Should those in the public eye resign for breaking lockdown rules?

[clubchamp98]

Why does what he earns have to be constantly mentioned or used as a factor in consideration of what he's done. It has absolutely nothing to do with money that he has breached lockdown.

It has nothing to do with a sense of entitlement either its merely a case that he is one of the many thousands of dickheads that are breaching all over the country but its merely newsworthy because of who he is. I'd equally like to see people castigate the pleb of a reporter that felt the need to be traipsing over the country for 11hrs. Nobody is complaining about him being paid to follow the footballer, therefore being paid to do a non essential journey are they, nope just the bloke who earns more and should know better.

Agree here do we really need reporters travelling miles like this for gossip.
Yes he broke lockdown “rules” but are they not broken thousands of times everyday because they are so vague.
No excuse for the scientists imo he’s just two faced.

 

[Hobbit]

Ferguson isn’t the next Messiah, he isn’t irreplaceable. His professional competency, in isolation, isn’t in question but there might just be an issue of trust. If his character is capable of making errors of judgement would I trust him implicitly?

Imagine a Q&A session with the press in a few months time, and the govt is getting slaughtered for a bad decision. The govt’s defence is they followed the science. “Ah yes Mr Johnson, that’ll be the scientific judgement from a man of questionable character.” Defend it if they can...

 

[bobmac]

I agree, the reporter shouldn't have been following him, but if KW had stayed at home there would have been no story to chase.

As for what he earns.....
If he is fined £1,000 for his third lockdown offence then obviously the deterrent isn't working as he only has £19,000 + to last him the rest of the day.

It's a bit like someone on £25,000 a year getting fined £10, that's no deterrent .

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Ferguson isn’t the next Messiah, he isn’t irreplaceable. His professional competency, in isolation, isn’t in question but there might just be an issue of trust. If his character is capable of making errors of judgement would I trust him implicitly?

Imagine a Q&A session with the press in a few months time, and the govt is getting slaughtered for a bad decision. The govt’s defence is they followed the science. “Ah yes Mr Johnson, that’ll be the scientific judgement from a man of questionable character.” Defend it if they can...

Exactly - he is not the next Messiah - he is one of many in a group that provide options to the government, and so he is not actually leading very much at all. And yes - he's not irreplaceable - because he is simply one of many - albeit someone recognised as being a leading 'one of many' in his field.

Do I have to trust in him - him alone? Or do I have to trust the consensus of opinion reached within SAGE on the options available?; or in fact do I really and quite simply only have to trust in the government to make the right decisions - and that they make these decisions on the best way to go for the country based upon the options they are presented with by SAGE? Bottom line is that it is the government that makes the decisions - the government can choose what to trust and believe in - and what not to trust.

I might think differently if we knew the options being presented to government by SAGE at each critical decision point, and if we knew the basis of the decision that the government subsequently took. But we don't know any of that.

Maybe on Sunday the PM will give us a bit more of the 'why' after he has told us the 'what'.

In truth I think that in many ways the decisions to be taken now and in the coming weeks are harder decisions than those that had to be taken at the outset - when we all realised that we simply had to stop the virus exploding through the population.

 

[Wolf]

I agree, the reporter shouldn't have been following him, but if KW had stayed at home there would have been no story to chase.

As for what he earns.....
If he is fined £1,000 for his third lockdown offence then obviously the deterrent isn't working as he only has £19,000 + to last him the rest of the day.

It's a bit like someone on £25,000 a year getting fined £10, that's no deterrent .

Still irrelevant because fines for things like this have to be set to apply to everyone not according to what they earn. His earnings nor anyone's are means for consideration in breaking any laws if they were we'd have no crimes committed or driving laws broken or lockdown breaches by anyone would we.

 

[Imurg]

Still irrelevant because fines for things like this have to be set to apply to everyone not according to what they earn. His earnings nor anyone's are means for consideration in breaking any laws if they were we'd have no crimes committed or driving laws broken or lockdown breaches by anyone would we.

