Who can travel? Princes and prime ministers?

that was it though wasn't it....he claimed it was ' in essential circumstances'. weaselly words. He used it to the letter...claiming his father's instincts were essential Whereas everyone knew that was not the spirit of the meaning; it was put in there not to criminalise those escaping from possibly life-threatening physical and emotional abuse. That wasn't spelt out...but it was understood. He has manipulated the term to his own advantage thereby undermining us for not doing the same if we want to. People who wanted to be at the bedside of their dying children or parents weren't denying their instincts and blindly obeying, they were prevented by the NHS and Care Homes who were following the law. They had no choice.

Oh thank you Callistemon
I knew the emergency legislation was passed round about when we entered lockdown, but I wasn’t sure of the date.

The Coronavirus Act received Royal Assent on 25th March 2020, if that puts any of the events into any chronological context, maddyone.

Of course, some people, eg DC, would be very aware of that.

Gosh, I’ve just read all through this thread and there seem to be some misconceptions and unknowns, not that I’m setting myself up as the fount of all knowledge because I’m not. However I will say that I understood that at the time that this DC incident occurred, nannies could only continue to work with a family if they lived with the family. Now there have been certain relaxations I believe nannies can work with their family again even if they don’t live with the family they work for.
The other thing I noticed was some inconsistency in understanding the difference between guidelines and laws. My son is a barrister and has both read, and explained to me very clearly, that the guidelines are only guidelines, and we are advised to follow them but not obliged. However there has been some legislation passed (in a hurry around the time of lockdown) and obviously following that is a legal requirement, so in other words we will be breaking the law if we don’t comply. I’m not sure which recommendations fall into which category, except the ones my son explained which are actually pertinent to him. At the time of the incident driving a long distance was against the law, except in essential circumstances. It was also against the law to stay overnight outside of your primary residence. It is still against the law to stay overnight outside of your primary residence, but we are now allowed legally to drive ‘longer’ distances to exercise, or visit our second home etc. I don’t have a second home so it matters not one jot to me, but my son does, and he has now visited it twice in order to check on it, but he has not stayed overnight as that is still illegal. He says he can’t break the law otherwise he wouldn’t be able to practice law.

well said MaizieD. it reminds me of this Noam Chomsky quote:
'To some degree it matters who is in office, but it matters much more how much pressure they are under from the public.'
I'm glad we are all refusing to let the matter be brushed uder the carpet which is what the government hoped -to let it run out of steam over the bank holiday. They have made people very angry. The more we are treated like fools the angrier we will get. The terms 'mob' and the 'mass' have always been terms used by the priviliged and elite to diminish the value of the public.

??

Thanks, MissAdventure.
My first laugh of the day

Paddy McGuinness (@PaddyMcGuinness) Tweeted: I’ve finally lost it in lockdown! ? #isthisthewaytobarnardcastle t.co/QHuuxirL63 twitter.com/PaddyMcGuinness/status/1265314862491631617?s=20

It is an outrage.

On R4 a government minister is re-writing the law as he speaks.

Quite appalling

Musing over Baggs' 'mob justice'

I think that there are mobs which have been deliberately wound up so as to circumvent the due process of law, lynch mobs being an obvious example, and there are mobs which occur 'organically' when significant numbers of people all recognise an injustice which cannot be rectified through 'the law' and have no other way of making their voices heard. Not necessarily through violence (though violence is inevitably associated with a 'mob') but through sheer overwhelming weight of opinion.

To dismiss the latter is, I think, to dismiss democracy. Governments are not put in place to run the country for their own benefit or to manipulate the population ; they're there to provide security, support and order on a consensual basis so that citizens have, as far as is possible, the freedom to live productive and satisfying lives. Democracy is not about voting once every 4 or 5 years and that's it, put up with whatever results and wait 5 years to have a chance to change it if you don't like it. Democracy allows people to be judging governments the entire time and making their feelings and thoughts, good or bad, known at any time to influence the actions of governments. And if the greater part of the population happen to feel strongly the same way about an issue their objections aren't 'mob justice', they're a strong indication that the government has got something a bit wrong and needs to change it.

It has not run its course and neither has the virus in spite of various grans posting about “naughty little me I Gave my grandchildren hugs”. And the “ let’s use our common sense now” excuses.
This has never been a proper lockdown.

Yes, some wish we would let this lie.... because it’s so embarrassing they think that’s the way to wriggle our of it.

Has it?
I think it should run a lot more...

Please give it up folks...it has outrun its course.

“ The Coronavirus Act 2020 came into effect on 25 March as the UK ramped up its response to the pandemic. The Act provided for the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 which were brought into force the following day, triggering the so called lockdown. These Regulations, along with two sets of amendments, set out the requirements and restrictions in relation to business closures, gatherings of people and the ability of individuals to leave their homes, plus the powers given to the Police to enforce them.”

Emotive language baggs. I prefer to stick to questioning the very obvious gaps in the story and logic.

yep he fled because London had over 20,000 cases, Durham 100. They ran away, for their own safety, disregarding the public safety. It is that fundamental. That is what we should be concentrating on. A supreme act of selfishness from the architect of control. He should have truthfully instructed:
Follow your instincts / f* the NHS / just leave if you are feeling poorly.
The PM was asked 'Why didn’t his wife drive? Why would he have to leave London to get away from protests when no protests are possible?' His answer?
You'll have to ask Cummings that.’ but we can’t, he can. He can sack him. and he hasn’t.

It is now evident that the talk of DCs son being on the Autistic Spectrum was purely fabrication by a journalist

As far as I am concerned, the Rule Maker became the Rule Breaker, and that is despicable

I think a big bag of lies "facts" have been given (all different) and they pull out a couple which suit the current questions.

I'm not sure we'll ever know.

Did they have Covid 19 I never heard that they were tested?

The rules were quite clear. If you or someone in your household has coronovirus you should isolate for 14 days from the time of the first symptom of the first sufferer. You should not leave your home under any circumstances. Arguably, his niece could have travelled to their London home to care for their 4 year old. That was allowed for in the lockdown guidelines. The man should resign.

This isn't a baying mob. It is a democracy. It is a matter of speaking truth to power. Or are we serfs?

Bending guidelines which you yourself created and expected the community to follow is not only hypocrisy. It undermines the concept of equality and thus of consensus.

"The essence of any suite of lockdown rules in the UK, however legally trussed-up, must be the sense that they [are] discretionary. In Britain, we agree to follow the rules within reason: we do not follow them at all cost.

Zoe Strimpel

I thought the government guidelines were guidelines rather than rules. They certainly should be.

There are oddnesses. I know a couple who are shielding but the carer who comes every day to deal with a foot problem has been different every day for eight days, according to one of the couple. This seems very unwise to me when the rest of us haven't been supposed to meet anyone.

I defend people bending guidelines with good reason (as I see it and if that's what happened) mainly because I don't believe in mob justice. I'd stick up for anyone attacked by a baying mob.

RocknRoll
I think there is plenty of sounding off on other threads, although, unbelievably, there are some who defend his actions.
Perhaps they approve because they themselves have broken or bent the rules?