From stewartb:
Dear BBC – Does Being ‘ASKED” mean the same as being ‘TOLD”?
‘Every Briton over the age of 70 will be TOLD “within the coming weeks” to stay at home for an extended period to shield them from coronavirus.’
But in the same online article it states:
‘When it happens, they will be ASKED to stay home for “a very long time”, Health Secretary Matt Hancock said.’
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51895873
Then the BBC1 6pm News on Sunday informs us that the over 70s would (just) be ‘ADVISED’ and ‘ASKED TO CONSIDER’.
The confusion is if anything worse in the print media. Whilst by no means unique, the following examples taken from the Mirror online over the past two days reveal the extent of poor, imprecise and confusing reporting – or are too often journalists just parroting, without much challenge, confusing reports from Westminster sources?
‘TOLD’, ‘ENFORCED’, ‘INSTRUCTED’
Source: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-coronavirus-over-70s-told-21694397
From the above source (dated 14 March) we are told:
Headline: ‘Over 70s TO BE TOLD to self-isolate for months even if not ill’ (my emphasis)
And then this: ’The government measure for people over the age of 70 is likely TO BE ENFORCED within the next 20 days as the UK continues to try and save lives in its battle against coronavirus Covid-19.’
And: ’People in Britain aged over 70 WILL BE INSTRUCTED soon by the government to stay in strict isolation for four months as part of a planned response to coronavirus, broadcaster ITV’s political editor said.’
‘TOLD’ – OR JUST ‘ASKED”?
Source: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-coronavirus-health-secretary-confirms-21695490
On the 15 March, the same newspaper publishes this:
‘Health Secretary confirms over-70s WILL BE TOLD to self isolate for months’
But then later in the body of the article it states:
‘Health Secretary Matt Hancock has confirmed all people over 70 WILL BE ASKED to self-isolate for months to protect themselves from coronavirus.’
SO WHICH IS IT?
So what is the Westminster government’s actual intention regarding the over-70s – to ‘tell’, to ‘instruct’ and ‘enforce’ – or to ‘ask’, to’ advise’? The BBC and the Mirror seem oblivious to the significant distinction between these verbs!
AND FOR COMMON SENSE
This source reports that Scotland’s Health Secretary Jeane Freeman has criticised the way the UK government is getting information on the Covid-19 crisis to the public.
‘She said governments should be explaining new developments very clearly. She told the BBC’s Politics Scotland unattributed sources leaking information to newspapers is not the way to ensure the public understands what the official advice is.’
That has to make SENSE.
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
I thought health was a devolved matter. Surely its just England they mean.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent point.
The blurring of lines isn’t new, but with, “one nation conservatism” being an oft repeated phrase, along with “SNP failures”, Scots should be concerned about the underlying agenda.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is what happens when a gov, in this case the UK Gov, leak half-baked policies to favoured journalists, in this case Peston. Other journalist take up the story and to make it look like their own story change the words and the sense of the story. Note, I am using the words ‘journalist’s and ‘sense’ in the loosest way imaginable.
Once people read/hear the story they immediately see the flaws/impracticalities/problems in the policy that has been announced via the leak. The media start to re-report the story and the gov starts to backtrack, issue clarifications and generally demonstrate that they had not given the policy any thought in the first place but just wanted to sound tough. The whole thing ends up a total mess.
I shall self isolate but I shall still go for my daily walk, weather permitting, and occasionally if necessary go to the supermarket/butcher/greengrocers but at ALL times keep a social distance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Surely under the CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND LICENSING ACT SECTION 38(1) 2010 the BBC reporting of this leaves them open to a charge of “ conduct likely to cause a reasonable person fear or alarm”. On indictment this can lead to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.
LikeLike