Page 5 of 28 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 820

Thread: The Clown Circus

  1. #121
    It's about the perception of credibility. British society is plagued by class-associated inequality, but ordinary people treasure the notion that everyone is, at least, equal before the law—and that, in this time of national crisis, they and their leaders are all in it together, with everyone pitching in and making personal sacrifices for the greater good. The Cummings scandal shatters these comforting delusions in a very public manner. Here we have a privileged man who can—because of his connections—not only get away with casually flouting the onerous and restrictive rules imposed by the govt. he represents, but also have powerful govt. figures intercede on his behalf, even up to the point of having the AG publicly making an erroneous announcement about his innocence of any wrongdoing.

    The vast majority of ordinary Brits have adhered to these rules, enduring considerable psychological pressure because they believed the law required it of them—and because they believed everyone should do their part to fight the pandemic; thousands have been fined by the police (BAME Brits at a disproportionately high rate). It is galling to be faced with such a flagrant demonstration of class privilege.

    As if that weren't bad enough, the govt. inexplicably chose to go on the offensive by presenting one transparently bullshit defense after the other. Cummings has—like Johnson, Bannon, Trump, etc—built his personal brand atop a general contempt for rules, norms, "enemy" legislators, the judiciary and the media; however, in his statements, he instead managed to convey contempt for ordinary people and their mundane, little, insignificant concerns. It was at the very least politically foolish for govt. reps to let themselves become associated with that show of contempt.

    Ferguson had to resign his post because his work was partly responsible for the implementation of the lockdown approach, and then he was caught going against precisely those recommendations that he had indirectly imposed on millions of ordinary Britons; he no longer had any credibility on policy matters pertaining to the pandemic. It's like if the president of PETA were caught knowingly buying a mink coat—she'd no longer have any credibility when advocating for animal rights. You can probably think of many more related kinds of credibility-damaging violations of trust, such as an influential person watering a huge and extremely thirsty lawn while ordinary people are expected to ration water, or throwing a feast while ordinary people are expected to submit to rationing schemes. In this case, a representative of the political leadership has gotten away with enjoying luxury socialization and movement, while ordinary people have been expected to ration both—or face costly legal sanctions.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Oh, it's total bull. I don't doubt that for a second - but "Politician lies to cover own ass," especially when what is being "covered up" is a family outing that by all accounts put no one in any risk at all, is hardly man biting dog material. Again I am struggling to see how this is worthy of international attention, and I can't help but wish this was the type of scandal that US citizens had to deal with in our political reality.
    The scandal isn't that he did it and lied about it; the scandal is that elected leaders are helping him get away with it, and supporting his lying. They're debasing themselves and burning up political—not to mention social—capital to help this man.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    The scandal isn't that he did it and lied about it; the scandal is that elected leaders are helping him get away with it, and supporting his lying. They're debasing themselves and burning up political—not to mention social—capital to help this man.
    The scandal from my perspective is the bad policy, and the way it was implemented and enforced.

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    The scandal from my perspective is the bad policy, and the way it was implemented and enforced.
    As you are well aware, societies differ in their democratically expressed and enacted opinions on the balance between privileges and obligations, freedoms and restrictions, etc. That is not scandalous in and of itself. Regardless, my comment was an attempt to explain why it is a scandal in the UK—not why it should be a scandal in the GE household
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  5. #125
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    The scandal from my perspective is the bad policy, and the way it was implemented and enforced.
    So your argument is that Cummings was forced to go against a policy he and his buddies enacted themselves? Not sure what you're aiming at here.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    So your argument is that Cummings was forced to go against a policy he and his buddies enacted themselves? Not sure what you're aiming at here.
    I don't care who put the policy into place, my argument is it is a bad policy. I don't need to carry water for the NHS advisors/policymakers or Boris Johnson, or the Tories. It seems pretty obvious to me that if you properly socially distance with your family outside, be it in your front garden or at a castle, then it shouldn't be news worthy and scandalous that you spend a day out with them. If the policy says otherwise then it is simply a bad policy. I would be upset with that, not with the dog walker, the people in their front garden, or the family at a castle.

  7. #127
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    My argument is it is a bad policy regardless of who put it into place. It seems pretty obvious to me that if you properly socially distance with your family outside, be it in your front garden or at a castle, then it shouldn't be news worthy and scandalous that you spend a day out with them. If the policy says otherwise then it is simply a bad policy. I would be upset with that, not with the dog walker, the people in their front garden, or the family at a castle.
    Well, they were the ones to write those rules. If they then break those rules they themselves enacted then I don't see why they don't deserve all the scorn they get.

    That's why I'm not getting your argument - either way it returns right to the same guy.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Well, they were the ones to write those rules. If they then break those rules they themselves enacted then I don't see why they don't deserve all the scorn they get.