Spending fines use your earnings to calculate the amount of a fine in many cases.....

 

[bobmac]

First offence.....One days pay
Second offence ..One weeks pay
Third offence....One months pay

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Thing is that the relationship between SAGE and the government has been established in the public mindset over the last three months - that the government is being 'led by the science' - and by implication the government is being led by SAGE.

And we here all know (because it's the sort of thing we try and understand) that that is not actually how it will have been working. SAGE will have been providing the government with options based upon the input provided by the sub-groups, each of which has input from many scientists and others, one of whom was Prof Neil Ferguson. The government then chooses the route that it wishes to go down by considering and weighing up the options - and the impact - political, social and economic that each might have. And so the mantra 'We are being led by the science', is simply rather disingenuous - guided certainly - but not led.

But as the relationship established in the public mindest by the briefings is that SAGE leads - the government follows - the error of Ferguson is portrayed as 'those that tell us what to do are not doing it themselves'. When in fact it is not SAGE who are telling us what to do - everything we are doing today is as a result of a positive decision made by government. If anyone should be looking at their actions in the context of 'them telling us and acting differently' - that individual should be Robert Jenrick. Yes he gave 'good' reasons - but then so did Ferguson.

Re the bold . I'll be brief - crap! And another dig

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Ferguson isn’t the next Messiah, he isn’t irreplaceable. His professional competency, in isolation, isn’t in question but there might just be an issue of trust. If his character is capable of making errors of judgement would I trust him implicitly?

Imagine a Q&A session with the press in a few months time, and the govt is getting slaughtered for a bad decision. The govt’s defence is they followed the science. “Ah yes Mr Johnson, that’ll be the scientific judgement from a man of questionable character.” Defend it if they can...

That's a bit harsh. I'm not condoning what he did. It was wrong , plain and simple. But that doesn't mean his professional advice is wrong, or in question.
1.
A person with true scientific expertise and knowledge imparts that, with others of similar backgrounds, to the Government.
Anyone would say that was good advice given in good faith.
A few weeks and days later he breaks a rule of behaviour that he has been advising.
That does not invalidate that scientific advice.
2.A Doctor prescribes life saving treatment to a patient. Days later he breaks a professional rule , say for example, by divulging information to a reporter who he's having an affair with.
That doesn't invalidate his treatment's effectiveness.

 

[clubchamp98]

That's a bit harsh. I'm not condoning what he did. It was wrong , plain and simple. But that doesn't mean his professional advice is wrong, or in question.
1.
A person with true scientific expertise and knowledge imparts that, with others of similar backgrounds, to the Government.
Anyone would say that was good advice given in good faith.
A few weeks and days later he breaks a rule of behaviour that he has been advising.
That does not invalidate that scientific advice.
2.A Doctor prescribes life saving treatment to a patient. Days later he breaks a professional rule , say for example, by divulging information to a reporter who he's having an affair with.
That doesn't invalidate his treatment's effectiveness.

I think the thing is though.
He was one of the main architects of the plan!
Double standards like that is not on .

 

[chellie]

What irritates me more is the arrogance of them.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Re the bold . I'll be brief - crap! And another dig

What, then, is it that you think SAGE does if it does not simply present the government with scientific-based options from which the government must choose in accordance with what they must balance against the impact on the economy - and for which SAGE will have little if any say.

And why - pray tell - is it a dig at the government to suggest that it is the government that makes the decisions? This 'led by the science' is a handy sound-bite - but it is not actually true. Government decisions are certainly guided by the science - but led by it - No.

 

[Foxholer]

Wondered how long it would take to blame Boris ?

'Criticise', not 'blame' as far as I see - and I'm not one of his 'fanboys'.
As for the original question....They should certainly consider whether their action warrtants resignation - and in many cases, it's likely to be a pretty instantaneous 'Yes'!

 

[IanM]

If someone in a position of responsibility says don't do something, then does exactly that, maybe they deserve the consequences?

