Jump to content

*CRT enforcement of 14-day rule post lockdown and Tier 3 areas*


noone

Featured Posts

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Probably ok in London, and may not be working criminal cases. It is true that a lot of solicitors specialising in criminal law are packing it in, such that the police are finding it hard to find them for people. Legal Aid has been cut to the bone, and hardly anyone is now eligible for it.

Anyway, always best to avoid them, and getting caught.

No, it's all criminal, all legal aid, that's all I know except he only bought the Skoda 'cos it's not a target, not that he would be particularly bothered, apparently some of his clients were not in a position to visit him. Seems they were living in government accommodation, keeps them off the streets, poor things.

 

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rgreg said:

The latest version from CRT with specific tier 3 reference (apologies if this has already been posted but if it has I haven't seen it).

From Wednesday 2 December

As of 2 December 2020 our navigations will be open for you to cruise – and stay on board overnight – subject to ongoing government guidance. The Government advises that people should specifically try to avoid leaving or entering very high alert level areas (tier 3), other than for things like work or education so we would strongly advise against travelling to or from your boat, or boating for any distance, in these areas.

Please check the Local COVID alert levels in England to see if your area, or the area you want to visit, is affected.

In Wales leisure boaters should follow Welsh government guidelines to stay local and limit the times they leave their homes.  

Translated as ...

Please keep moving....our T&C you signed up to says you should, and we have people who have paid good money to stay still for 4 months so dont want to pi€€ them off by letting you stay where you are any longer.

Edited by matty40s
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Rickent said:

 

....., oh and masks have been proven to do nothing apart from give the wearer a false sense of safety.

Ah, I can say otherwise.

In Morrisons Blackpool, that epicentre of middle,upper class intelligence, I was taking my Mum shopping last Saturday. 

Entered an aisle, cant remember which, but there was a 6'6" bloke at the other end with a trolley. He started to sneeze into his mask, and did so several times.

I turned Mum around and we went elsewhere.

His mask saved most of the people in the aisle from his germs, some carried on past him, others retreated.

If nothing else, masks create a barrier on your explosions. ....helping everyone else.

 

 

 

Ah yes, brandnewtube...527 views.

 

 

Edited by matty40s
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rickent said:

I have seen that before.   It is merely a number of sound bites taken out of context.  For example "general wearing" of face masks is mentioned.   Of course that is little use as at the time it was said it was summer and people were out doors a mask is useless outdoors.

 

It starts off by saying wearing a mask if you don't have an infection reduces the risk not at all.   Of course it doesn't a mask is there to prevent the spread from infected people so if you don't have the infection you aren't a risk.

 

I was hoping for a reference showing some scientific tests and results to prove the case.   After all there are masses of laser photos etc showing the reduction of the droplets by wearing one.

 

Of course if somebody thinks they are wearing the mask to stop them catching the disease then of course it isn't any help.   The mask is to reduce the infection from the inevitable asymptomatic spreaders.

 

All you have presented is a series of sound bites put together by somebody trying to suggests masks shouldn't be worn probably because they don't want to.

 

Could you post some scientific tests, photos etc to prove things rather than a mishmash of out of context sound bites.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Ah, I can say otherwise.

In Morrisons Blackpool, that epicentre of middle,upper class intelligence, I was taking my Mum shopping last Saturday. 

Entered an aisle, cant remember which, but there was a 6'6" bloke at the other end with a trolley. He started to sneeze into his mask, and did so several times.

I turned Mum around and we went elsewhere.

His mask saved most of the people in the aisle from his germs, some carried on past him, others retreated.

If nothing else, masks create a barrier on your explosions. ....helping everyone else.

 

It would have saved people from the large droplets but most if not all of the germs, especially virus particles would have passed straight through the mask, but you felt safer due to the fact he was wearing a mask so my point stands.

Virus particles are minute compared to the holes in the fabric of masks, common sense tells you that they cannot offer any real protection.

  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Rickent said:

I am pro vaccine, I have had all my vaccines as have all my children,  but there is no way I will be taking a vaccine that has been rushed through in seven months, the side effects cannot be known as they can take years to manifest, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are MRNA vaccines and as of now , no vaccine of this type has ever been licensed for use on humans, so if that makes me an anti vaxxer in your eyes then so be it, oh and masks have been proven to do nothing apart from give the wearer a false sense of safety.

Your choice.

You will of course receive the benefit of those that chose to get vaccinated. 

 

So maybe you are not an anti vaxer but more a freeloader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jerra said:

 

 

 

 

I was hoping for a reference showing some scientific tests and results to prove the case.   After all there are masses of laser photos etc showing the reduction of the droplets by wearing one.

 

Of course if somebody thinks they are wearing the mask to stop them catching the disease then of course it isn't any help.   The mask is to reduce the infection from the inevitable asymptomatic spreaders.

 

 

I agree that some of the larger droplets are caught by the mask but the vast majority are not,  virus laden droplets pass through the very large holes in the mask fabric.

2 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Your choice.

You will of course receive the benefit of those that chose to get vaccinated. 

 

So maybe you are not an anti vaxer but more a freeloader.

I'd say more of a non risk taker, I am quite happy for you to go first and for you to let me know how you get on.

  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rickent said:

 

I'd say more of a non risk taker, I am quite happy for you to go first and for you to let me know how you get on.

Exactly.

 

You are freeloading, letting others take any risk that might be there.

 

It's frankly unbelievable that somebody would admit that in public.

 

Oh and Jerra had your pants down on the issue of masks.

