IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Albert Tatlock]

Just now, quilp said:

Quayle, in interview, pointed the finger directly at a UK worker who flagrantly broke the rules by not wearing a mask. It would therefore appear that if anyone was to be punished it would be the worker whose recklessness caused the outbreak in the first instance. 

And punished by whom and under which law? If he never set foot on the island?

[quilp]

Don't know the answer to that Albert. I was just throwing it out there after hearing the headmaster's take on it. Surely, if the culprit/worker is employed by the Racket he is subject to their t&c's. 

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But the difference here surely is that this is a directive issued to a particular company, rather than a law that applies generally and which is (at least in theory) able to be known to all.  The legal liability then applies only to the company - I can't see how it could be passed onto individual employees, especially as criminal charges.

Again, it depends on the validity of the directive.

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, quilp said:

Don't know the answer to that Albert. I was just throwing it out there after hearing the headmaster's take on it. Surely, if the culprit/worker is employed by the Racket he is subject to their t&c's. 

Not the same as being subject to our criminal law. 

We don't know enough to really comment in my opinion. 

[CowMan]

2 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But the difference here surely is that this is a directive issued to a particular company, rather than a law that applies generally and which is (at least in theory) able to be known to all.  The legal liability then applies only to the company - I can't see how it could be passed onto individual employees, especially as criminal charges.

Well as I read it, and I’m not a lawyer, is that the SPC workers are subject to the same self isolation laws as us and if they break them they break them. But separately their employer has been directed that certain parts of the quarantine laws do not automatically apply to seafarers working for the SPC during their period of employment so if they break the rules they can rely on the protection of the directive issued to their employer. But if that protection is defective my assumption (and it is only an assumption) is that they broke IOM quarantine rules as they have not actually been fully exempted from them. I’d be interested to hear your view. 

[quilp]

Gladys is probably right that speculation might lead to the inappropriate. 

[Albert Tatlock]

Just now, quilp said:

Don't know the answer to that Albert. I was just throwing it out there after hearing the headmaster's take on it. Surely, if the culprit/worker is employed by the Racket he is subject to their t&c's. 

Yeah agree...and that's a civil matter...hence I think it will likely be a minimal written warning and retraining...otherwise I think the staff will lose their rag and will likely go on strike...especially after the year they and their families have had.

I wouldn't underestimate the outcome if this is not resolved 'responsibly'.

[Albert Tatlock]

6 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Not the same as being subject to our criminal law. 

We don't know enough to really comment in my opinion. 

We're only brainstorming...not blamestorming.

[CowMan]

2 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

We're only brainstorming...not blamestorming.

Absolutely correct on my behalf. Like you I think the chances of a strike are very high if this isn’t batted into the long grass but equally if you were a person who had been jailed for previous breaches of public health rules you may well feel very aggrieved if this ends up as a slap on the wrist for all concerned. 

[Roger Mexico]

1 minute ago, CowMan said:

Well as I read it, and I’m not a lawyer, is that the SPC workers are subject to the same self isolation laws as us and if they break them they break them. But separately their employer has been directed that certain parts of the quarantine laws do not automatically apply to seafarers working for the SPC during their period of employment so if they break the rules they can rely on the protection of the directive issued to their employer. But if that protection is defective my assumption (and it is only an assumption) is that they broke IOM quarantine rules as they have not actually been fully exempted from them. I’d be interested to hear your view. 

I was referring particularly to the 'directive' that Ashford mentioned in his interview with Moulton earlier today that was supposed to have been issued in January and discussed by Ewart with the Steam Packet.  This seems to have involved some sort of tightening of the rules, but if the details aren't publicly known, responsibility for breaches will be difficult to determine.

Of course if they are know saying that seafarers are legally obliged to follow all the quarantine rules regardless, they don't need to go on strike.  They just come off the boat, go home and isolate there for the next 21 days. 

[quilp]

@CowMan Especially so when 25 out of 27 cases are being linked to the index case. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by quilp

[cheesypeas]

10 minutes ago, CowMan said:

Well as I read it, and I’m not a lawyer, is that the SPC workers are subject to the same self isolation laws as us and if they break them they break them. But separately their employer has been directed that certain parts of the quarantine laws do not automatically apply to seafarers working for the SPC during their period of employment so if they break the rules they can rely on the protection of the directive issued to their employer. But if that protection is defective my assumption (and it is only an assumption) is that they broke IOM quarantine rules as they have not actually been fully exempted from them. I’d be interested to hear your view. 

Certainly from UK Gov legislation, sea farers returning to the UK are not required to self isolate ( unless they’ve been in one of the 33 red list countries).

[Gladys]

5 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I was referring particularly to the 'directive' that Ashford mentioned in his interview with Moulton earlier today that was supposed to have been issued in January and discussed by Ewart with the Steam Packet.  This seems to have involved some sort of tightening of the rules, but if the details aren't publicly known, responsibility for breaches will be difficult to determine.

Of course if they are know saying that seafarers are legally obliged to follow all the quarantine rules regardless, they don't need to go on strike.  They just come off the boat, go home and isolate there for the next 21 days. 

So was it a valid directive, did it contradict or cancel the exemption certificate and who was actually subject to either? 

[TerryFuchwit]

5 minutes ago, CowMan said:

Absolutely correct on my behalf. Like you I think the chances of a strike are very high if this isn’t batted into the long grass but equally if you were a person who had been jailed for previous breaches of public health rules you may well feel very aggrieved if this ends up as a slap on the wrist for all concerned. 

Actually, I'm not sure you are correct there.

The people jailed, in the main, for covid offences were warned a number of times. Or just willfully ignored the rules. (I'm not a fan of prison for covid breaches anyway).

There have been plenty of people who have breached covid rules and simply been warned.  In fact, three coppers were.

No one in this circumstance, quite rightly, will be going  to prison.  The SPC and the Government will need to talk it through but there shouldn't be a witch hunt here.

[TerryFuchwit]

5 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

That's certainly what he wanted the public to believe. You could hear the venom in his voice as he spoke. Frankly, there's been so much gaslighting coming from the pair of them it's hard to know what's truth and what isn't anymore.

Which is, of course, just how the gaslighter likes it. Skew the reality of the public and they'll be so confused they'll take any old bull as gospel.

Gaslighting? You're serious right?