Interpreting the Law

[Guest]

Total chaos is developing up here in the North East with MP's writing to councils urging them not to go too far with restrictions, local councillors kicking back saying its not up to them and basically telling them to butt out.

 

Residents and councillors of rural areas with very low rates but caught up in tighter restrictions due to much higher numbers in urban areas calling for lessening of the restrictions in their individual locality.

 

Just a couple of days after two local councils kicked back against tighter restriction they are now calling on govt. to increase them.

 

Its a complete mess.

 

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[Arthur Marshall]

It's partly a mess because it's almost impossible to know what today's rules are, as our great leader has recently proved. If they change at midnight, how are you supposed to find out? No-one listens to local radio, what's left of it, there's no real local papers left, tv local news is rubbish, so everyone gets their info from Facebook, gods help us..

I visited a friend on the Wirral yesterday, which is under local rules, and neither if us could make head or tail of them. Over the road, in Cheshire, it's national rules. 12 pages of mixed advice, law changes and suggestions published at midnight and then threatening thousand pound fines? It's just chaos.

The only sensible behaviour is to keep out of the way of as many people as you can, wear a mask when required if only out of politeness and regard for other people's feelings, and grab the first vaccine that comes along.

[ditchcrawler]

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It's partly a mess because it's almost impossible to know what today's rules are, as our great leader has recently proved. If they change at midnight, how are you supposed to find out? No-one listens to local radio, what's left of it, there's no real local papers left, tv local news is rubbish, so everyone gets their info from Facebook, gods help us..

I visited a friend on the Wirral yesterday, which is under local rules, and neither if us could make head or tail of them. Over the road, in Cheshire, it's national rules. 12 pages of mixed advice, law changes and suggestions published at midnight and then threatening thousand pound fines? It's just chaos.

The only sensible behaviour is to keep out of the way of as many people as you can, wear a mask when required if only out of politeness and regard for other people's feelings, and grab the first vaccine that comes along.

But you have seen what happens when they give 48 hrs notice of more restriction, some people do as much as possible before shutdowm. You saw it on the first shutdown months ago when he said pubs were closing , some went on massive binge nights before

[Sir Nibble]

3 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It's partly a mess because it's almost impossible to know what today's rules are, as our great leader has recently proved. If they change at midnight, how are you supposed to find out? No-one listens to local radio, what's left of it, there's no real local papers left, tv local news is rubbish, so everyone gets their info from Facebook, gods help us..

I visited a friend on the Wirral yesterday, which is under local rules, and neither if us could make head or tail of them. Over the road, in Cheshire, it's national rules. 12 pages of mixed advice, law changes and suggestions published at midnight and then threatening thousand pound fines? It's just chaos.

The only sensible behaviour is to keep out of the way of as many people as you can, wear a mask when required if only out of politeness and regard for other people's feelings, and grab the first vaccine that comes along.

I agree, it's a complete clusterfu©k but I think that your last sentence is right on the button and won't attract any complaints.

[Richard10002]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It's partly a mess because it's almost impossible to know what today's rules are, as our great leader has recently proved.

In fairness to Boris, (and I hate the bloke!), I wouldn't expect him to know the rules for every different place in the UK. It would be like a memory test for Marvo The Memory Man.

 

However, I would expect him to explain/admit this, and not waffle around pretending that he knows it all.

 

Might he be criticised for the admission? Probably, but he has an 80 seat majority, so he wouldnt lose his job over it, and he would have been seen to be human and honest. 

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The only sensible behaviour is to keep out of the way of as many people as you can, wear a mask when required if only out of politeness and regard for other people's feelings, and grab the first vaccine that comes along.

 

The above is my strategy, and so far, so good - I don't actually need to know any rules. However, we live in Manchester and are going to a funeral in Macclesfield on Friday. I understand that no more than 30 people can attend, so we might arrive and not get in. What I am not sure about is, if there is a wake in a local pub, can 30 people attend as a group, or what? We don't actually know if there is a wake, but if there is?

On 29/09/2020 at 18:23, restlessnomad said:

 

 A week or so ago Matt Hancock said there is no confusion, its absolutely clear (  ), only get tested if you have symptom or specifically have been asked to do so by authority. (applies even to essential workers), if you go online to book a test, you can see the options. (one of them is essential worker with symptom)

 

That wasn't clarification, it was a complete U Turn couched as such. He needed to stop people booking tests because the actual capacity is much less than the stated capacity - this was proved on Question Time the other week, when Fiona Bruce made Nadhim Sawahi look like a right dick, (lying devious bastard may be more appropriate).

