Under the self-isolation regulations trigger a legal obligation is triggered when you are notified by a "relevant person" which is generally the NHS and will happen after a positive PCR test. A lateral flow test does not have that effect 2/3
However, the relevant guidance is very clear that you should self-isolate as soon as you have a positive test, and it doesn't matter whether that is a lateral flow or PCR test 3/3 nhs.uk/conditions/cor…
Also, why did she take the test? If because she had symptoms then she should not have entered the meeting (per the guidance not the law)
There is a possibility - I suppose - she broke non-Covid criminal laws. Margaret Ferrier, Scottish MP was charged in Scotland with (I think) reckless endangerment for taking train knowing she had Covid. But I don't know enough about English equivalent telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/0…
Just recorded a *great* @BHumanPodcast and had occasion to pull out this classic
The episode is an interview with David Maxwell-Fyfe's grandson Tom Blackmore and is the first episode to have music!
Maxwell-Fyfe in his forward to R W Cooper’s book on the Nuremberg Nazi war crime trials speaking a lot of sense about human nature here. He would have seen this dynamic on Twitter for sure
I have commented on this. Essentially it's a wider view of the photo we had already seen of the PM compering a Christmas quiz - but we can now see the food and alcohol and an extra person. I think there is no longer any justification for the police not to investigate this event.
I imagine the reason decided not to investigate this gathering is because the image was ambiguous - the PM may have dialled in but not have been himself participating in an illegal gathering. But now seems obvious from the photo he himself is participating in a social gathering
Important to remember that the police are investigating an almost identical event which allegedly took place two days later in Simon Case's (Cabinet Secretary's) office where 6 people had a Christmas quiz politics.co.uk/news/2021/12/1…
Jimmy Carr here saying there were positives about the Holocaust - that "gypsies" (itself a pejorative term for Roma) were murdered. This is grotesque. Netflix should not have broadcast it.
I just watched the bit of the show (5mins 45secs from the end) where he makes this joke. The context (of the whole thing) is he is deliberately trying to be offensive and a bit "meta" and says at the beginning "this should be a career ender" then follows it (beyond the bit...
The EHRC plays key role in the UK's human rights framework. The allegations about how it is operating are serious and need to be resolved for the good of human rights in the UK - perhaps a useful time for the @HumanRightsCtte to investigate? @HarrietHarman
As I said in relation to the volte face on the EHRC's policy on trans rights, any significant change in position needs to be explained and at the moment all there is are allegations in the press and (non-detailed) denials from the EHRC's Twitter account.
The benefit of a @HumanRightsCtte inquiry is that it would give everyone a chance to explain what is going on, correct any misapprehensions (if there are any) and - most importantly - be accountable to the public whose human rights the EHRC is tasked to protect.
The PM is now reported as being at 6 parties:
🥳20.5.20 BYOB
🥳19.6.20 PM birthday
🥳13.11.20 Lee Cain leaving
🥳13.11.20 No.10 flat
🥳17.12.20 Capt Steve Higham leaving
🥳14.1.21 Private secs leaving
What possible enforcement could the police use?
But generally that applies when they come across breaches, as Cressida Dick says it is unusual for them to enforce retrospectively.
I understand from @kirkkorner that there are some examples, especially early in the pandemic, of police going straight to charging with a criminal offence. But in most cases they try a Fixed Penalty Notice first.
Just to pause there: there is a reasonably possibility a criminal investigation is taking place into an event which took place in the Prime Minister's flat.
The 2nd point (b) which sets my lawyer's senses tingling is that Gray is keeping her investigation's documents securely *away from the government". This is a constitutional mess and a half and shows problem of using an internal report to do job of an independent investigation
Actually, I have reread this para and it is not as ambiguous as I thought it was "the events on the date set out above*. Obvious enough that the gathering in the Prime Minister's flat is being investigated by the police.