Crosswords5 mins ago
We're These Women Out Of Order
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by piggynose. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
From the msn news link
He said data suggested there is more movement in the population than during the first peak in April, despite each social interaction now being much riskier than in the spring.
“To some extent, we can think of this as a new pandemic in a pandemic. New data is suggesting that the risk from every contact is probably 40, 50% higher than it was.
“So both for the UK and for many other countries as well, we need to get away from this idea that we’re going to see a repeat of what happened last spring with our behaviours and really face the possibility that this is much riskier and we’re going to have to work much harder to reduce the impact.”
Is it sinking in yet?
He said data suggested there is more movement in the population than during the first peak in April, despite each social interaction now being much riskier than in the spring.
“To some extent, we can think of this as a new pandemic in a pandemic. New data is suggesting that the risk from every contact is probably 40, 50% higher than it was.
“So both for the UK and for many other countries as well, we need to get away from this idea that we’re going to see a repeat of what happened last spring with our behaviours and really face the possibility that this is much riskier and we’re going to have to work much harder to reduce the impact.”
Is it sinking in yet?
These are the “rules” on exercising:
“exercise with your household (or support bubble) or one other person, this should be limited to once per day, and you should not travel outside your local area.”
They were 5 miles drive from home. They arrived in separate cars. There were only two of them. They kept well apart.
It was the tea that did for them.
If you cannot see how ridiculous and indeed harmful that is to the cause of getting people to be sensible then I am sorry.
“exercise with your household (or support bubble) or one other person, this should be limited to once per day, and you should not travel outside your local area.”
They were 5 miles drive from home. They arrived in separate cars. There were only two of them. They kept well apart.
It was the tea that did for them.
If you cannot see how ridiculous and indeed harmful that is to the cause of getting people to be sensible then I am sorry.
mushroom25
// the government are TELLING people to stay indoors as much as possible, //
the regulations don't say that, they provide a great big non-exhaustive list of exclusions. if the government need to tell - they must legislate. so far they haven't.
They are giving stark and simple advice but people are STILL acting as if it’ll blow over shortly and they can do as they please.
Those people need to wake up.
// the government are TELLING people to stay indoors as much as possible, //
the regulations don't say that, they provide a great big non-exhaustive list of exclusions. if the government need to tell - they must legislate. so far they haven't.
They are giving stark and simple advice but people are STILL acting as if it’ll blow over shortly and they can do as they please.
Those people need to wake up.
They were 5 miles drive from home. They arrived in separate cars. There were only two of them. They kept well apart.
It was the tea that did for them.
It was Costa coffee so why did they stop for a latte before meeting up?
They each made an unnecessary journey with a coffee stop thrown in so it seems to be that they are being a bit liberal with the truth and their actions before being nabbed.
It was the tea that did for them.
It was Costa coffee so why did they stop for a latte before meeting up?
They each made an unnecessary journey with a coffee stop thrown in so it seems to be that they are being a bit liberal with the truth and their actions before being nabbed.
No. Absolutely agree with Diddly. To drive out of a city to somewhere safe should be fine. 5 miles is no distance at all. They harmed no-one whilst in their cars and even went in separate cars. Far worse to exercise in a town or city amongst other people. The police were just jobsworth. As for a hot drink representing a picnic, would that be true if they carried a water bottle as most people walking do! Ridiculous.
Avatar Image Apc2604
No. Absolutely agree with Diddly. To drive out of a city to somewhere safe should be fine. 5 miles is no distance at all. They harmed no-one whilst in their cars and even went in separate cars. Far worse to exercise in a town or city amongst other people. The police were just jobsworth. As for a hot drink representing a picnic, would that be true if they carried a water bottle as most people walking do! Ridiculous
And THAT is why matters will get worse and cases and deaths will rise.
Fab attitude.
No. Absolutely agree with Diddly. To drive out of a city to somewhere safe should be fine. 5 miles is no distance at all. They harmed no-one whilst in their cars and even went in separate cars. Far worse to exercise in a town or city amongst other people. The police were just jobsworth. As for a hot drink representing a picnic, would that be true if they carried a water bottle as most people walking do! Ridiculous
And THAT is why matters will get worse and cases and deaths will rise.
Fab attitude.
// And THAT is why matters will get worse //
please explain how distance travelled adds risk to any activity - particularly if/when all COVID-secure guidance (yep, that's all it is, guidance - only Scotland defines social distancing in law and even then, it comes with several caveats) is being observed.
please explain how distance travelled adds risk to any activity - particularly if/when all COVID-secure guidance (yep, that's all it is, guidance - only Scotland defines social distancing in law and even then, it comes with several caveats) is being observed.
TonyV
Bobbi it surprises me why people have to travel to get some fresh air, plenty of it outside
___________________________________
Don't go outside For Funks Sake...haven't you got any windows you can simply stick your head out?
Can't stand cops acting like this...morons.
I wonder what percentage of the Corbyn anti-mask protesters got a fine NYE?
Bobbi it surprises me why people have to travel to get some fresh air, plenty of it outside
___________________________________
Don't go outside For Funks Sake...haven't you got any windows you can simply stick your head out?