[Richard10002]

Deleted - posted twice

 

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by Richard10002

[Jerra]

53 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

In fairness to Boris, (and I hate the bloke!), I wouldn't expect him to know the rules for every different place in the UK. It would be like a memory test for Marvo The Memory Man.

Does anyone know why it is seen as necessary/desirable to have different rules for different local lockdowns?

 

Surely is set of restrictions A works why is it necessary to reinvent the wheel and come up with instructions B, C, D etc for different areas.

[alias]

1 hour ago, Richard10002 said:

However, I would expect him to explain/admit this, and not waffle around pretending that he knows it all.

This.

 

The government response seems to have been focused on maintaining reputation rather than managing a public health crisis.  For example, in the early stages you could see in his eyes the moment in interviews where Matt H didn't have an answer so felt that he had to make something up. Followed by furious back pedaling the next day by others on his behalf.

 

It's new and different. There are no obvious answers. Everybody makes forgivable mistakes, if we are generous in hindsight, as we should be in these circumstances. What seems unforgivable though is doubling down on those mistaken choices in a drive to protect reputation rather than having the humility to admit fallibility, and change direction.

 

Sorry, bit of a rant.

Edited September 30, 2020 by alias

[Richard10002]

12 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Does anyone know why it is seen as necessary/desirable to have different rules for different local lockdowns?

 

Surely is set of restrictions A works why is it necessary to reinvent the wheel and come up with instructions B, C, D etc for different areas.

Thinking about it, are there a whole variety of different restrictions or are people with an agenda making it seem like there are, in order to obfuscate things.

[Jerra]

Just now, Richard10002 said:

Thinking about it, are there a whole variety of different restrictions or are people with an agenda making it seem like there are, in order to obfuscate things.

Good point.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Does anyone know why it is seen as necessary/desirable to have different rules for different local lockdowns?

 

Surely is set of restrictions A works why is it necessary to reinvent the wheel and come up with instructions B, C, D etc for different areas.

The reason given today as I understand was something to do with differing ways people socialise in different parts of the country and UK.

 

That sounded like bollox to me.

 

The other reason was around infection rates, which sounded a bit more plausible.

 

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, The Happy Nomad said:

The reason given today as I understand was something to do with differing ways people socialise in different parts of the country and UK.

 

That sounded like bollox to me.

 

The other reason was around infection rates, which sounded a bit more plausible.

 

I would agree it sounds like gonads.  Had they said different parts of the world it might have had some credence.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

Thinking about it, are there a whole variety of different restrictions or are people with an agenda making it seem like there are, in order to obfuscate things.

A comment made in todays briefing claimed that the 'core' of the restrictions are the same.

 

Im struggling to see that when parts of the UK are subject to travel restrictions and parts are not. Parts of the uk can have six people from different households in their home and other parts cant even have even two people from two households in a garden.

 

Etc etc..

Edited September 30, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

A comment made in todays briefing claimed that the 'core' of the restrictions are the same.

Having just looked up Newcastle and Rochdale this does seem to be correct.    What I can't understand is why there isn't just two sets of instructions:

 

Those for areas with rapidly rising infections.

 

The rest of us.

 

Is that too sensible/logical for a political party (any political party)?

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

In fairness to Boris, (and I hate the bloke!), I wouldn't expect him to know the rules for every different place in the UK. It would be like a memory test for Marvo The Memory Man.

 

However, I would expect him to explain/admit this, and not waffle around pretending that he knows it all.

 

Might he be criticised for the admission? Probably, but he has an 80 seat majority, so he wouldnt lose his job over it, and he would have been seen to be human and honest. 

 

The above is my strategy, and so far, so good - I don't actually need to know any rules. However, we live in Manchester and are going to a funeral in Macclesfield on Friday. I understand that no more than 30 people can attend, so we might arrive and not get in. What I am not sure about is, if there is a wake in a local pub, can 30 people attend as a group, or what? We don't actually know if there is a wake, but if there is?

That wasn't clarification, it was a complete U Turn couched as such. He needed to stop people booking tests because the actual capacity is much less than the stated capacity - this was proved on Question Time the other week, when Fiona Bruce made Nadhim Sawahi look like a right dick, (lying devious bastard may be more appropriate).

