Weston Super Saint

Would also mean that there a no questions that shouldn't need to be answered because they are invalid as Matty has previous claimed

It deals exclusively with either knowledge or belief. It doesn't cover incidents where netiher a knowledge or belief has been developed, such as a new born baby.

Surely / logically they must be labelled the same as you labelled Trousers, i.e agnostic atheists? Pretty sure dogs have no idea if there is a god or not and spend zero time pondering whether they belive in one or the other!

Are dogs atheist?

Not sure that is strictly true. An Atheist : Surely, someone would need to understand the definition of what a god is in order to not believe in them? Otherwise you could claim that all dogs are atheist. All trees are atheist. All fish are atheist ad infinitum.

Really?

Schrodinger's baby?

Does a new born baby have a 'view' of anything, let alone the whether the existence of God is or isn't knowable?

Not at all, he broke the guidelines. Morally he has done the right thing. I'm more impressed that a politician has morals (or is able to pretend he does)!

Fair pint 😲

To be fair, the teams could potentially have a legitimate claim against the organisers depending on what is written in the t&c's they've all agreed and the safety of the participants. The organisers haven't got a hope in hell of suing the woman involved. She didn't buy a ticket, didn't agree to any t&c's, would not have received any sort of safety briefing. She was effectively a member of public standing on the side of a public road. More chance of a snowball surviving a heatwave!

She's made such an effort to get her position at the side of the road, created a beautiful sign from waste cardboard (truly doing her bit to save the planet) and then caused tens of thousands of pounds / euros worth of damage because she was more interested in watching the camera than the bike race! The state of some of the bikes in the aftermath I'm surprised no-one was more seriously injured! Apparently, the tour organisers are going to sue her! Great idea, not sure it will hold up in court, even if it did and they won, not sure they would recoup any losses!!

#triggered

Ah bless. You can't find anything that you claim I've made up about myself then. You must have made that up to win some points on the innernetz. Better luck next time sweetheart. Wide ups

Wide ups

Fucking weirdo. What have I made up about myself? You make a pretty shit stalker.

No need to print them, they sell them in these handy little books 😏 Fucking weirdo.

You're welcome 😏

Hahahaha fucking weirdo.

Keeping 'social distance' in the workplace (where he was photgraphed kissing the woman) is NOT a legal requirement but a recommendation : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57612441 The limit on households mixing is completely irrelevant. The incident happened between two colleagues whilst at work! (Although if I remember correctly, the rule stood at two different households meeting in doors at the beginning of May???) Police enforce rules and laws, they don't enforce guidance and recommendations. Hope this clears the matter up for you, but do shout if you're still struggling.

Rule and law breaking. Not 'guidance' breaking

I'm not desperate to think he hasn't broken the guidance. I do, however, understand the difference between laws, rules and guidance. Rule - speed limit = 30 MPH Guidance - please drive carefully Frankly, I couldn't give a flying fuck who he's been having an affair with. The fact that he 'apologised' is also completely meaningless, especially given he's a politician!

Nobody has asked the police to assist them in enforcing guidance. Stop being melodramatic. I've not seen any reports of police attending workplaces to make sure people are keeping six feet apart!

He didn't 'break his own rules'. The Ferguson incident was different wasn't it, with him traveling during lockdown to meet up with someone who he was not allowed to meet! Hancock has kissed (probably more, but all we've got so far is a picture of him kissing her) a colleague that he had already spent time in close proximity to when traveling in the back of a car! As others have mentioned, he isn't going to be thrown under the bus yet, he is clearly being saved as a scapegoat for further down the line.

Social distancing at work was a recommendation not a law. Has he crossed the line? Take out the recommendation he didn't follow and the story is "man has affair with woman". Not exactly headline news!