The simple answer to this is that the unprofessional behaviour within a workplace was seen as the norm long before Covid. Since they were in the workplace of the bloke who decides the laws, they felt they could get away with doing whatever they want and completely ignoring the rules in place at the time which they begged everyone else to abide by. They were found out, caught up in a shedload of lies which has also now caught up with them.
There are defences to the offence, but I think Adam Wagner is pointing out that he's finding it difficult to consider any reasonable excuse for him attending an illegal gathering. I don't think you could use the "I accidentally popped in there then realised" excuse when you're pictured chatting away and raising a glass in front of a load of booze bottles. When you're constantly on TV saying stay at home, don't go popping round to neighbours and only go to work if absolutely necessary, I don't think you can use an excuse that it took you a substantial amount of time (and glasses of booze) to realise what you're doing is a bit dodgy.
Not disagreeing with any of that, it remains different to if someone is somewhere they are unequivocally guilty which was what the initial point was. There is simply no basis for that in law.
As you say, if. Seems a bit silly to have such a strong opinion on that when we currently don't know. There are also lots of reasons I can think of that even with the picture a prosecution wouldn't follow, the most obvious being 'what does it actually show'? Is it timed and dated, did the person taking it present it as evidence and confirm the circumstances? Without those things it potentially holds little value. Prosecution / conviction requires the evidence to be tested to prove something beyond reasonable doubt, that is a very high threshold.
Ultimately, I wouldn't normally be bothered about who's fined and who's not, because for any other government this would've been a resigning matter and be done and dusted by now. However, the reason I am finding myself so bothered is because the government seem to be using the lack of a fine as a way to say everything was hunky dory and within the rules. Instead, I'm concerned we've sat back and let the standards for holding public office be degraded so much in recent years, and I'm actually pretty concerned that now precedents have been set we risk things getting worse.
I capitalised it myself at is MET is an abbreviation for Metropolitan. I've used both but as people are capitalising it, I thought it was the right way to do so.
Ah; my apologies!
There's no need to apologise Matt, I may even be wrong myself.
And today's winner of 'Thoughts that may turn Balsdon straight' is...
Yes, I'm quite well acquaintanced with investigative practices, evidence gathering and the burden of proof
, and there are indeed plenty of ways to skin a cat. But you can't compell someone to incriminate themselves; if the picture isn't evidenced and the few people in it decline to comment as is their right, you have to find another way to authenticate its relevance to proving an offence. Not always easy.
Yes, I'm quite well acquaintanced with investigative practices, evidence gathering and the burden of proof
I'm not saying that is what happened, I have no idea, but it's massively less simple than 'here's a picture, everyone in it must be able to be prosecuted and if they aren't it must be incompetence', that's just not a completely sensible opinion to jump to with any certainty.
