Coronavirus Lockdown Chat

[Black Hole]

Just how the hell can you have a gathering of fewer that two people?

Obviously, you can't (except for the exemptions, including ones I didn't list), which is the point. You are allowed indoor gatherings of people from the same household, or outdoor gatherings of up to six people unless they are from the same household.

My annoyance is that it took me quite a long time to work out that para 2 was not in fact contradictory, because of the clause in para 1. I've put a comment in to No10 about it.

Note that social distancing is not in the regulation - that's just advice.

 

[Trev]

Then please explain what para 7(b) means.

 

[Black Hole]

Do I need to? It is understandable, even if it doesn't read naturally. However, if you think of it as a place-holder for updating when perhaps indoor gatherings of (say) up to three people is allowed, the structure is already there.

 

[Trev]

Do I need to? It is understandable, even if it doesn't read naturally. However, if you think of it as a place-holder for updating when perhaps indoor gatherings of (say) up to three people is allowed, the structure is already there.

So why the hell confuse the issue by putting it in at all. It is gobeldy gook and just plain wrong and makes the author look like a dick hear for publishing such rubbish. But hey ho, nothing changes under corona virus miss-information/lies regime
But it actually says (to me) is that you are not to have a gathering of two (or more)
As you are not allowed a gathering of two, then by definition of a gathering, it is not a gathering, it's a person on his/her own.

 

[Black Hole]

I agree, especially as further down it defines a "gathering" as "when two or more people are present together in the same place", but I'm surprised you are hung up on that in particular instead of what I was drawing attention to: para 1 "unless paragraph (2) applies" and para 2 "This paragraph applies where". I think that could have been much tidier, but maybe that's just me.

 

[Trev]

Ah, but "your's" is just confusing, "mine" is just plain wrong and nonsensical.

 

[EEPhil]

but really the rule book is irrelevant - we have to deal with the consequences.

Never a truer word, oft forgotten.

I wonder why this conversation reminds me of a recent visitor to Barnard Castle?

 

[Trev]

Because a lot of people just don't give a toss whether they catch it or not or spread it about. They are too bloody busy idiotically tearing down statues and getting down on one knee. Mob rule and the police do nothing. Who needs a parliament when a tiny minority can cause such mayhem, change policies and erase history? Why the hell do they blame us for everything that was done several hundred years ago.
According to that Iranian 'comedian' geezer, it's not OK for a 'whitey' to black up, but it is OK for one of our coloured brethren to white up. I just can't get my feeble brain around that concept.

 

[Black Hole]

Aw, c'mon Trev, they've done us a favour by participating in a test to see just how infectious this thing is. Results will be available in three weeks.

 

[Trev]

Yes. Scary isn't it.

 

[MikeSh]

People said VE day would be a disaster for infections. Result ... meh.
People said the 'beaches' days would be a disaster for infections. Result ... meh.
And now people think these protests will be a disaster for infections. Expected result ... er ... meh?

According to the contact tracing system for the UK, a high risk contact is someone who has been within 2m of an infected person for 15 minutes. Protest events aren't like, say, rock concerts where people stay pretty much in the same place for long periods.
I think people who are jumping into the road to keep 2m from other pedestrians are probably taking a far greater risk of hurt than just passing quickly a couple of feet away.

But don't take my word for it.
This article by someone who knows about this stuff is very illuminating (and not technical):
The Risks - Know Them - Avoid Them
(12 min read)
Toward the end he mentions: "Importantly, of the countries performing contact tracing properly, only a single outbreak has been reported from an outdoor environment (less than 0.3% of traced infections)."

 

[trog]

Because a lot of people just don't give a toss whether they catch it or not or spread it about. They are too bloody busy idiotically tearing down statues and getting down on one knee. Mob rule and the police do nothing. Who needs a parliament when a tiny minority can cause such mayhem, change policies and erase history? Why the hell do they blame us for everything that was done several hundred years ago.
According to that Iranian 'comedian' geezer, it's not OK for a 'whitey' to black up, but it is OK for one of our coloured brethren to white up. I just can't get my feeble brain around that concept.

Just to play Devils advocate...................... Would you think it was acceptable to sometime in the future erect a statue of Jimmy Savile for all the charitable work he did ?

 

[Black Hole]

Just to play Devils advocate

Appreciated, and to pursue the debate:

Would you think it was acceptable to sometime in the future erect a statue of Jimmy Savile for all the charitable work he did ?

That's not the same thing, obviously you wouldn't now erect a monument. The question should be whether it would be acceptable to tear down an existing statue to Jimmy Savile erected before his deviance was known, by mob rule.

Personally I am in two minds about this, I can sympathise with both cases, but I lean towards not erasing history. Whether the protesters like it or not, even if you erase the names, the infrastructure of Bristol (and other places) was built with profits from the slave trade (and many other economic activities that would now be considered immoral). Are they going to wind the clock back on all that? Rename a building and the building remains, with its history hidden but still there (and less obvious).

