These Are The Rissoles That Now Rule Our Lives.....

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-54431900
How thick do you have to be to maintain Jobsworthery in these circumstances? See what I mean? These ejjits are absolutely love the power they have been given. I think the bloke was remarkably restrained, I'd have decked the plonker.

[retrocop]

Give yourself a BA for that one TTT.

[Sunk]

Maybe parliament could see these stupid rules before they are enacted, and put them to some kind of critical scrutiny, MPs having a vote and amending or rejecting them.
It could save Prime Mister Johnston and Hancock a lot of egg on their faces.

[ToraToraTora]

sunk you cannot define every circumstance, all rules rely on common sense to a degree.

[grumpy01]

Wonder if Esther Rantzen still has that Jobs worth hat she used to bring out on That's Life.

[jno]

you cannot define every circumstance

you can try. It'd have been no trouble at all to write in "except funerals". Why didn't they? (I thought there was something about funerals in the original lockdown rules back in March but I may be misremembering.)

[iluvmargie]

Sunk - You're wrong, it's just a 'rule' and this man is the only one who should have kept his mouth shut. Nowt to do with Hancock and I won't be repeating myself if you can't or won't see it!!

[ToraToraTora]

in any set of rules in any situation whether it's covidiocy or a game of football you adhere to the spirit of the rules as much as the letter. If you can't see that then I can't help you any further.

[Sunk]

Common sense should not be needed to be applied retrospectively, if common sense was used when making the rules in the first place.

The rules should be withdrawn if the only logical response to them, is to ignore them.

[Sunk]

// Nowt to do with Hancock //

Hancock wrote the rule.

[TrevorThePug]

"you adhere to the spirit of the rules as much as the letter."

Are you saying the crem bloke did both or neither?

I don't think anyone doubts that he could have broken the rule in a very limited and specific way, but yes a direct set of HM guidance notes (rules / laws /advisories / ignore them if it suits etc) was written for funerals.

[Sunk]

The Spirit of the Rule

// // Social distancing for mourners
Social distancing measures reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and include:

- ensuring at least 2 metres (3 steps) away from others //

Pretty clear what the spirit is.

[nailit]

Back at the start of lockdown my brother in law died, and then only 10 could attend the funeral at the local crem. The chairs were spaced etc. They were all swiftly pulled together for the service and nothing was said.
Personally think its all bonkers when you can go to the pub and no-one bats an eyelid about distancing.

[Sunk]

Nailit
// you can go to the pub and no-one bats an eyelid about distancing //

That’s because everyone ignores the rules.

[New Judge]

//He did his job correctly.//

Did he?

“A spokesman for Milton Keynes Council said: "We are sorry to have upset this family. We don't usually step in if a guest needs to be comforted by another family member and in this instance should have taken a more considered approach.”

//So are these rules, laws, advice, or just something the government can announce then encourage people to ignore?//

The face mask episode you mention involves the commission of a criminal offence. It is not within the power of shopkeepers or Local Authority staff to enforce the criminal law. The relevant regulation describes who is responsible for such enforcement:

In these Regulations—
“relevant person” means—
(a) a constable;
(b) a police community support officer;
(c) in relation to any transport hub from or to which a TfL public transport service is provided, a TfL officer;
(d) a person designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this regulation.

The “distancing” guidance is precisely that – guidance. Nobody commits a criminal offence if they sit too closely to their mother whilst she attends her husband’s funeral. It is not in the crematorium’s remit to prevent it. They should only make reasonable accommodations for the guidance to be observed. There are huge problems with this nonsense; the people tasked with facilitating social distancing have taken it upon themselves to enforce it. It is simply not their responsibility to do so. In fact it’s difficult to establish whose responsibility it really is. This individual behaved in a ridiculous manner. It may not have been his fault - it depends what his instructions were. Though the Council’s comment (“we don’t usually step in if a guest needs to be comforted by another family member”) seems to suggest he was instructed to exercise discretion in what were sure to be delicate circumstances at times. But the virus matter has demonstrated that the “rules” or “guidance” or whatever are being seriously confused with the law. That’s the fault of the legislators and politicians and it needs to be sorted out.

The virus crisis has produced some remarkably stupid reactions from both individuals and corporations. As I keep saying, the virus will spread and all the various measures are doing is simply elongating the period of that spread. Preventing a son from comforting his mother at his father’s funeral will not alter that.

[nailit]

//That’s because everyone ignores the rules//
No sh it Sherlock?

[New Judge]

//Nailit
// you can go to the pub and no-one bats an eyelid about distancing //

That’s because everyone ignores the rules.//

No it isn't. The son could have taken his mother for drink at the local pub (together with four other if he wanted). They could have all sat at the same table.

[nailit]

What did you expect to happen when the government opened places that sold copious amounts of intoxicating substances?

[Sunk]

New Judge

What is the point of guidance if the logical response is to ignore it?

An exercise in futility ?

[nailit]

//New Judge

What is the point of guidance if the logical response is to ignore it?

An exercise in futility ?//


See my post @18:57

[New Judge]

//New Judge

What is the point of guidance if the logical response is to ignore it?

An exercise in futility ?//

Not at all. All of the "guidance" I have ever been provided with has been accompanied by the caveat "to be followed by reasonably practical." Providing guidance rather than rules or legislation accepts that it will not be suitable in all circumstances and those implementing it or benefitting from it should recognise that. It provides them with discretion.

It is not "reasonably practical" to expect a widow to sit two metres away from everybody else at her husband's funeral. But everything, it seems must be sacrificed on the Covid altar. If "defeating Covid" means that a widow cannot properly mourn the death of her husband together with her family beside her I think many people would think it's too higher price to pay (leaving aside the fact that such a restriction will have virtually no effect on the spread of the virus anyway). Guidelines are guidelines, not tramlines.