can put forward any load of bollox in an effort to get their fine dropped.
 
ONEDUNME said:
and shit like this

It is also not within the spirit of what we are trying to achieve if you drive from the north of the county to the coast for surng, regardless of whether that is 'lawful' or not.”28 The force has put posters near green open spaces saying “Driving to this locaon is not in the spirit of the Government restricons currently in place (…) You are entled to exercise once daily. You are being asked to stay at home and carry out your daily exercise from your home.”29

The police were making the fucker up as they went along and some were more enthusiastic than others in their endeavours.

So basically, assuming there is any kind of appeal process (and I'm not sure but surely there has to be) anybody can put forward any load of bollox in an effort to get their fine dropped.
Click to expand...

surng? locaon? restricons? entled?

Fuck me, who wrote it, Officer Crabtree? :lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top