-
The law doesn't have any restrictions.
The guidance is vague (STAY LOCAL! BUT GOING AWAY FROM LOCAL IS OK! BUT STAY LOCAL!) and not law.
[...]
It pushes all of the responsibility onto the people who can then be blamed, at a later date, for not interpreting the guidance correctly at the time.
Isn't it likely that the main reason why the guidance is like that because they tried clear rules in the first lockdown and it caught out Cummings? Now, one might argue that certain self-interested members of the Government are in love with their freedom to do what the hell they want, or that the Cummings scandal, largely because of Johnson's wrong decision to back Cummings, eroded any trust in the government's ability to handle COVID-19, and is one of the main reasons why the rules are widely disrespected now. I don't know either way, but it's probably a mixture of both.
You are reading a single comment by @Greenbank and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Oliver Schick
@Greenbank
The law doesn't have any restrictions.
The guidance is vague (STAY LOCAL! BUT GOING AWAY FROM LOCAL IS OK! BUT STAY LOCAL!) and not law.
But it's all just politics.
If the Government clarifies the situation and/or makes it into law then they will be seen as deeply unpopular (even more so than currently if that's even possible).
So they continue to clarify things by saying "Exercise is ok, but stay local." which obviously doesn't clarify anything.
It pushes all of the responsibility onto the people who can then be blamed, at a later date, for not interpreting the guidance correctly at the time.