Where's the P.M.? Shouldn't he be in view, not hiding away ?

Quietly enjoying Grandad'stransformation to a Boris fan... ?

Johnson was in a school for a photo op, trying to convince the public that classrooms are safe by showing socially distanced children and lying through his teeth. Unfortunately for him, the unedited Channel 4 video showed that most of the children were crammed together, unmasked, sitting only a few inches from each other.

Only 3000 of the jobs are for drivers - and they're already employed on temporary contracts.

Well at least Boris was out and about again yesterday facing the press and answering questions, but where again was Kier Starmer in reply, still in bed???????

What has also not been mentioned on this forum is the twelve thousand jobs increase announced by Tesco in its home delivery section. With other supermarket chains carrying out similar it is being estimated that forty thousand plus job roles could be on offer in those distribution centres and on the vehicles.

You have also to add to that number the employment that will be created in companies working in support of those operations, such as training, vehicle servicing and logistics which could double the above figure.

Certainly the above is good news for Britain and speaking in neutrality as a lifelong Labour member and supporter not a bad week at all for the Conservative party and government.

Question is now, will those that have lost their employment in the retail stores at Debenhams etc be prepared to take on the work in those distribution centres and on those vehicles???

I missed out:

Crisis Point
Resistance

Did you see the pictures of Johnson in the school library delivering the "mutant algorithm" lecture to a group of disinterested-looking pupils?

Behind him, on the shelves were the following books:

Betrayed
The Twits
The Subtle Knife
Fahrenheit 451
Guards! Guards!
The Toll
Oliver Twist
Glass Houses

And a poster ...

Will You Take on the Challenge?

Class!

Irony is lost on some Maizie .

Maybe they've been invaded by mutant algorithms!

Jabberwok

Other than the ballot box would mean civil unrest, to succeed would mean the armed forces supporting the unrest?! Can't really imagine the government being arrested by the military still less the Queen as head of state being under house arrest in Windsor Castle!! Not sure the person in the street would put up with that! I certainly wouldn't and nor would anyone I know.

I’m sure many Russians said the same

Jabberwok

Fighting in the streets? You'd approve of that?!? I don't actually think the military would support civil unrest or support overthrowing a democratically elected government. Not very British and not very democratic!

Do you know what, Jabberwock? Dispensing with the Rule of Law is not very British and not at all democratic.

Dispensing with the Rule of Law what dictators do.

As far as I'm concerned dictators need to be stopped by any possible means.
.

Maizie thanks for further explanations, I’ve only just seen as have been out this afternoon.

I hate that expression ’Those who can do, those who can’t teach.’ Probably because both myself and my husband were teachers. I just think it’s unbelievably rude, especially when said to a teacher. A sellotape salesman once said it straight to my husband’s face. My husband was a Latin and French teacher, and he also taught a bit of maths (maths only to GCSE, not A level, as he did with Latin and French) and his pupils regularly achieved As and A* at GCSE and A level ( not A* at A level as there wasn’t A level A* then.)

He also taught piano in his spare time. He had to stop that though as his career progressed.

Of course the salesman was correct, my husband clearly couldn’t do anything.

Hurrah: he’s reappeared again. This time blabbering on about ‘mutant algorithms’...

Fighting in the streets? You'd approve of that?!? I don't actually think the military would support civil unrest or support overthrowing a democratically elected government. Not very British and not very democratic!

Oh, we wouldn't bother the Queen. As to the armed forces, I suppose it depends on how badly Cummings upsets them. He's got plans to shake them up, too... They might equally throw their lot in with the revolutionaries.

When you abolish the Law, Jabberwok ANYTHING could happen...

Other than the ballot box would mean civil unrest, to succeed would mean the armed forces supporting the unrest?! Can't really imagine the government being arrested by the military still less the Queen as head of state being under house arrest in Windsor Castle!! Not sure the person in the street would put up with that! I certainly wouldn't and nor would anyone I know.

MayBee70

Aren’t this government trying to change the Rule of Law? I’m sure that was something that was mentioned at a time when it was also pointed out that they wanted to get rid of Public Health England.

They want to stop people using judicial review 'for political reasons'.

Judicial review is where the Supreme Court is asked to look at an issue where a public body may not have acted according to the law. Our most well known recent example is the judicial review of the prorogation of parliament last autumn. Cummings is mad because the Supreme Court judged it to be unlawful. Now he wants all legal challenges to government action to be stopped.