Re the funeral, I think the six rule applies, so you can go to a pub in groups of six but mustn't mingle. If you turn up as a group of 30 the landlord can now, i think, be fined (or even closed down) for letting you in or even socialising outside his premises. So five groups of six are fine, one of thirty is probably illegal. And I think that's now law, not advice, with a grand fine if you get it wrong. Though that might only be in the NE, i haven't bothered to check where the fines are, but as the cops don't seem to know either...

I'm also trying to think of a pub in Macc big enough to house 30 people social distancing. You best look it up in the morning, because who knows what the law will be by Friday?

ETA the figure of 30 attenders seems to be just advice, not law, or it was on 4September and I can't see any update.

Edited September 30, 2020 by Arthur Marshall
Correction.

[ditchcrawler]

How about this pub https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/landlord-speaks-out-after-biker-4559127

[restlessnomad]

9 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

In fairness to Boris, (and I hate the bloke!), I wouldn't expect him to know the rules for every different place in the UK. It would be like a memory test for Marvo The Memory Man.

 

However, I would expect him to explain/admit this, and not waffle around pretending that he knows it all.

 

Might he be criticised for the admission? Probably, but he has an 80 seat majority, so he wouldnt lose his job over it, and he would have been seen to be human and honest. 

 

The above is my strategy, and so far, so good - I don't actually need to know any rules. However, we live in Manchester and are going to a funeral in Macclesfield on Friday. I understand that no more than 30 people can attend, so we might arrive and not get in. What I am not sure about is, if there is a wake in a local pub, can 30 people attend as a group, or what? We don't actually know if there is a wake, but if there is?

That wasn't clarification, it was a complete U Turn couched as such. He needed to stop people booking tests because the actual capacity is much less than the stated capacity - this was proved on Question Time the other week, when Fiona Bruce made Nadhim Sawahi look like a right dick, (lying devious bastard may be more appropriate).

there was no big supply and demand gap for a month or two, no newspaper reported people queuing or travelling hundreds of miles... this is a recent phenomena, probably made worse by onset of flu season.

I cant see any govt advice to get tested even if you dont have symptom( but they tolerated it, due to capacity)

Also I would agree with Alok Sharma, journalists trying to make interview as quiz show lose credibility, I wont be able to remember every law I made, Boris should not have answered it. He has been answering such questions for long, made one mistake and apologised on twitter.

I know it sounds good (if you cant even remember a rule how do you expect public to follow .. ) but it is utter bs logically speaking. 

Edited October 1, 2020 by restlessnomad

[john6767]

9 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

A comment made in todays briefing claimed that the 'core' of the restrictions are the same.

 

Im struggling to see that when parts of the UK are subject to travel restrictions and parts are not. Parts of the uk can have six people from different households in their home and other parts cant even have even two people from two households in a garden.

 

Etc etc..

I would say the “core”is the same everywhere in the UK, to reduce contact between households.  What makes it very confusing is that there are now many different variations on the core principle around the UK.  I would say that some of those differences reflect the demographics of the local population, and some are just politically motivated, both at an individual nation level and local authority level.

[Athy]

12 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 

The only sensible behaviour is to keep out of the way of as many people as you can, wear a mask when required if only out of politeness and regard for other people's feelings

Absolutely right - in other words, what sensible people have been doing for months.

Unfortunately, as an M.P. (I think it was Quintin Hogg) noted long ago, there are two types of people, the sensibles and the sillies.

[1st ade]

10 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Im struggling to see that when parts of the UK are subject to travel restrictions and parts are not.

Don't forget that for health purposes we are not "the UK". We have "Public Health England", NHS Scotland, NHS NI and NHS Wales. The lockdown rules are different in each bit of the UK which doesn't help. It certainly doesn't hep those near the border (A work colleague living near the M4 bridge has just had her holiday cancelled - the [welsh] caravan park is still taking visitors from Wales but has been told by the Welsh Assembly that visitors from England must be refused)

[GUMPY]

13 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The only sensible behaviour is to keep out of the way of as many people as you can, wear a mask when required if only out of politeness and regard for other people's feelings, and grab the first vaccine that comes along.

Seems the way forward to me, plus its what we have been effectively  doing since March.

[bizzard]

Copper knocks on the door.  I hear your having a bit of a party and there may be more than six people here, can I come in to check,--- No you can't!!! because that would make seven.

[ditchcrawler]

56 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Seems the way forward to me, plus its what we have been effectively  doing since March.

Same here, keep your head down