    That's why I'm not getting your argument - either way it returns right to the same guy.
    Dominic Cummings is in charge of health policy in England?

  9. #129
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Dominic Cummings is in charge of health policy in England?
    He's part of the government. If you yourself do not like what the government is doing when you're part of it then you're supposed to step down. If you cannot abide by the rules your government sets then you step down.

    That's what a responsible politician does.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    He's part of the government. If you yourself do not like what the government is doing when you're part of it then you're supposed to step down. If you cannot abide by the rules your government sets then you step down.

    That's what a responsible politician does.
    So fire every politician who speeds?

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Dominic Cummings is in charge of health policy in England?
    Ironically, that was quite possibly the role he played in the previous scandal re. his sharply criticized presence at SAGE meetings.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  12. #132
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    So fire every politician who speeds?
    So you're comparing speeding to breaking quarantine during a pandemic? Seriously?

    Yeah, fuck that dishonest argument. Back to ignore with you. Don't bother replying.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Ironically, that was quite possibly the role he played in the previous scandal re. his sharply criticized presence at SAGE meetings.
    These are honest questions not gotchas. What I don't know about British politics could fill volumes.

  14. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    So you're comparing speeding to breaking quarantine during a pandemic? Seriously?

    Yeah, fuck that dishonest argument. Back to ignore with you. Don't bother replying.
    I'm fine with being ignored, you claim to do it often enough, but you don't get to dictate the terms or nature of my response. Yes, I am fine with properly socially distanced "breaking" of quarantines. The risk presented is much less, (possibly zero) than in allowed activities like going grocery shopping. If you are incapable of understanding why a health policy that is built around blind adherence to the rules and does not factor in actual risk is not a good policy then that is on you.

    I don't believe every violation of a rule or law on the books to be an offense worthy of termination, nor do I think you need to agree with every rule or law passed in order to serve in a government position. This is all very Lewkowskian of you.

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    These are honest questions not gotchas.
    Regardless of whether they're honest questions or disingenuous gotchas, the long and the short of it is that Cummings is a prominent representative of a govt. that enacted and enforced the rules that he has now gotten away with violating—rules under which thousands of ordinary people have been fined for similar acts and that millions of ordinary people have submitted to at great social and psychological cost to themselves. You may have doubts about the merits of the rules, but a substantial portion of the British public appears to have equally strong feelings about their unjustly arbitrary enforcement—and, more importantly, about Cummings's and Johnson's (and Gove's) contemptuous and entitled stance on the matter. This reaction could've been forestalled if he'd shown contrition, and if the govt. hadn't put itself in the entirely untenable position of trying to defend both his actions and his bullshit excuses.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  16. #136
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    It's a dishonest gotcha because he was part of a government which very forcefully enacted those quarantine rules. He was not part of a government which made it their goal to clean up the streets by getting rid of high-speed accidents.

    You could have discovered that fact if you had thought about it for a nanosecond. The fact that you didn't shows me that you either didn't bother to think about the difference (in which case I don't see why I should bother with you if you're so intellectually lazy) or you did discover the fact but used it as a cheap gotcha instead.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  17. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Regardless of whether they're honest questions or disingenuous gotchas, the long and the short of it is that Cummings is a prominent representative of a govt. that enacted and enforced the rules that he has now gotten away with violating—rules under which thousands of ordinary people have been fined for similar acts and that millions of ordinary people have submitted to at great social and psychological cost to themselves. You may have doubts about the merits of the rules, but a substantial portion of the British public appears to have equally strong feelings about their unjustly arbitrary enforcement—and, more importantly, about Cummings's and Johnson's (and Gove's) contemptuous and entitled stance on the matter. This reaction could've been forestalled if he'd shown contrition, and if the govt. hadn't put itself in the entirely untenable position of trying to defend both his actions and his bullshit excuses.
    I have doubts about both the merits of the rules and their enforcement, as I have noted earlier. In short, I am not seeking a pass for the current British government, I am using this as an indictment of it. Regular people, politicians, and everyone else should be allowed to visit Bernard Castle if they behave responsibly, just like they should be allowed to walk their dog, or sit on their front porch. If the government enacts a policy that says otherwise then that is a bad policy, and that is on them.
    Last edited by Enoch the Red; 05-29-2020 at 07:33 PM.