This makes a complete mockery of the Rule of Law as it places the government above the law. Which means that they can do exactly what they want to do without anyone to stop them.

But no-one appears to be at all bothered about it because the MSM told them that judges were the enemy of the people. If Cummings gets his way we are well and truly lost.

However, this could also remove any qualms that people might have about overthrowing this government by other means than the ballot box.

Aren’t this government trying to change the Rule of Law? I’m sure that was something that was mentioned at a time when it was also pointed out that they wanted to get rid of Public Health England.

I can't remember the exact wording, but there was emergency legislation in March (?), which allows the executive power over certain matters without parliamentary approval

Was that May's Withdrawal Act.2018? Henry VIII powers. I think they are more radical and far reaching than SIs.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_Instrument_(UK)

www.historyextra.com/period/tudor/what-are-henry-viii-powers/

As the Act is still in force I have no doubt that Cummings has an eye to its possibilities...

Sorry, post above is in response to MayBee. It took a while to write...

Well, most of our constitution is written, it just isn't all written down in one place.

The 'constitution' comprises a whole mass of legislation, treaties and customary practice, some of it dating back centuries.

There are definitive writings about it, such as Walter Bagehot's 19thC description of it and Erskine May's (also 19th C) exposition of parliamentary procedures and practice (which is constantly updated). Then there is a whole host of constitutional experts, legal and others, who write and advise on discrete elements of it..

Basically, the governing structure consists of the Executive, which represents the monarch in parliament and has the power to initiate legislation. The Legislature, which is parliament as a whole (Commons and Lords) and is the sovereign bod and can pass or strike down proposed legislation. Then there is the Judiciary who interpret the law, both statute,which parliament passes, or which has been developed over centuries (common)

The Rule of Law is a key element. This maintains that no-one is above the law (though I'm not altogether sure where the monarch stands in this) and we are all bound by the same law (not one rule for advisers and PM's fathers and another for the rest of us..)

Beyond that it is very complex

Here's a Wikipedia introduction

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

Me neither growstuff -educationalist? , Any way I looked it up . It's someone who specialises in the theories and methods of education.
Reminds me of our take on our lecturers when I was in college- a development of GBS's saying- "Those who can, do, those who can't, teach" "Those who can't teach, teach teachers "

I must admit I don't think I've ever been called an educationalist.

I don't know all the words, but I could certainly hum along to "Jerusalem", "Land of Hope and Glory" and "Rule Britannia". Confession time - I don't even know the words to the national anthem.

I can't remember the exact wording, but there was emergency legislation in March (?), which allows the executive power over certain matters without parliamentary approval. At the time, some people were worried because it seemed as though it was one step towards a dictatorship, which in theory it could be. It was very similar in contact to the Nazis' Enabling Act, which at the time didn't seem that significant.

Is this because we don’t have a written constitution, something that was being talked about during the last parliament (I think the Green Party raised the issue)?

What I don’t understand then is how that is law without going to Parliament.

I can't remember whether mask wearing is mandatory or advisory. However, when legislation is passed it is recognised that it may need tidying up, or bits might need rejigging. If this was done though parliament it would mean a completely new Bill and going through all the stages of 'readings', 'committee', 'Lords' and 'royal assent' before really quite minor changes could be made.

So, something called a Statutory Instrument is used by the relevant government department to amend the legislation.

Massive amounts of our laws have never gone through the process of parliamentary scrutiny been amended/added by the use of Statutory Instruments.

This is not usually sinister but it does give an unscrupulous government a way to make changes to legislation which may not be approved by parliament.

It also means that people aren't always (in fact, very rarely are) aware of changes to the law unless a particular amendment gets some publicity.

So, if the wearing of masks is a legal requirement, the Coronavirus legislation will have been amended by Statutory Instrument to include the requirement to wear them.

Government, legislation, and the law is far more complex than most people know. I'm only a surface scratcher, really. It's what I remember from my degree...

Thanks Maizie for that detailed reply, very informative, for me anyway, as I’m a bear of very little brain, a bit like Paddington. So the Executive advises Parliament, is that right? But Parliament unlikely to be overruled in the case of a large majority. That bit I knew anyway.

So taking the simple issue of mask wearing. Obviously Parliament hasn’t voted on that, and yet we’re told we can be fined if we don’t wear one in a shop, up to £100. What I don’t understand then is how that is law without going to Parliament. Sorry if I’m being a bit thick, but maybe you can explain. Did I miss it, and it has gone to Parliament?