When Was The Last Time You Ate Faggots?
Food & Drink2 mins ago
The English Disease ...
131 Answers
... a view from an expatriate living in Ireland.
I haven't posted much about Covid recently - I have no desire either to get in an argument with any individual or even just exchange fire from increasingly entrenched positions in 'News'.
But I do find myself increasingly disappointed by the attitudes to Covid restrictions evinced by many people on here (and seemingly shared by all too many people in the wider community).
I can summarise what I see as :
1. If it's only a guideline (with no legal enforcement) then I will claim special circumstances and so ignore the guideline whenever it suits me - because I am actually special.
2. If it's a law (with penalties attached) then I'll go looking with a fine-tooth-comb for the ambiguities and loopholes which will allow me to circumvent the law, so that I can behave as it suits me.
In neither case will I consider abiding by the spirit of the regulations and curbing my activities, as the guideline requests or the law requires - instead I'll regard all attempts to circumscribe my behaviour 'for the greater good' as a personal attack on my liberty which is not to be tolerated and which is to be avoided/evaded at any time when it suits me.
England is not alone in this attitude (over here I see some parts of Dublin seem to be developing the same contempt for Covid mitigation measures) - but it does seem to have become a regrettable part of the English psyche that 'rules are for other people' and 'if it isn't very specifically prohibited then it's OK to do it'.
Rant over - time for a cup of tea and a bun.
I haven't posted much about Covid recently - I have no desire either to get in an argument with any individual or even just exchange fire from increasingly entrenched positions in 'News'.
But I do find myself increasingly disappointed by the attitudes to Covid restrictions evinced by many people on here (and seemingly shared by all too many people in the wider community).
I can summarise what I see as :
1. If it's only a guideline (with no legal enforcement) then I will claim special circumstances and so ignore the guideline whenever it suits me - because I am actually special.
2. If it's a law (with penalties attached) then I'll go looking with a fine-tooth-comb for the ambiguities and loopholes which will allow me to circumvent the law, so that I can behave as it suits me.
In neither case will I consider abiding by the spirit of the regulations and curbing my activities, as the guideline requests or the law requires - instead I'll regard all attempts to circumscribe my behaviour 'for the greater good' as a personal attack on my liberty which is not to be tolerated and which is to be avoided/evaded at any time when it suits me.
England is not alone in this attitude (over here I see some parts of Dublin seem to be developing the same contempt for Covid mitigation measures) - but it does seem to have become a regrettable part of the English psyche that 'rules are for other people' and 'if it isn't very specifically prohibited then it's OK to do it'.
Rant over - time for a cup of tea and a bun.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sunny-dave. 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.
//I'm not sure why it's safer to meet 5 people 3 times in a day, than have 8 people over together.//
Neither am I. But when I pose the question it is described as “nonsense”.
//Wouldn't it make more sense for people to be in groups, or maximise a number of people per day... but then it would exclude all work and "essential" business... it all seems a bit half-arsed.//
Essentially legislators are trying t o prevent people mixing but want to allow them to do so in (quite a number) of circumstances. I don’t blame them for ba11sing it up because it simply can’t be done.
//You're getting embroiled in nonsense pixie.//
It isn’t nonsense. People are expected to comply with a law that means (for example) a pair of grandparents cannot entertain their child and spouse together with their three grandchildren in their house. But they can go to a pub full of fifty people with two other couples and, provided they sit apart from the other fifty, everything is hunky-dory. This isn’t about the “spirit of the law.” It is about a very serious infringement of their basic liberties to meet with their children and grandchildren. My (admittedly extreme) example displays the nonsense of the law, not the nonsense of my example. If the aim is to prevent people mixing (and to be honest I don’t know what the aim is) they need to do a lot better. It is not for the population to guess what the government wants so they can comply with the “spirit of the law.” In the UK it is accepted that everything is permitted unless it is specifically forbidden. If legislators want to ensure the population complies with draconian restrictions to their liberties they must make their statutes and statutory instruments watertight. They must also be reasonable (in all the circumstances), simple to understand and simple to enforce. The “rule of six” is none of those and so it is disreputable. And that’s far from nonsensical.
Neither am I. But when I pose the question it is described as “nonsense”.
//Wouldn't it make more sense for people to be in groups, or maximise a number of people per day... but then it would exclude all work and "essential" business... it all seems a bit half-arsed.//
Essentially legislators are trying t o prevent people mixing but want to allow them to do so in (quite a number) of circumstances. I don’t blame them for ba11sing it up because it simply can’t be done.
//You're getting embroiled in nonsense pixie.//
It isn’t nonsense. People are expected to comply with a law that means (for example) a pair of grandparents cannot entertain their child and spouse together with their three grandchildren in their house. But they can go to a pub full of fifty people with two other couples and, provided they sit apart from the other fifty, everything is hunky-dory. This isn’t about the “spirit of the law.” It is about a very serious infringement of their basic liberties to meet with their children and grandchildren. My (admittedly extreme) example displays the nonsense of the law, not the nonsense of my example. If the aim is to prevent people mixing (and to be honest I don’t know what the aim is) they need to do a lot better. It is not for the population to guess what the government wants so they can comply with the “spirit of the law.” In the UK it is accepted that everything is permitted unless it is specifically forbidden. If legislators want to ensure the population complies with draconian restrictions to their liberties they must make their statutes and statutory instruments watertight. They must also be reasonable (in all the circumstances), simple to understand and simple to enforce. The “rule of six” is none of those and so it is disreputable. And that’s far from nonsensical.