Nobody made these people come here, they presumably want to be here (or their ancestors did). Eradicate the past by removing everything that has been founded on it and the advantages they have by being here are also eradicated. In other words: biting the hand that feeds them.

 

[Trev]

Would you think it was acceptable to sometime in the future erect a statue of Jimmy Savile for all the charitable work he did ?

And to counter that ridiculous analogy.........Absolutely not. Because what he was doing was against the laws AT THE TIME that the offences were committed.

The slave trade, although now seen as horrendous, was not illegal, and thus not an offence, AT THE TIME.

Another example is the fracas about Lord Baden Powell, He was just upholding the laws of the land as they stood AT THE TIME when he decried homosexuality.

The fact that the laws have subsequently changed is irrelevant.

 

[EEPhil]

They are too bloody busy idiotically tearing down statues and getting down on one knee.

Apart from the fact if I did get down on one knee I might have trouble getting back up again...
The expression "taking the knee" is beginning to p me off. Especially when said by Piers Morgan about six times in one minute the other day. (One for that other thread!)
I can't see why some bozos in Nottingham daubed graffiti on the lions in the Market Square. Are the lions racist? At least they didn't pull them down - yet.
How long before someone wants to pull down the satue of Brian Clough? I'm sure there will be something in his past that upsets someone. Is any statue safe?
Now "they" have removed an episode of Fawlty Towers (The Germans) from one streaming service. What next?

 

[Black Hole]

And another thing: nobody goes to a peaceful protest/demonstration, with the intention of protesting peacefully, armed with ropes and grappling irons (and flares and everything else). The vandalism was clearly pre-meditated, pursuing an agenda separate from the police brutality issue, and cannot be claimed to have been in the heat of the moment.

The police stood by, but reportedly busted a household for breaching the covid rules (soft target).

Now we have a scramble to remove anything with even the slightest non-PC content from the video archives (Fawlty Towers etc). Bloody snowflakes. What's needed is for these public bodies to stand up and say no, we are not going to be intimidated.

 

[trog]

Appreciated, and to pursue the debate:


That's not the same thing, obviously you wouldn't now erect a monument. The question should be whether it would be acceptable to tear down an existing statue to Jimmy Savile erected before his deviance was known, by mob rule.

Personally I am in two minds about this, I can sympathise with both cases, but I lean towards not erasing history. Whether the protesters like it or not, even if you erase the names, the infrastructure of Bristol (and other places) was built with profits from the slave trade (and many other economic activities that would now be considered immoral). Are they going to wind the clock back on all that? Rename a building and the building remains, with its history hidden but still there (and less obvious).

Nobody made these people come here, they presumably want to be here (or their ancestors did). Eradicate the past by removing everything that has been founded on it and the advantages they have by being here are also eradicated. In other words: biting the hand that feeds them.

I am pretty much in agreement with what you said but I could not resist winding Trev up a little . The problem is these statues glorify the person rather than present their true history, there have been campaigns in the past to have many of these statues moved to museums or at least be displayed with the historical facts of their involvement with the slave trade but nothing was done. I fully understand why people feel so strongly about the issue as history is worthless if it only gives a cherry picked view without giving the full story. Sadly there is little doubt that the anarchists have once again hijacked the protests for their own agenda and much of the damage and violence seen has stemmed from them and will ensure that any justified protest will be condemned by many and used by the far right racists to justify their blinkered race hate.

 

[gomezz]

How long before someone wants to pull down the satue of Brian Clough?

I would in a heartbeat.

 

[Black Hole]

The problem is these statues glorify the person rather than present their true history

Agreed

there have been campaigns in the past to have many of these statues moved to museums or at least be displayed with the historical facts of their involvement with the slave trade but nothing was done.

True, but that's the democratic process. Minorities don't necessarily get what they want.

It seems nothing will be done about the Colston statue, because there is no identifiable owner to make a complaint.

 

[EEPhil]

Now we have a scramble to remove anything with even the slightest non-PC content from the video archives (Fawlty Towers etc). Bloody snowflakes. What's needed is for these public bodies to stand up and say no, we are not going to be intimidated.

You may not have been referring to video when you mention public bodies, but...
Don't expect OFCOM to stand up for the broadcasters, the producers or the actors. Flipping OFCOM rulings have ruined films and tv series being shown on Talking Pictures TV. Having been given a couple of warnings, and being a small 3 person company, they can't afford any fines levied by OFCOM. Now every damned programme is prefaced by warnings about out-of-date attitudes and language. And they still dip the sound over so-called offensive words, or pull an episode from a series, or censor scenes. (OFCOM seems to think words describing an illegitimate child or a female dog as being some of the most offensive words. )