Emergency legislation - information and commentary

[unident]

RSTurboPaul said:

unident said:

RSTurboPaul said:

Red 4 said:

OK, thanks unident. I see your point.

How exactly could the spread of the virus be managed precisely to take up that "spare capacity" , I wonder ?

I presume that Paul RSTurbo has no experience in the NHS and has no idea what was actually happening last Summer. Graphs showing "spare capacity" do not reflect the situation and what the NHS was trying to achieve

What was lockdown and the tiers system for?

To slow the spread, contain the virus, limit the impact on the NHS (not manage it to capacity) and to save lives.

Presumably Government had models that showed them just what the impacts of their actions were, and therefore where there was room to permit more spread in order to avoid pushing infections back and into the entirely predictable winter peak?




Oh, wait, you mean the modellers, seemingly headed by Pants Down Ferguson, just seem to make stuff up and claim the worst case scenarios all the time, even in the face of obvious common sense evidence, and wanted the UK to remain locked down for months and months for reasons that escape anyone with a grasp of reality or seem to play into the 'conspiracy theory' territory, so they weren't reliable after all?

Who would have thunk it...

You’re completely missing the point. The government had zero intention, and rightly so, of allowing the virus spread. Their role is / was to minimise the spread and minimise the numbers infected. It was to do everything to prevent the NHS going over capacity anywhere, it was not to manage infections to fill up capacity. The two things are completely different.

[tobinen]

Mojooo said:

This explanation is a little better
https://www.bindmans.com/news/neale-v-dpp-the-righ...

Interesting, thanks.

[blueg33]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

carinaman said:

'Administrative Court overturn conviction for refusing to provide name and address in relation to suspected breach of Coronavirus Regulations':

https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/news/adminis...

That case amply demonstrates the harm caused by rushed legislation and mixed governmental messaging. The Police got themselves in a right mess.

If you read the the regs there is no reason to be in a mess. That's what bugs me, it feels like either:

a. Police haven't read the regs

or

b. Some constabularies are looking for excuses to exercise power

Neither of which are acceptable

[anonymous-user]

blueg33 said:

If you read the the regs there is no reason to be in a mess. That's what bugs me, it feels like either:

a. Police haven't read the regs

or

b. Some constabularies are looking for excuses to exercise power

Neither of which are acceptable

The problem is the official guidance that purposely leaves confusion between what it wants you to do and what you're obliged to do (or not do). The Police on the ground are only as good as their training and instruction on any particular matter.

Most people would not seek out the regulations to find out what they can or can't do, they would take in what the media (and by extension Government) tell them and/or the .Gov website. Neither of those sources actively encourage people to seek out the regulations.

Even where people do read the regulations, the debates on here illustrate even then not everybody reads them in the same way.

You're right, we don't need to be in a mess, but we are whether we like it or not.

[blueg33]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

blueg33 said:

If you read the the regs there is no reason to be in a mess. That's what bugs me, it feels like either:

a. Police haven't read the regs

or

b. Some constabularies are looking for excuses to exercise power

Neither of which are acceptable

The problem is the official guidance that purposely leaves confusion between what it wants you to do and what you're obliged to do (or not do). The Police on the ground are only as good as their training and instruction on any particular matter.

Most people would not seek out the regulations to find out what they can or can't do, they would take in what the media (and by extension Government) tell them and/or the .Gov website. Neither of those sources actively encourage people to seek out the regulations.

Even where people do read the regulations, the debates on here illustrate even then not everybody reads them in the same way.

You're right, we don't need to be in a mess, but we are whether we like it or not.

The police should know better than rely on guidance. Individual officers can read, they should be obliged to know the law. After all not knowing the law is no defence for Joe public. Each officer should take it upon himself to spend 30 mins reading the regs even in his/her own time. It’s what a professional does. They don’t rely on guidance.

I don’t see the police trying to make people eat 5 pieces of fruit and veg a day which is also government guidance.

[anonymous-user]

The individual officers take guidance from their superiors, who in turn take it from theirs. Don't blame the bobbies, blame those upstream.

[blueg33]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

The individual officers take guidance from their superiors, who in turn take it from theirs. Don't blame the bobbies, blame those upstream.

Why? They can all read. Just following orders is proven to be no defence.

[NGee]

blueg33 said:

I don’t see the police trying to make people eat 5 pieces of fruit and veg a day which is also government guidance.

NO, stop it, don't give them ideas!

[Dr Jekyll]

There is a matrix sign next to the M40 slip at High Wycombe saying. 'No more excuses, stay at home'. Implies, if it means anything at all, that the rules have changed and you can no longer head out even with a reasonable excuse. Which is completely untrue.

[Gman20]

Dr Jekyll said:

There is a matrix sign next to the M40 slip at High Wycombe saying. 'No more excuses, stay at home'. Implies, if it means anything at all, that the rules have changed and you can no longer head out even with a reasonable excuse. Which is completely untrue.

Typically motorway signs show a simple message, don't drink and drive, take a break etc.
If you are reading legal changes that are implied not explicitly stated I think the problem is with you not the sign.

[KingNothing]

My local police force are apparently talking to and handing out advisory letters to people from out of the area, who are driving to the beach this weekend. Guess they can't get away with going for the full FPN now, which is good.

Facebook comments are great, why is it the people who claim they are such sticklers for the "rules" are so uninformed and ignorant of how the legislation and it's enforcement actually works, and how that something the government has said in a guidance and advice capacity in an attempt to reduce peoples movements without having to actually legislate it is one and the same with it being written down in black and white in a legislative capacity?

Can I just check, do the words "local area" and it's definition appear anywhere in the Health Protection Regulations 2020 for England, or am I going mad and missed it?

