Emergency legislation - information and commentary
Discussion
The point is that there's lots of mumbling about threats and risks, but if you look at the actions (the important bit), we are still opening up.
Perhaps the government is continuing the fear angle to help maintain some compliance whilst the opening up continues?
I have no trust in the current government to be honest or competent, but if you look at what they do rather than what they say, you can see it is opening up as promised.
The stickler will possibly be the return to local lockdowns.
Perhaps the government is continuing the fear angle to help maintain some compliance whilst the opening up continues?
I have no trust in the current government to be honest or competent, but if you look at what they do rather than what they say, you can see it is opening up as promised.
The stickler will possibly be the return to local lockdowns.
unident said:
The conspiracy lunacy on here just keeps on giving.
The problem is you put all the people you don't agree with into the same conspiratorial bag. You then create situations where you demand evidence, but have a secret list of rules that apply to it, meaning you can disregard unless it passes your arbitrary tests of reliability.I have to remember it's really just a load of randoms on the internet and of little practical importance in real life, my only hope is you don't spend your real life making everything so difficult.
unident said:
A lot of you defend each other to the hilt no matter how bizarre the claims.
You're lumping everybody who disagrees with you into the same pot again. Why should anyone engage with you when you broad-brush people, accept only evidence reaching your arbitrary and unknown standard and approach every facet of conversation as if it's 'you versus them'?On the subject, you don't have to be a conspiracy nut to see across all the mainstream press that editorial tone and content is being carefully managed. We've just 'unlocked' a little more and the government are seriously concerned that we're all going to go nuts and ignore the remaining measures. The Indian variant is worrying the government. Large protests by people against the restrictions would in their eyes encourage non-compliance. The press and social media are purposely trying to avoid subverting the restrictions and the covid effort.
Having seen the links posted from videos, have I any basis to disbelieve there was a protest? Do I believe it wasn't reported by the BBC (self evident). Why that is I don't know. Maybe it didn't cross the threshold of being newsworthy? Perhaps there was a lack of desire to stoke the anti-restriction narrative at a pivotal moment? Maybe a combination of factors.
At all times there's a load of information known by government and the press that's purposely not shared with the public. It's not nuts or conspiratorial to accept we don't get the full picture.
NickCQ said:
I would also accept hanging 
More seriously, it's an interesting point. I wouldn't have thought that vax status is a protected characteristic (unlike gender, age, religion, disability etc) - usually it is then the employer's prerogative whether to employ someone or not. Similarly a private business such as a pub or hotel generally has discretion over who they let in, except for these protected characteristics.
I am sure we will see it in the courts one way or another quite soon.
Would it need to be a protected characteristic? If you fire someone due to their being unvaccinated, could it give rise to a claim for unfair dismissal (subject to usual rules about length of employment)?More seriously, it's an interesting point. I wouldn't have thought that vax status is a protected characteristic (unlike gender, age, religion, disability etc) - usually it is then the employer's prerogative whether to employ someone or not. Similarly a private business such as a pub or hotel generally has discretion over who they let in, except for these protected characteristics.
I am sure we will see it in the courts one way or another quite soon.
NickCQ said:
IANAEmpL but I suspect the threshold for firing someone is much higher than for choosing not to hire them? Agree that firing someone for not having a jab seems highly inequitable, particularly if that employee could be restaffed in a lower contact role / outdoors / whatever.
Apologies, I skim read and assumed you were discussing employees being terminated rather than hired or not hired.XCP said:
markyb_lcy said:
XCP said:
so I won't have to fill out a timesheet every day? Suits me.
People do timesheets daily? 
What’s wrong with doing the whole thing at the end of the week?[/quotedat]
By Friday, I've forgotten what I did on Thursday, let alone Monday!
markyb_lcy said:
garyhun said:
XCP said:
markyb_lcy said:
XCP said:
so I won't have to fill out a timesheet every day? Suits me.
People do timesheets daily? What’s wrong with doing the whole thing at the end of the week?
unident said:
garyhun said:
The terms anti-vaxxer and Covid denier are such childish pejoratives to throw at people.
They’re not pejorative in any way. One describes some one who is anti vaccine, the other someone who denies that Covid exists.
Are you either or both of those?
Off for wine now I’ve finished my gardening for the day.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff