egg

Cast your eye on twitter mate. It's widespread. To be fair, I'm not sure how you can't see that it's inevitable.

Seems that way. Hard to see how people can focus on the "crime", rather than the inevitable public perception and its likely impact on the remnants of the lockdown. I know of people who have met up for a group social distance walk today citing Cummings as setting the precedent for doing what you want.

Sounds about right. Throw money at a football club in another country, or sell it and kick back. No brainer for her.

It's utterly laughable that even with many of the government's own scientific advisors lambasting them and Cummings, that there are some on here that stll say that more needs to be known. Madness. For those that still don't get it, Stephen Reicher says it all: Stephen Reicher @ReicherStephen Be open and honest, we said. Trashed. Respect the public, we said. Trashed Ensure equity, so everyone is treated the same, we said. Trashed. Be consistent we said. Trashed. Make clear 'we are all in it together'. Trashed.

Saint

The latest excuse is that the family were grieving the death of an uncle.

Swiss

I've no idea what the rules are now Duck, it seems "common sense" means a liberal interpretation. Back then, this is the detail of the rules. Have a read and highlight the bit that permitted what Cummings did. If it helps you, there'll be nothing to highlight save the "reasonable excuse" provision and that's clearly what they rely upon. Restrictions on movement 6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need— (a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2; (b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household; ©to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2; (d)to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(3), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance; (e)to donate blood; (f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living; (g)to attend a funeral of— (i)a member of the person’s household, (ii)a close family member, or (iii)if no-one within sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) are attending, a friend; (h)to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to participate in legal proceedings; (i)to access critical public services, including— (i)childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child); (ii)social services; (iii)services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions; (iv)services provided to victims (such as victims of crime); (j)in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care of, the child; (k)in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship; (l)to move house where reasonably necessary; (m)to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.

If that is right, I stand corrected. My understanding is that they went and spoke with a family to remind them of their obligations.

They did act. They went and reminded them of the rules. That's what they appear to do more often than not. What is of more interest is that the government haven't acted. He's plainly broken the spirit and letter of the rules and in doing so undermined the rules. His conduct will lead loads of people to excersize "common sense" to do as they wish.

Yep. It feels like Emu trying to sack Rod Hull sadly.

From the civil service? Wow

Boris Johnson just insulted every person in the country who has made sacrifices to follow the rules he implemented to save lives in this pandemic. Any shred of leadership Boris had left has just crumbled away, all the guidelines have just been torn up.

Dead link Whelk

Lefty. Behave. Any chance you can stay on topic? While you're too blinkered to see it, those countries I mentioned have all dealt with covid better than we have. Consequently, they'll recover socially and economically before we do.

Made

I think he'll be gone today, but in a "taking a break from the unfair media harassment" kind of way. He'll jack in the box before covid has passed through.

Yep, we will suffer a financial meltdown. It would have been a hell of a lot less painful if we'd locked down earlier and more effectively. I'd hazard an educated guess that Germany, France, even Italy and Spain will be back to normal both socially and economically before we are.

Of course its not. Countries who locked down quicker, and properly, have lost less people. And don't give me that comparing to apples to pears pony. It was obvious that we'd end up with more deaths than others and we have, and will have many more because of the "give an inch and they'll take a mile" populous.

Cheers. Despite that, I can understand why she'd want to cash in on the club. It was Markus baby and you'd have to be very committed, and willing to throw in cash, to keep it. It's kind of like being gifted a bigger version of a huge country estate that you would never want to live in, and that needs huge amounts of money every year to run , staff and maintain for the pleasure of seasonal visitors. Others have their own view, but I can understand why she sold.

Does anyone know the TV money situation while we're not playing? Or what happens if we don't resume the season? I'd assume we face repaying some of what we've had (Man Utd have said that they have to) and we won't get more. With a wage bill of £10m + pcm it's pretty clear that we'd need to balance the books somehow if the revenue stream dries up.

God brought you back from the dead on this thread. Don't push your luck.

Dunno Del. I suppose the other reason she held onto 20% was some kind of retention / security for payment. Either way, it's a mess and we need a lifeboat.

Better tuck into a 48 box then mate.

Bless you Duck. You're consistent at making noise, and consistently shocking at making valid points. It's one thing to be loyal to your party, well done, but another thing to defend the indefensible.