 

[Foxholer]

...
But as the relationship established in the public mindest by the briefings is that SAGE leads - the government follows - the error of Ferguson is portrayed as 'those that tell us what to do are not doing it themselves'. When in fact it is not SAGE who are telling us what to do - everything we are doing today is as a result of a positive decision made by government. If anyone should be looking at their actions in the context of 'them telling us and acting differently' - that individual should be Robert Jenrick. Yes he gave 'good' reasons - but then so did Ferguson.

That's always, and always should be, the way government works.
Can you identify any of the recommendations from SAGE that the government haven't been passed on? The term 'being led by the science' certainly seems appropriate to me - and might be even for any (and I don't know of any) that haven't been implemented.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

What, then, is it that you think SAGE does if it does not simply present the government with scientific-based options from which the government must choose in accordance with what they must balance against the impact on the economy - and for which SAGE will have little if any say.

And why - pray tell - is it a dig at the government to suggest that it is the government that makes the decisions? This 'led by the science' is a handy sound-bite - but it is not actually true. Government decisions are certainly guided by the science - but led by it - No.

You are using semantics again to have the little dig. You did that by slipping the word disingenuous in .
Anyone objectively reading your post can see it is a criticism. You are alleging that the government is creating a way out from the blame that may be levelled against them.
You are good at it, I'll give you that.

 

[Foxholer]

You are using semantics again to have the little dig. You did that by slipping the word disingenuous in .
Anyone objectively reading your post can see it is a criticism. You are alleging that the government is creating a way out from the blame that may be levelled against them.
You are good at it, I'll give you that.

Only in your (deluded imo) mind! It seems to me that YOU are the one 'having a dig'! And it's time to desist!

Btw. SILH is absolutely correct re the Led versus Guided issue in terms of Government action imo! Though 'Led' and 'Guided' are pretty much similes in many situations. Guides certainly Lead in many situations!

 

[Hobbit]

That's a bit harsh. I'm not condoning what he did. It was wrong , plain and simple. But that doesn't mean his professional advice is wrong, or in question.
1.
A person with true scientific expertise and knowledge imparts that, with others of similar backgrounds, to the Government.
Anyone would say that was good advice given in good faith.
A few weeks and days later he breaks a rule of behaviour that he has been advising.
That does not invalidate that scientific advice.
2.A Doctor prescribes life saving treatment to a patient. Days later he breaks a professional rule , say for example, by divulging information to a reporter who he's having an affair with.
That doesn't invalidate his treatment's effectiveness.

Harsh it may be, and I'm not questioning his professional competency, I'm questioning his character and integrity.

Do I take the advice from someone who's made an error of judgement when, potentially, 10's of thousands of lives are on the table. You're comfortable with it, and I'm not.

Throwing different hypothetical scenarios at it don't change the potential outcome. You're comfortable with those, and I'm not.

 

[Foxholer]

Ferguson isn’t the next Messiah...

'He's been a very naughty boy' though!

 

[Hobbit]

What, then, is it that you think SAGE does if it does not simply present the government with scientific-based options from which the government must choose in accordance with what they must balance against the impact on the economy - and for which SAGE will have little if any say.

And why - pray tell - is it a dig at the government to suggest that it is the government that makes the decisions? This 'led by the science' is a handy sound-bite - but it is not actually true. Government decisions are certainly guided by the science - but led by it - No.

The govt's decision is based on the scientific evidence that creates the options the scientists offer. Yes, the govt bases its decision on the options from the scientists AND on the economy.

On any given day the options might say x, y, z and the economy might say a, b, c. The govt make the decision but that decision is based on "they led us to make the conclusion(decision)."

I think that you maybe are playing with the semantics of it, subconsciously(?), just as I've shown you an example of led that is relevant to how management teams make decisions based on the evidence given to them.

Are you having a dig? I don't think you are intentionally, but I do think your inbuilt Tory-hate will always make you read it that way.