  18. #138
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    I don't care who put the policy into place, my argument is it is a bad policy. I don't need to carry water for the NHS advisors/policymakers or Boris Johnson, or the Tories. It seems pretty obvious to me that if you properly socially distance with your family outside, be it in your front garden or at a castle, then it shouldn't be news worthy and scandalous that you spend a day out with them. If the policy says otherwise then it is simply a bad policy. I would be upset with that, not with the dog walker, the people in their front garden, or the family at a castle.
    You know that's still a bit strange even from your libertarian way of looking? That there is not just the policy up for debate here, but that the man who used the power of the state to enforce it on others blatantly flaunted the rules? You seriously are blind to the use of the full force of the state in this issue?
    Congratulations America

  19. #139
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    It's about the perception of credibility. British society is plagued by class-associated inequality, but ordinary people treasure the notion that everyone is, at least, equal before the law—and that, in this time of national crisis, they and their leaders are all in it together, with everyone pitching in and making personal sacrifices for the greater good. The Cummings scandal shatters these comforting delusions in a very public manner. Here we have a privileged man who can—because of his connections—not only get away with casually flouting the onerous and restrictive rules imposed by the govt. he represents, but also have powerful govt. figures intercede on his behalf, even up to the point of having the AG publicly making an erroneous announcement about his innocence of any wrongdoing.

    The vast majority of ordinary Brits have adhered to these rules, enduring considerable psychological pressure because they believed the law required it of them—and because they believed everyone should do their part to fight the pandemic; thousands have been fined by the police (BAME Brits at a disproportionately high rate). It is galling to be faced with such a flagrant demonstration of class privilege.

    As if that weren't bad enough, the govt. inexplicably chose to go on the offensive by presenting one transparently bullshit defense after the other. Cummings has—like Johnson, Bannon, Trump, etc—built his personal brand atop a general contempt for rules, norms, "enemy" legislators, the judiciary and the media; however, in his statements, he instead managed to convey contempt for ordinary people and their mundane, little, insignificant concerns. It was at the very least politically foolish for govt. reps to let themselves become associated with that show of contempt.

    Ferguson had to resign his post because his work was partly responsible for the implementation of the lockdown approach, and then he was caught going against precisely those recommendations that he had indirectly imposed on millions of ordinary Britons; he no longer had any credibility on policy matters pertaining to the pandemic. It's like if the president of PETA were caught knowingly buying a mink coat—she'd no longer have any credibility when advocating for animal rights. You can probably think of many more related kinds of credibility-damaging violations of trust, such as an influential person watering a huge and extremely thirsty lawn while ordinary people are expected to ration water, or throwing a feast while ordinary people are expected to submit to rationing schemes. In this case, a representative of the political leadership has gotten away with enjoying luxury socialization and movement, while ordinary people have been expected to ration both—or face costly legal sanctions.
    It would be more like the president of PETA first hounding someone to stop wearing mink coats then blackmailing the same person into giving her a mink coat.

    But I totally agree with you here, it's not about what is sensible or not, it's what is equitable. And what's not equitable is the law for one and the powers of interpretation for another, who according to the contrat social should be subject to the same rules. The way De Pfeffel deals with this makes a joke of the British constitution.
    Congratulations America

  20. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    You know that's still a bit strange even from your libertarian way of looking? That there is not just the policy up for debate here, but that the man who used the power of the state to enforce it on others blatantly flaunted the rules? You seriously are blind to the use of the full force of the state in this issue?
    Again, my ignorance of British politics is showing. Dominic Cummings played what role in regard to the creation and enforcement of health policy? Is pandemic response in his wheel house? Does he deal with policy implementation, enforcement and fines? If any of this is true, and he was in charge of setting these bad rules, or managing enforcement actions, then it is absolutely contemptible of him to say one rule for thee and another for me. If he is simply a member of the government that implemented these rules then I am far more sympathetic. My sympathy only grows if enforcement is handled independently on a local level, (for instance if a police officer in Durham is being told to approach the individual with a warning and only issue a fine if they don't comply vs. one in London being told to fine first). I don't get to dictate what good or bad policies my boss puts into place, and I have probably knowingly or inadvertently violated one or two.

  21. #141
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Again, my ignorance of British politics is showing. Dominic Cummings played what role in regard to the creation and enforcement of health policy? Is pandemic response in his wheel house? Does he deal with policy implementation, enforcement and fines? If any of this is true, and he was in charge of setting these bad rules, or managing enforcement actions, then it is absolutely contemptible of him to say one rule for thee and another for me. If he is simply a member of a government that implemented these rules then I am far more sympathetic. My sympathy only grows if enforcement is handled independently on a local level, (for instance if a police officer in Durham is being told to approach the individual with a warning and only issue a fine if they don't comply vs. one in London being told to fine first). Idon't get to dictate what good or bad policies my boss puts into place, and I have probably knowingly or inadvertently violated one or two.
    I am not a specialist on every detail of british government workings, but as far as I know; as the Prime Minister's most senior aide, he is involved in the process about Covid-19 on two sides. He is part of the council that advices the government on which rules to put in place. Then again, as the Prime Minister's most senior aide (I think CoS in the WH comes close) he is involved in what the government makes out of the advice he's in part himself has given them. Only in the most formal way Cummings isn't responsible for locking up most Brits in a way that they couldn't even be in their own garden. That legal nicety is not enough for me to absolve him from blame.