Edited by The Happy Nomad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rickent said:

It would have saved people from the large droplets but most if not all of the germs, especially virus particles would have passed straight through the mask, but you felt safer due to the fact he was wearing a mask so my point stands.

Virus particles are minute compared to the holes in the fabric of masks, common sense tells you that they cannot offer any real protection.

Sorry, but we were 20 feet away, and had time to move away. The masks stop projectile everything, a virus cant carry on moving at 200mph through cotton thread, it gets impeded, and slowed. It's simple science, not politics which is helping the quick drop of new cases across the country.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rickent said:

I agree that some of the larger droplets are caught by the mask but the vast majority are not,  virus laden droplets pass through the very large holes in the mask fabric.

I'd say more of a non risk taker, I am quite happy for you to go first and for you to let me know how you get on.

A lot depends on how old you are. The older you get, the more likely you are to die of the virus. Also, if there are side effects five years down the line, odds are you'll be dead by then so that won't matter either. So us old farts will happily be the guinea pigs for you young sprogs, although NHS staff will get it first as they are even more likely to die of what some people keep thinking is a harmless  bug.

Of course, we already know that if younger folk get it, it can wreck their lungs, probably for ever, and has all sorts of other long term effects, but I'm afraid that's their problem, and my sympathy will be severely limited if they don't take vaccines when offered, as the more unvacced people there are  the more chance they have of catching it.

I also have great doubts about the efficacy of masks. But even if it lowers the chance of my infecting someone by 1%, that's fair enough, isn't it? There may be little convincing evidence to show they work, but there is none at all to prove they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Sorry, but we were 20 feet away, and had time to move away. The masks stop projectile everything, a virus cant carry on moving at 200mph through cotton thread, it gets impeded, and slowed. It's simple science, not politics which is helping the quick drop of new cases across the country.

sorry mate, but simple science will tell you that the size of the virus compared to the size of the holes in the fabric means it's barely impeded or slowed , when we sneeze much of what is expelled is like aerosol,  I agree that some of the snot will be caught but most will pass through.

  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

A lot depends on how old you are. The older you get, the more likely you are to die of the virus. Also, if there are side effects five years down the line, odds are you'll be dead by then so that won't matter either. So us old farts will happily be the guinea pigs for you young sprogs, although NHS staff will get it first as they are even more likely to die of what some people keep thinking is a harmless  bug.

Of course, we already know that if younger folk get it, it can wreck their lungs, probably for ever, and has all sorts of other long term effects, but I'm afraid that's their problem, and my sympathy will be severely limited if they don't take vaccines when offered, as the more unvacced people there are  the more chance they have of catching it.

I also have great doubts about the efficacy of masks. But even if it lowers the chance of my infecting someone by 1%, that's fair enough, isn't it? There may be little convincing evidence to show they work, but there is none at all to prove they don't.

you make a good point about masks but people are convinced that they make a massive difference when they really don't.

I am not going to get into a massive debate over it as everyone is entitled to their own opinion and unlike some people on here I respect their right to have that opinion.

 

  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Exactly.

 

You are freeloading, letting others take any risk that might be there.

 

It's frankly unbelievable that somebody would admit that in public.

 

Oh and Jerra had your pants down on the issue of masks.

If letting you take an experimental vaccine first because the risks are unknown makes me a freeloader then so be it, don't have a problem with you thinking that, if you are prepared to take the risk first then you sir are a top man.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rickent said:

If letting you take an experimental vaccine first because the risks are unknown makes me a freeloader then so be it, don't have a problem with you thinking that, if you are prepared to take the risk first then you sir are a top man.

It's not experimental.

 

So what is your solution for ending the pandemic? we can't continue this for years to come.

 

Oh hang on, you won't have one......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerra really didn't have anyones pants down, he offered a response to my post that's all, as I said earlier everybody is entitled to an opinion and I respect that even if it differs from my own , I don't have to resort to petty digs like " Jerra had your pants down "

 

1 minute ago, The Happy Nomad said:

It's not experimental.

 

So what is your solution for ending the pandemic? we can't continue this for years to come.

 

Oh hang on, you won't have one......

I'll let the government work that one out , oh hang on........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rickent said:

Jerra really didn't have anyones pants down, he offered a response to my post that's all, as I said earlier everybody is entitled to an opinion and I respect that even if it differs from my own , I don't have to resort to petty digs like " Jerra had your pants down "

 

Good for you fella.

 

However he did have your pants down no matter how you paint it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, matty40s said:

Translated as ...

Please keep moving....our T&C you signed up to says you should, and we have people who have paid good money to stay still for 4 months so dont want to pi€€ them off by letting you stay where you are any longer.

Well, that's certainly a cynical translation! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

It's not experimental.

 

So what is your solution for ending the pandemic? we can't continue this for years to come.

 

Oh hang on, you won't have one......

Show me another MRNA vaccine approved for human use and I will concede on this point. 

Until you do, it remains experimental. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Rickent said:

sorry mate, but simple science will tell you that the size of the virus compared to the size of the holes in the fabric means it's barely impeded or slowed , when we sneeze much of what is expelled is like aerosol,  I agree that some of the snot will be caught but most will pass through.

The simple science says we moved away to a different aisle. ...and were safe, projectile snottage of anything will have been slowed or caught, we went the other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rickent said:

Show me another MRNA vaccine approved for human use and I will concede on this point. 

Until you do, it remains experimental. 

It's been trialled.

 

It's not experimental.

 

It's approval is imminent.

 

So are you now backtracking and saying you will have it when it's approved?

 

Your argument is all over the place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.