Can't stand cops acting like this...morons.
I wonder what percentage of the Corbyn anti-mask protesters got a fine NYE?
Stickybottle is shaking like a sihttnig dog with fear, so he cannot see that he's abdicating all common-sense with his absurd answers.
He unfairly refers to the "idiocy" of the women - women who travelled a very short distance from their homes, in separate cars, for a walk; nothing they did can be classed as idiocy.
You really do need to get a grip mate - you're coming across as a bit of a prat.
He unfairly refers to the "idiocy" of the women - women who travelled a very short distance from their homes, in separate cars, for a walk; nothing they did can be classed as idiocy.
You really do need to get a grip mate - you're coming across as a bit of a prat.
I really don’t think, sticky, that you get my gist at all. The government is asking people to refrain from interaction as far as possible. But it’s asking them, not telling them. If it wants to tell them it must legislate for it. These women were complying with the law and nothing you have said suggests that they were not. You are allowed outside to exercise (with no distance or time constraints). You are allowed to go to a takeaway to get food and/or drink (with no distance or time constraints). You are allowed to consume those comestibles outside. More than that (though it doesn’t particularly matter for the sake of this argument) nothing the two women did could be seen as remotely dangerous (except “if they had a car crash”, “if an aeroplane fell on them”, “if they were attacked by a plague of locusts”, etc).
So we come to the action taken by the police (which is my worry). It is quite clear that the government cannot make everybody remain indoors; it’s simply not possible. So they enact legislation which can be enforced and they provide guidance which they hope people will comply with. The difficulty has arisen because the police have used the guidance as an addendum to the law. They are thus either preventing people from undertaking activities which are lawful or are threatening them with fixed penalties (which result in prosecution if not paid).
I read yesterday that one police chief was quoted as saying that his officers would enforce the law “no ifs, no buts, no excuses.” Well he, too, must read the legislation carefully because the “staying at home” section is founded on “reasonable excuses” for people being outside of home. There are, in fact, 15 reasons quoted in the legislation providing for people to be outside their homes. If PC Plod is going to issue penalties to people simply for being out of their homes without listening to their reasons they will find they have more prosecutions to handle than they know how to cope with.
My remarks are not “convoluted machinations.” They are fundamental to the way law is enacted and enforced in the UK. The principle is that everything is permitted unless it is specifically forbidden. That which is forbidden cannot be forbidden simply by the police believing it is not allowed. You are obviously happy to allow the police to enforce laws that do not exist. As serious as the current situation is, I most certainly am not.
So we come to the action taken by the police (which is my worry). It is quite clear that the government cannot make everybody remain indoors; it’s simply not possible. So they enact legislation which can be enforced and they provide guidance which they hope people will comply with. The difficulty has arisen because the police have used the guidance as an addendum to the law. They are thus either preventing people from undertaking activities which are lawful or are threatening them with fixed penalties (which result in prosecution if not paid).
I read yesterday that one police chief was quoted as saying that his officers would enforce the law “no ifs, no buts, no excuses.” Well he, too, must read the legislation carefully because the “staying at home” section is founded on “reasonable excuses” for people being outside of home. There are, in fact, 15 reasons quoted in the legislation providing for people to be outside their homes. If PC Plod is going to issue penalties to people simply for being out of their homes without listening to their reasons they will find they have more prosecutions to handle than they know how to cope with.
My remarks are not “convoluted machinations.” They are fundamental to the way law is enacted and enforced in the UK. The principle is that everything is permitted unless it is specifically forbidden. That which is forbidden cannot be forbidden simply by the police believing it is not allowed. You are obviously happy to allow the police to enforce laws that do not exist. As serious as the current situation is, I most certainly am not.
Sticky bottle, I would inform you that we have followed rules are laws since Covid began and done nothing that endangers ourselves or others. New Judge has now pointed out very well what the situation is. Well said New Judge.
Sticky bottle you do not seem to understand rules or laws, so yes I would suggest you do not leave your own 4 walls. And by the way I am shielding so don't suggest people like me are the cause of this problem.
Sticky bottle you do not seem to understand rules or laws, so yes I would suggest you do not leave your own 4 walls. And by the way I am shielding so don't suggest people like me are the cause of this problem.
You’re wasting your time NJ.
Either Stickybottle genuinely cannot grasp the difference between a law and a guideline or he’s wilfully not getting it. Whichever one it is it does him no favours.
The action of these two women, an action SB refers to as “idiocy”, was entirely reasonable; they drove a short way, separately, for a walk. There is nothing, nothing, even remotely idiotic about their actions (the same can’t be said for pretty much every post of SB on this thread).
Either Stickybottle genuinely cannot grasp the difference between a law and a guideline or he’s wilfully not getting it. Whichever one it is it does him no favours.
The action of these two women, an action SB refers to as “idiocy”, was entirely reasonable; they drove a short way, separately, for a walk. There is nothing, nothing, even remotely idiotic about their actions (the same can’t be said for pretty much every post of SB on this thread).