[anonymous-user]

KingNothing said:

My local police force are apparently talking to and handing out advisory letters to people from out of the area, who are driving to the beach this weekend. Guess they can't get away with going for the full FPN now, which is good.

Facebook comments are great, why is it the people who claim they are such sticklers for the "rules" are so uninformed and ignorant of how the legislation and it's enforcement actually works, and how that something the government has said in a guidance and advice capacity in an attempt to reduce peoples movements without having to actually legislate it is one and the same with it being written down in black and white in a legislative capacity?

Can I just check, do the words "local area" and it's definition appear anywhere in the Health Protection Regulations 2020 for England, or am I going mad and missed it?

The answer to your question is no, they do not.

[Dr Jekyll]

Gman20 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

There is a matrix sign next to the M40 slip at High Wycombe saying. 'No more excuses, stay at home'. Implies, if it means anything at all, that the rules have changed and you can no longer head out even with a reasonable excuse. Which is completely untrue.

Typically motorway signs show a simple message, don't drink and drive, take a break etc.
If you are reading legal changes that are implied not explicitly stated I think the problem is with you not the sign.

How am supposed to interpret the sign?

[anonymous-user]

Dr Jekyll said:

Gman20 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

There is a matrix sign next to the M40 slip at High Wycombe saying. 'No more excuses, stay at home'. Implies, if it means anything at all, that the rules have changed and you can no longer head out even with a reasonable excuse. Which is completely untrue.

Typically motorway signs show a simple message, don't drink and drive, take a break etc.
If you are reading legal changes that are implied not explicitly stated I think the problem is with you not the sign.

How am supposed to interpret the sign?

Ignore it

[anonymous-user]

With the medium of dance.

[yellowjack]

garyhun said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Gman20 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

There is a matrix sign next to the M40 slip at High Wycombe saying. 'No more excuses, stay at home'. Implies, if it means anything at all, that the rules have changed and you can no longer head out even with a reasonable excuse. Which is completely untrue.

Typically motorway signs show a simple message, don't drink and drive, take a break etc.
If you are reading legal changes that are implied not explicitly stated I think the problem is with you not the sign.

How am supposed to interpret the sign?

Ignore it

Dorset County Council, or BCP council, had a trailer-mounted matrix sign at the "Welcome To Bournemouth" footbridge on the A338 for ages. Usual nannying message about "Stay at home - essential travel only".

Today (while already ignoring it's piffle) we noticed that the message was no longer there. I'm not sure, but hopefully it's a sign that our supercilious council leaders have given up spreading lies and fake news. Maybe they're starting to accept the inevitable - that normal people will soon take back control of their lives and refuse to swallow any more of this ballcocks...

[carinaman]

The Lockdown will be lifted if their assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new variants of concern.

Welcome to the new normal. It wasn't a power grab.

I've heard the M40 past High Wycombe is a particularly bad spot for variants of concern.

[anonymous-user]

yellowjack said:

garyhun said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Gman20 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

There is a matrix sign next to the M40 slip at High Wycombe saying. 'No more excuses, stay at home'. Implies, if it means anything at all, that the rules have changed and you can no longer head out even with a reasonable excuse. Which is completely untrue.

Typically motorway signs show a simple message, don't drink and drive, take a break etc.
If you are reading legal changes that are implied not explicitly stated I think the problem is with you not the sign.

How am supposed to interpret the sign?

Ignore it

Dorset County Council, or BCP council, had a trailer-mounted matrix sign at the "Welcome To Bournemouth" footbridge on the A338 for ages. Usual nannying message about "Stay at home - essential travel only".

Today (while already ignoring it's piffle) we noticed that the message was no longer there. I'm not sure, but hopefully it's a sign that our supercilious council leaders have given up spreading lies and fake news. Maybe they're starting to accept the inevitable - that normal people will soon take back control of their lives and refuse to swallow any more of this ballcocks...

I used to live in Poole so know that road well. Are you sure the locals haven’t shot it out?

[yellowjack]

garyhun said:

I used to live in Poole so know that road well. Are you sure the locals haven’t shot it out?

I don't know. But my wife was reading some bits from the internet earlier. I didn't read them myself but the gist is that 100s of cars were turned away from Lulworth and Durdle Door at the weekend, and apparently someone (from Poole) was fined for going to the New Forest. Which stinks.

Me? I've grown tired of playing the game with the guidelines, and decided to go cycling today. A lovely 100 km/62 mile ride right into the heart of the New Forest National NIMBY Park, and the only plod I saw the whole way round were a couple of chaps in an X5 ARV parked just off the A35 Christchurch bypass.

[Bobtherallyfan]

yellowjack said:

I don't know. But my wife was reading some bits from the internet earlier. I didn't read them myself but the gist is that 100s of cars were turned away from Lulworth and Durdle Door at the weekend, and apparently someone (from Poole) was fined for going to the New Forest. Which stinks.

Me? I've grown tired of playing the game with the guidelines, and decided to go cycling today. A lovely 100 km/62 mile ride right into the heart of the New Forest National NIMBY Park, and the only plod I saw the whole way round were a couple of chaps in an X5 ARV parked just off the A35 Christchurch bypass.

The person from Poole drove on a 60 mile round trip, past literally hundreds of open spaces, past miles of coastal paths, because they wanted to walk in Lyndhurst....despite the lack of implicit legislation, that is still simply selfish and idiotic. And yes, most of us do hate Lycra clad cyclists wobbling all over our lovely driving roads.....it’s bad enough having to drive at 40mph in the forest, without having to stare at some fat cyclist’s arse.