@HaveringWavering “For goodness sake, I am not expecting actual prosecutions in relation to overnight stays. I am talking about challenging your nonsense about “oh well I would not be convicted by a jury of my peers” as if that magically makes the law disappear.”
I didn’t say you were expecting prosecutions, because no one could be so silly. Nor did I say that the “law would magically disappear”
I said that a jury of my peers would not convict me. You replied that prosecutions did not work that way.
I am telling you that there is clear precedent for juries refusing to convict under bad laws, which this is, despite a judge’s direction. If you tell me that I do not understand how the criminal law works, then you cannot be surprised if I reply, since I do, in fact, understand how it works.
Even the government’s deputy chief medical officer says that it is “incredibly safe” for fully vaccinated people to meet freely (including indoors) and yet the law says we cannot. Is that a reasonable law?
Vaccinated people in care homes who are taken out for a walk by a vaccinated relative or care worker then have to completely isolate in their room for 14 days, while someone completely unvaccinated flying in from India only has to isolate for 10 days. Is that reasonable? (I appreciate that that is only guidance, but it might as well be law because if a care home goes against guidance it invalidates their insurance.). Is that reasonable guidance?
These laws are bad. The guidance is bad. If they were better, and more rational, there would be less law breaking.
Bad laws get broken. They are either unenforceable (because they are bad - and if prosecuted unconvictable, because a rational jury won’t).
Your colleagues are reasonable. You are reasonable to make your own risk assessments (irrational though they may be) but not to judge them.