Discussion of article from the Mail's columnists and RightMinds contributors
:sunglasses: 55.9 % ❤ 16.5 % :thumbsup: 7.1 % 😯 0.6 % :grinning: 10.6 % 🧥 1.2 % 🙏 3.5 % 😟 4.1 % :cry: 0.6 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#602980
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... e-Egg.html

He's as happy as a pig in shit. Proper coppers, check. Jumped up graduate intake toerags, check. 30 years past it's sell-by date dig at Labour, check. Obsession with sexual practices, check. Shit nicknames, check. Dad's Army, check. Digs at ESOL speakers, check. Subtle Cultural Christianity nudge, check. Apparent bafflement with modern technology, check. That bloody "Hello?" call centre thing, check.

Oh, and apparently his readership can't figure out Zoom but are expected to listen to a podcast.
 
By Snowflake
#602982
I don't often check how many comments his articles attract these days, but I'm wondering how close the Mail might actually be now to fucking off the past his sell by date twat.
By satnav
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#602989
This is what my local paper has reported about police putting dye into the lagoon in Buxton.
The lagoon waters are often dyed black by police to deter swimmers from entering the ‘toxic’ water, which contains ‘rub-off’ from the old quarry which irritates skin.
What a shame Littlejohn is too lazy to do a little bit of research.
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#602990
Who the hell are the cops to decide what’s ‘essential’ and what isn’t?
Guidelines are decided for them. Shaming legislators on Twitter who don't think they have to obey the guidelines sounds like an effective, quick and cheap way for the police to do their job. And I'm sure the former EU Commissioner for transport can work out his own logistics. Stephen Kinnock ought to have known better instead becoming a pub bore pin-up getting one over on the busy bodies.
 
By Boiler
Posts
#603018
youngian wrote:
Tue Mar 31, 2020 9:43 am
Who the hell are the cops to decide what’s ‘essential’ and what isn’t?
Guidelines are decided for them. Shaming legislators on Twitter who don't think they have to obey the guidelines sounds like an effective, quick and cheap way for the police to do their job. And I'm sure the former EU Commissioner for transport can work out his own logistics. Stephen Kinnock ought to have known better instead becoming a pub bore pin-up getting one over on the busy bodies.
Well, the police certainly have guidelines now after Derbyshire in particular decided to get a bit gung-ho, relatively speaking.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52101040

However, here's what they are encountering.
By satnav
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#603042
Whilst I don't normally defend the police I do think that the way in which the police and certain sections of the media have gone after the police in Derbyshire is a little bit unfair. I think one of the big issues is that that the information given to the public at press conference etc has been oversimplified in order to get the message across but then police officers are being issued with much more detail guidance which they are expected to adhere to.

The area that the police have focused on in the Peak District is Curbar Edge, whilst it is popular with walkers it is also very popular with climbers. If you take a look at the website for Edale Mountain rescue it is clear that before the lockdown they were being called out on almost a daily basis to rescue climbers or walkers who had got into difficulties in the area. The police are clearly aware of the dangers the area poses and so they are keen to keep people away.

Many of the visitors to Curbar tend to be from Chesterfield and Sheffield but to get to Curbar they will pass dozens of other places where they can walk without putting themselves in danger.
 
By Abernathy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#603046
Can anyone explain the logic of the police discouraging people from driving to a remote (but not too far away) bit of countryside, where social distancing is easy because there is hardly anyone else around, and instead, seeming to insist that if you want to go for a walk for your prescribed daily exercise, you must do so by walking out your front door and walking in the local environs, which, for city dwellers, might make social distancing less easy to achieve? Surely you're not going to contract the virus by travelling in your car?
 
By cycloon
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#603047
Abernathy wrote:
Tue Mar 31, 2020 3:11 pm
Can anyone explain the logic of the police discouraging people from driving to a remote (but not too far away) bit of countryside, where social distancing is easy because there is hardly anyone else around, and instead, seeming to insist that if you want to go for a walk for your prescribed daily exercise, you must do so by walking out your front door and walking in the local environs, which, for city dwellers, might make social distancing less easy to achieve? Surely you're not going to contract the virus by travelling in your car?
Agreed, but I suspect it's as follows: 'Yes we know that, but to enforce 90% isolation as possible we have to act as though any deviation is a sin'.
 
By Boiler
Posts
#603049
Abernathy wrote:
Tue Mar 31, 2020 3:11 pm
Can anyone explain the logic of the police discouraging people from driving to a remote (but not too far away) bit of countryside, where social distancing is easy because there is hardly anyone else around, and instead, seeming to insist that if you want to go for a walk for your prescribed daily exercise, you must do so by walking out your front door and walking in the local environs, which, for city dwellers, might make social distancing less easy to achieve? Surely you're not going to contract the virus by travelling in your car?
Because (a) if everyone else is of the same frame of mind it suddenly becomes less easy to practice 'social distancing' and (b) if you should be involved in an RTC suddenly that's a lot of emergency services directed towards you.
Kreuzberger, Abernathy, Cyclist and 1 others liked this
 
By Abernathy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#603059
Yes, your point a) is reasonable but for the fact that someone looking for a place for a walk where there are scarcely any people around - simply isn't going to go where there are lots of people around. That is entirely their point.

On the possible RTC, yes, I can see that emergency services needing to be deployed to one might expose them to virus contamination risks, and if that is avoidable by not driving anywhere, fair enough.
 
By Boiler
Posts
#603060
Abernathy wrote:
Tue Mar 31, 2020 4:16 pm
Yes, your point a) is reasonable but for the fact that someone looking for a place for a walk where there are scarcely any people around - simply isn't going to go where there are lots of people around. That is entirely their point.
This point was made by Derbyshire police recently; people heading to known beauty spots whilst passing several other places they could go for a walk. I can certainly think of a few places I'd like to drive to in order to take a walk, but I won't for several reasons;

1. I'm a lazy bastard.
2. I have developed a paranoia of being outside; "it'll get me if I go outdoors".
3. The worry that an RTC could happen.
  • 1
  • 1242
  • 1243
  • 1244
  • 1245
  • 1246
  • 1255
The Trump Presidency

Jesus wept. Edit: At Wotsit Hitler, not Cycli[…]

Dominic Cummings

Probably from sticking it up the Jockey Club's ars[…]

Brexit Fuckwit Thread

Bishops speak out against Cummings, it's Judeo-C[…]

Richard Littlejohn

I look forward to the M*il's Johnny-on-the-spot co[…]