    If you want to get an idea; google Dominic Cummings bullies
    Congratulations America

  22. #142
    If that is the case, and he had a hand in crafting and enacting the policy then he can get bent. You don't get to set a rule for everyone else and then not follow it yourself, and if you enact a bad policy that comes back and bites you then that is on you.

  23. #143
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    If that is the case, and he had a hand in crafting and enacting the policy then he can get bent. You don't get to set a rule for everyone else and then not follow it yourself. And if you enact a bad policy that comes back and bites you then that is on you.
    Well, that's the whole thing. I myself realized how pissed people in the UK were, when the Daily Telegraph, also known as the Torygraph started bloom with a bunch of columns condemning Cummings for making a fool of people who had followed the law, in many cases despite they themselves thinking that even though the rules were silly, they were the law. This is not just people who are against Brexit getting back at the architect of Brexit. Many of the angriest voters did vote for Brexit.
    Congratulations America

  24. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    I have doubts about both the merits of the rules and their enforcement, as I have noted earlier. In short, I am not seeking a pass for the current British government, I am using this as an indictment of it. Regular people, politicians, and everyone else should be allowed to visit Bernard Castle if they behave responsibly, just like they should be allowed to walk their dog, or sit on their front porch. If the government enacts a policy that says otherwise then that is a bad policy, and that is on them.
    To clarify, there is no government policy that you can't sit in your own front garden, that was entirely down to some over zealous enforcement by police.

    Regarding visiting Barnard Castle. The point is not whether or not it was safe to go to Barnard Castle, the point is it wouldn't be safe if everyone did what Cummings did. That's the point of these stay at home orders. We're not doing all this social distancing just to make it safe to Dominic Cummings to go for a day trip.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  25. #145
    Doesn't everyone hear agree that it is worse that POTUS refuses to wear a mask in public, against his own administration's guidelines? Me POTUS, me no need no stinking mask.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  26. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    To clarify, there is no government policy that you can't sit in your own front garden, that was entirely down to some over zealous enforcement by police.

    Regarding visiting Barnard Castle. The point is not whether or not it was safe to go to Barnard Castle, the point is it wouldn't be safe if everyone did what Cummings did. That's the point of these stay at home orders. We're not doing all this social distancing just to make it safe to Dominic Cummings to go for a day trip.
    Certainly - if everyone in England was at Barnard Castle it would probably be fairly difficult to socially distance effectively. I don't have any problem with people going places where it is not difficult to practice social distancing and being there with their families.

  27. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Certainly - if everyone in England was at Barnard Castle it would probably be fairly difficult to socially distance effectively. I don't have any problem with people going places where it is not difficult to practice social distancing and being there with their families.
    If a lot of people go to a place, it becomes difficult. That's the point.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  28. #148
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Certainly - if everyone in England was at Barnard Castle it would probably be fairly difficult to socially distance effectively. I don't have any problem with people going places where it is not difficult to practice social distancing and being there with their families.
    To make it clear; I agree with you that the bad rules/enforcement combination is a scandal all by itself. In the Netherlands we had rules that were draconic in some fields (closure of restaurants, bars etc 30 minutes after announcing closure) but mostly consisted of the advice to practice social distancing by working at home when possible, and staying at home with symptoms or suspicion of infection of any family member. There were some rules that carried a fine if you'd not follow them, but they were mostly about meeting people outside in groups bigger than 3 and without keeping 1,5 m (5ft) distance.

    My experience during the 'intelligent lockdown' was that I visited my office 4 times in two months, that I used my bike to go there rather than the metro, that I recieved only two friends at my home, and that I started walking with my dog twice a day. As I am writing this I weigh 8kg (about 18 pounds) less than when the lockdown started. I still don't understand why people in other countries were forbidden from going outside at all. I think that must have been bad for their health.
    Congratulations America

  29. #149
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    If a lot of people go to a place, it becomes difficult. That's the point.
    Difficult is not the same as dangerous. If you keep a 1,5 m distance in the open air there barely is any risk at all. The risk is even less if there is only a brief moment when you pass eachother at that distance.
    Congratulations America

  30. #150
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    If a lot of people go to a place, it becomes difficult. That's the point.
    Then when you show up and see that it would be hard to do so, or notice it becoming too crowded, you leave and go some place else? This doesn't require advanced degrees or technical training - it is common sense. When I go on a walk with my children I take them and walk off the path when someone is approaching. If a park seems busy we will go elsewhere. I'm guessing this is easier in rural and suburban areas.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •