ckn Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 "When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleep1673 Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 I was in Lidl doing shopping earlier, and there was a young woman in the freezer aisle looking distraught, I asked her if she was ok, and she almost cried at me, "There's no frozen carrots", i looked at her, and said there are plenty of fresh carrots over there, buy them, chop them, and freeze them. I absolutely saw a light bulb pop over her head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSoutherner Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bleep1673 said: I was in Lidl doing shopping earlier, and there was a young woman in the freezer aisle looking distraught, I asked her if she was ok, and she almost cried at me, "There's no frozen carrots", i looked at her, and said there are plenty of fresh carrots over there, buy them, chop them, and freeze them. I absolutely saw a light bulb pop over her head. same people who always shop to a list and can't cope with looking at what is cheap and deriving meals from that Supermarkets love them, they just keep on buying and buying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 All NHS workers whose visas were going to expire before 1 October will have a year automatically added. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSoutherner Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 12 minutes ago, gingerjon said: All NHS workers whose visas were going to expire before 1 October will have a year automatically added. what about other workers who are "no recourse to public funds" have been furloughed or had contracts terminated, theoretically have 60 days to leave the country but no way home (and running down savings) ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 1 minute ago, SSoutherner said: what about other workers who are "no recourse to public funds" have been furloughed or had contracts terminated, theoretically have 60 days to leave the country but no way home (and running down savings) ? They will need to locate a government that cares. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Tonks Sidestep Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 From the BBC People in England are allowed to go for as many walks a day as they want, according to a human rights barrister who says the law does not match the government advice. Adam Wagner of Doughty Street Chambers told BBC News that the law referred to having a "reasonable excuse" to leave your house - rather than the four reasons Boris Johnson gave in last week's briefing. "The four reasons is the guidance people are following. In fact that’s the guidance a lot of police are following," he said. "But the government guidance doesn’t include a number of very important points - for example if you’re at fear of harm that’s a reasonable excuse [to leave your house]. "I’m not sure the police or government have been very clear with what people can do or what will land them with a fine of up to £960 for repeated offences or even a criminal conviction. "There are no legal restrictions on going out for more than one walk [or piece of exercise] a day in England." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 7 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said: From the BBC People in England are allowed to go for as many walks a day as they want, according to a human rights barrister who says the law does not match the government advice. Adam Wagner of Doughty Street Chambers told BBC News that the law referred to having a "reasonable excuse" to leave your house - rather than the four reasons Boris Johnson gave in last week's briefing. "The four reasons is the guidance people are following. In fact that’s the guidance a lot of police are following," he said. "But the government guidance doesn’t include a number of very important points - for example if you’re at fear of harm that’s a reasonable excuse [to leave your house]. "I’m not sure the police or government have been very clear with what people can do or what will land them with a fine of up to £960 for repeated offences or even a criminal conviction. "There are no legal restrictions on going out for more than one walk [or piece of exercise] a day in England." Which is why these things are rather horrible. A reasonable excuse is very broad. Having a child with severe mental illness would be a good excuse, but it would not stop the neighbours condeming and would require education services acting to prevent possile police action. On the other hand, another person's reasonable excuse would be needing to get their car tyres changed. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M j M Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 Two metre to you: https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/paul-chuckle-coronavirus-twitter-video-a4402331.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 44 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said: From the BBC People in England are allowed to go for as many walks a day as they want, according to a human rights barrister who says the law does not match the government advice. Adam Wagner of Doughty Street Chambers told BBC News that the law referred to having a "reasonable excuse" to leave your house - rather than the four reasons Boris Johnson gave in last week's briefing. "The four reasons is the guidance people are following. In fact that’s the guidance a lot of police are following," he said. "But the government guidance doesn’t include a number of very important points - for example if you’re at fear of harm that’s a reasonable excuse [to leave your house]. "I’m not sure the police or government have been very clear with what people can do or what will land them with a fine of up to £960 for repeated offences or even a criminal conviction. "There are no legal restrictions on going out for more than one walk [or piece of exercise] a day in England." Oh, that's just what we want. A human rights lawyer popping up and undermining what the government is trying to achieve. I'm quite sure that everyone does actually know they are entitled to go for as many walks as they like. The government have consistently spoken of advice and instructions, never legal obligation. However, if the human rights lawyers make enough noise and people think well f*** it then I'm going for ten walks today, especially if they all go at once and particularly if the death rate keeps rising, then I'm sure a statutory instrument or two could be thrown around by the government to make sure that one walk a day becomes the law. If that does happen then I hope someone points to the above human rights lawyer and the BBC which gave him airtime and blame them for their freedoms being legally denied rather than politely requested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M j M Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 Just now, Saintslass said: Oh, that's just what we want. A human rights lawyer popping up and undermining what the government is trying to achieve. "Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSoutherner Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 13 minutes ago, Saintslass said: Oh, that's just what we want. A human rights lawyer popping up and undermining what the government is trying to achieve. I'm quite sure that everyone does actually know they are entitled to go for as many walks as they like. The government have consistently spoken of advice and instructions, never legal obligation. However, if the human rights lawyers make enough noise and people think well f*** it then I'm going for ten walks today, especially if they all go at once and particularly if the death rate keeps rising, then I'm sure a statutory instrument or two could be thrown around by the government to make sure that one walk a day becomes the law. If that does happen then I hope someone points to the above human rights lawyer and the BBC which gave him airtime and blame them for their freedoms being legally denied rather than politely requested. Alternately, you could say "dam, that is what happens when you hurry legislation and it is not scrutinised completely, let's look at this and amend the statutory instruments to close the loophole" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 Just now, SSoutherner said: Alternately, you could say "dam, that is what happens when you hurry legislation and it is not scrutinised completely, let's look at this and amend the statutory instruments to close the loophole" Oh don't be silly. The government is a democratic government, not a dictatorship. It is relying upon the good will of the people to join with it through this crisis. That is how any reasonable democratic government would move forward and you would be one of the first to complain if it had chosen to do otherwise. Big gob human rights lawyers if they start kicking off will just undermine what has so far been a great response by the public to the government's very measured actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 18 minutes ago, Saintslass said: Oh, that's just what we want. A human rights lawyer popping up and undermining what the government is trying to achieve. I'm quite sure that everyone does actually know they are entitled to go for as many walks as they like. The government have consistently spoken of advice and instructions, never legal obligation. However, if the human rights lawyers make enough noise and people think well f*** it then I'm going for ten walks today, especially if they all go at once and particularly if the death rate keeps rising, then I'm sure a statutory instrument or two could be thrown around by the government to make sure that one walk a day becomes the law. If that does happen then I hope someone points to the above human rights lawyer and the BBC which gave him airtime and blame them for their freedoms being legally denied rather than politely requested. I sympathise. The is issue is that the Government have to give simple advice, ideally in one sentance, but by necessity in a few. And words such as "essential", "reasonable" or "sensible" will mean confusion. That means exceptions have to be worked out as they go along. At the moment, the virus is disproportionately affecting wealthy people. When it starts hitting poorer groups, we will see a lot more blaming start. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSoutherner Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Bob8 said: I sympathise. The is issue is that the Government have to give simple advice, ideally in one sentence, but by necessity in a few. And words such as "essential", "reasonable" or "sensible" will mean confusion. That means exceptions have to be worked out as they go along. The usual way is you write the law then the statutory instruments do the definitions, easier to amend those Anyway enough of this on the non political thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 Just now, Bob8 said: I sympathise. The is issue is that the Government have to give simple advice, ideally in one sentance, but by necessity in a few. And words such as "essential", "reasonable" or "sensible" will mean confusion. That means exceptions have to be worked out as they go along. And that's fine. I really don't see the problem with that. They began at the point where they assumed the general public contained responsible, sensible, thoughtful people. Then they discovered that while the majority where such people, there was a sizeable minority that were not, and that minority continue to try and find ways around the instructions. So then the government has to respond accordingly. Thrown human rights lawyers into the mix and the government will have to go all dictatorship, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 1 minute ago, SSoutherner said: The usual way is you write the law then the statutory instruments do the definitions, easier to amend those Anyway enough of this on the non political thread Yes, that is indeed the usual way, when you have months and months to form the legislation and then have debates at each stage through Parliament. But as you and everyone else knows, that wasn't the case on this occasion. China only admitted person to person contact for this virus in December. We began active planning in January. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 393 more deaths. That is a big jump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Damien said: 393 more deaths. That is a big jump. Yep. This is what was anticipated according to what has been said at the press conferences. We have thousands in hospital. Germany's deaths have leapt up too and there has been much discussion of late about why their death rates were so low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 4 minutes ago, Damien said: 393 more deaths. That is a big jump. Hell's teeth. I may be looking in the wrong place but are the deaths broken down by age, gender (etc) anywhere? Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Tonks Sidestep Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 Been putting some data together this afternoon that I thought I'd share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 Just now, Saintslass said: Yep. This is what was anticipated according to what has been said at the press conferences. We have thousands in hospital. Germany's deaths have leapt up too and there has been much discussion of late about why their death rates were so low. Someone on tv this morning saying the reason is we are /were only testing vulnerable groups for the virus. Whereas the Germans are testing as many people as possible including the majority young and fit people returning from skiing trips. Makes sense that this is what has skewed their death rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidM Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 They say 393 ‘ in the last 24 hours ‘ . But there’s a lag of days right ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Tonks Sidestep Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 14 minutes ago, gingerjon said: Hell's teeth. I may be looking in the wrong place but are the deaths broken down by age, gender (etc) anywhere? ONS just starting to do that. If you look at the BBC 'Live' page and scroll back to 11.56 (P2 at moment) there's a graphic for the week just gone https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales Hospital admission numbers would be nice to see - should be an early indication of the tide having turned. I was hoping they might have showed them (or at least the trend) at yesterday's briefing when it was discussed but I can see reasons for not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Tonks Sidestep Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 21 minutes ago, DavidM said: They say 393 ‘ in the last 24 hours ‘ . But there’s a lag of days right ? Think figures are for the 24hrs to 5pm the previous day (so to Monday 30th for the 393) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.