Weston Super Saint

Never fear, she definitely does that RIP Marvin, big loss.

That sounds like a recipe for harmony and a guarantee that all problems will easily be resolved.

Which seems to be the sum total of one Headmaster reporting something (we have no idea what was discussed), to Ted Bates, who allegedly took no action. That's not 'inside knowledge', more hazy memories from 30 years ago.

Why did the Headmaster allegedy report an illegal act to a company employee? Did the Headmaster not think that what he should be doing is reporting an act that is against the law to the local police? Why, after he allegedly reported this only to Ted Bates, did he then not follow it up with a report to the police if he was clearly unhappy that no action had been taken? So many questions. Zero actual answers.

Congrats to Joe. I didn't think he'd make it through the year. Maybe he's even got another one left in him...

Yes please, are you paying cash or bank transfer?

No doubt about it, he will be. Sue will see to that

Well, except for Soggy who stated "the man who wrote the rules"....

Yep. Doesn't mean he broke them.

Again, as outlined above, he (technically) hasn't broken the law. Morally it's a different matter, but you'll be continually disappointed if you're expecting the PM to have morals. As an 'attendee' at the 'party', the only way he could have possibly been prosecuted is if a constable asked him to leave and he didn't. He hasn't denied his attendance and there has been no mention of police involvement during the party. Again, (to make it clear to Tamesaint, who sadly has yet to comprehend my previous post by the look of things), I am not intending to defend Boris and am only highlighting what the law says on the subject.

Bless you for thinking that Boris came up with the rules all on his own

Correct. Let's not forget that the literal interpretation of the coronavirus act also (unfortunately) puts the law on Boris's side. It wasn't his garden where the party was happening (it was in No10, he lives in No11), he didn't organise the party. There is a possibility that he 'could' be held liable as he is technically the most 'senior officer' within the organisation where the party was held, however, the law was written so that any discretions were decided by the local constables (presumbly to make it easier to fine the plebs!) and they will argue that the constables guarding number 10 clearly didn't report any breaches of the law. Moreover it could be argued that the same constables were involved in managing entry into the premises. Even in the incredibly unlikely event that Sue will report any wrongdoings and they are not subsequently whitewashed, the maximum penalty is a small fine, which no doubt one of Boris's donors will pay anyway! I know that some people feel the Gov't and party leaders should have morals but I gave up on that particular fairytale many years ago. This is meant as a literal interpreation of the Coronavirus Act 2020 regarding events and gatherings (S22(5)) and Premises (S22(6)-(8)) as found here and not a defence of Boris and his cronies who were clearly all in the wrong.

Ah bless you for being so naive as to think that the Government and party leaders have 'morals'

The problem with the Spectator is that they just don't do as they're told and 'trust the experts''.

Freedom of choice - i.e. whether to have the vaccine or not. Not dictated to that you MUST have the vaccine or be fined.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59474808 Seems democratic

Looks like there are two people at that particular party that have now been royally fucked

I disagree. I said at the time (when it was mooted that someone else should be fired for meeting their partner at the beach IIRC), that no-one should lose their livelihood due to Covid regulations. They were simply not designed for that level of 'punishment'. Don't take this as apologising for Boris as I think he's a complete bell-end as everyone else does and I'm under no illusion that he (or anyone else involved) is 'sorry' for what they did, sorry that they've been found out maybe. I'm pretty sure that everyone (deliberately) broke the regulations at some point last year, so where do you draw the line? All those attending protests and memorials / whatever other mass gatherings happened, also broke the rules, should they also be forced to lose their jobs. I'm sure we all know someone who had a party in their garden during lockdown, should they be fired as well?

I imagine you should add 'in England' to that statement as I bet that probably goes on in some other leagues around the world

Perhaps it's a question of interpretation... I read : As well as : I also read the rules that you have posted, which I disregarded as irrelevant given the two statements above. I considered them to be more relevant to this statement : Especially because before the list of rules it specifically states : If you don't have to self isolate and can continue to carry on working as normal, then you would have no reason to 'return to work' (presumably from a period of absence, enforced or otherwise), as you would technically still be at work! I am more than happy to agree that the wording of the UKHSA update and guidance is ambigous, open to interpretation and in some places contradictory.

I stand corrected. I wasn't aware that NHS staff (fully vaccinated) had to follow different guidelines, however that does seem like it has been self imposed by the NHS on the NHS... In the letter you linked to, there is the following link : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-management-of-exposed-healthcare-workers-and-patients-in-hospital-settings/covid-19-management-of-exposed-healthcare-workers-and-patients-in-hospital-settings In that link it states the following : So it would appear that the official Gov't advice for NHS workers is the same as for all other workers. The fact that the NHS has self imposed different rules suggests they are shooting themselves in the foot. It also makes the point about NHS staff not being given priority for testing irrelevant as the Gov't hasn't insisted on these tests...

In conclusion, if it's number 2 then NHS staff are to blame as they would not have taken up the offer of a vaccination. Number 1 is a little more nuanced, but I forgive you for not figuring that out.

Thanks for that. I wonder why I put this line into my original post that you are referring to? The people in number 2 that I was referring to would be non positive, non symptomatic, non asymptomatic but also non vaccinated and therefore being instructed to isolate because they have not taken up any offers of protection and have come into contact with positive cases. Not sure where your whataboutery regarding asymptomatic, blah, blah, blah comes from given that I wrote this in the same post : Not sure it's critical thinking that is missing at the moment rather than critical reading!

Remind me, what are the criteria that need to be in place before someone can book a test? Once you've read the criteria, apply some critical thinking and let me know how someone without any symptoms can test positive....

Oh dear, I think someone needs to do some critical thinking about the 'if' word. Give Lighthouse a shout if you get stuck.