Are footballers being punished for breaching coronavirus regulations? I have seen a few stories about parties etc but nothing about internal club or FA discipline
I am, generally, not one for calling for people to be disciplined but given how influential footballers are particularly among younger people why is the @FA not taking a stronger line?
I would have thought people seeing on the front page of @TheSun etc that a player has breached rules and nothing or next to nothing then happening will have a strong cultural effect on younger people at the least.
I mean, there are enough poor students being fined £10,000 for having more than 30 people in their homes... what kind of an example is being set?
I'm told this is @premierleague not the FA's remit but the point stands.
And you are welcome to point out that I didn't make this point about Mason Greenwood (who plays for a team I support) - yes I am a bit of a hypocrite but also things are different behaviourally/threat-wise now than in the summer
Support bubbles, childcare bubbles, exercise, meeting with one of the person not from your household for exercise still in place from Tier 4
This has all been done with such crashing urgency that they haven’t even been able to transpose the PDF version of the guidance into the website yet, it is here:
Looks pretty much the same as Tier 4:
- Can't leave home without a reasonable excuse
- Can take exercise with household/support+childcare bubble/1 other person (says once per day - don't expect this to be in the regulations but who knows)
I have read part of the judgment (I think only part?) that he succeeded on - there would be a substantial risk he would commit suicide if extradited. And this was exacerbated by the likely 'special administrative measures' and possibility of being housed in a 'superman' prison
Similar to other extradition cases to US (involving terrorism), judge was concerned by the potential for Assange being held in oppressive conditions.
In this sense, argument that he would be treated with hostility worked in his favour even if didn't amount to improper pressure
Could be an excellent result for him as will be difficult to overturn on appeal. Is a relatively simple point based on expert psychiatric evidence (I assume, haven't read the judgment).
Whatever happens next - Tier 4+ or a new 'lockdown', it's important to understand that there is no magic to the term 'lockdown'.
It is better to see the laws we have been living under since March as different grades of legally enforced social distancing.
And whatever version of legally enforced social distancing the government goes for, ultimately it will stand or fall on: (1) Simplicity of rules (2) Clarity of communication (3) Level of actual and perceived enforcement
You can have stricter rules without any change to the above.
Despite it being relatively short on lawyers in top positions the government as become very legalistic - assuming that changing rules (even if that makes them immensely more complex and unclear) will change behaviour.
The March lockdown was quite a bit tougher than Tier 4 - no meeting one other person outdoors, no bubbles, less reasonable excuses for gathering, no religious gatherings....
Sorry, *fewer* reasonable excuses for gathering (-:
For a talk I gave recently I looked back at the March lockdown regulations for the first time in a while and it really struck me how simple and limited they were.
- 12 pages (vs c100 now)
- Very limited reasonable excuses for leaving home... legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/…