Sorry to read that ff has de-activated but have to say I am not surprised.Hope he comes back. The trouble is that there seem to be an awful lot of people in the UK behaving like spoilt brats at the moment. They seem to think they are immune to this virus and dismissing it as though it is of no consequence . I am sick and tired of trying to do the right thing whilst others are almost laughing about it. Their attitude stinks to be blunt and I am fed up with the --'No-one tells me what to do ','I will not be dictated to and wear a mask,' I'll fly all over the world and holiday where I like,party and go to the pub and have all the family in my house' brigade. Maybe,just maybe if more people had not done all those things we might not be having a second wave and another lockdown.
They need to take a good look at themselves and start behaving responsibly.
They need to take a good look at themselves and start behaving responsibly.
Thanks for all the replies - I seem to have articulated what several others were thinking, whilst (if we ignore the few unnecessary bits of routine sniping) also provoking some thoughtful posts against my viewpoint.
I too am sorry that FF has deactivated his account - I hope he'll reconsider in due course.
I too am sorry that FF has deactivated his account - I hope he'll reconsider in due course.
237sj 20.27 in Windsor
"....From my Vietnamese hairdresser that carried going on into peoples homes to cut their hair during lockdown...."
I hope your vietnamese hairdresser is paying tax on her income but more to the point, why deny our salons your custom?
We are clad in ppe for our own & clients welfare, salons are deep cleaned daily, tools & fittings sanitised & bleached. Workstations 1.5m separation, 1 in 1 out scheme, no more than 4 at any one time & only by appointments. All this has limited our income but with no recourse to our exes.
As for tourists & others in public, I/we wear masks & shields for self protection against the bare faced!
"....From my Vietnamese hairdresser that carried going on into peoples homes to cut their hair during lockdown...."
I hope your vietnamese hairdresser is paying tax on her income but more to the point, why deny our salons your custom?
We are clad in ppe for our own & clients welfare, salons are deep cleaned daily, tools & fittings sanitised & bleached. Workstations 1.5m separation, 1 in 1 out scheme, no more than 4 at any one time & only by appointments. All this has limited our income but with no recourse to our exes.
As for tourists & others in public, I/we wear masks & shields for self protection against the bare faced!
Dave // Instead we see a classic bit of dissembling and obfuscation aimed at self-justification from (let us not forget) someone who is a member of an 'at risk' group and ultimately reliant on the good behaviour of others to keep her safe.//
This is obviously aimed at me personally (surprise ,suprise -do say hello to Gness for me sweetie)
a) I took Darlington as an example as its all over the Press at the moment. I have not been into Darlington since last Christmas, funnily enough Barnard Castle is my nearest town and I've not been there since lockdown, so don't presume you know how I conduct myself, thankyou.
b) The anecdote I gave was based on a convo with a friend who has a farm shop/cafe on the borders of the 2 counties effected, relating how friends from Darlington and the Dales were meeting up for coffee in her cafe. Not me -I go for meat fully covered thanks all the same
c) I have not seen my grandchildren since Christmas -not even through a pane of glass as they live 250 miles away. They have two children under 5 and one of their parents works in a high risk job and they respect the fact they would have to do multiple stops on the journey and that I'm at high risk. They are however making the trip if legally possible next month. There will be seven of us in the house and frankly I don't give a damn , my house is bigger enough to socially distance as if we were in a pub, I just will refrain from hugging my grandchildren.
d)My mother died June 13th. I could not go see her before she died or after she died at the funeral home. She went into a respite home with heart problems and came out in a coffin three weeks later with Covid-19.
So, Dave, don't presume everyone criticising present guidance, Laws whatever Boris decides to call them this week, doesn't actually adhere to them. Like I said, there are exceptions, but I don't feel the need to I have a more robust mental constitution. I keep myself safe as can be and believe everyone should take responsibility for their safety and that of others.
This is obviously aimed at me personally (surprise ,suprise -do say hello to Gness for me sweetie)
a) I took Darlington as an example as its all over the Press at the moment. I have not been into Darlington since last Christmas, funnily enough Barnard Castle is my nearest town and I've not been there since lockdown, so don't presume you know how I conduct myself, thankyou.
b) The anecdote I gave was based on a convo with a friend who has a farm shop/cafe on the borders of the 2 counties effected, relating how friends from Darlington and the Dales were meeting up for coffee in her cafe. Not me -I go for meat fully covered thanks all the same
c) I have not seen my grandchildren since Christmas -not even through a pane of glass as they live 250 miles away. They have two children under 5 and one of their parents works in a high risk job and they respect the fact they would have to do multiple stops on the journey and that I'm at high risk. They are however making the trip if legally possible next month. There will be seven of us in the house and frankly I don't give a damn , my house is bigger enough to socially distance as if we were in a pub, I just will refrain from hugging my grandchildren.
d)My mother died June 13th. I could not go see her before she died or after she died at the funeral home. She went into a respite home with heart problems and came out in a coffin three weeks later with Covid-19.
So, Dave, don't presume everyone criticising present guidance, Laws whatever Boris decides to call them this week, doesn't actually adhere to them. Like I said, there are exceptions, but I don't feel the need to I have a more robust mental constitution. I keep myself safe as can be and believe everyone should take responsibility for their safety and that of others.
Pixie 20.21 yesterday, You, TTT and several others are simply wrong - I do not despise the UK. Why pointing out flaws is interpreted as despising instead of a sign of stubborn hope (in the face of reality ?) for improvement points to (proves ?) yet another flaw. When people consistently look down the scale to find someone/somewhere that is worse in order to excuse/justify not only howling at those who point to the mess but actually actively trying to bury it is, to me, deeply saddening. I would have thought looking up the list (sometimes shockingly far to go), and seeing how often and how many do so much better, would be more useful, to then ask "how do they do that" and simply copy it. Just think how much better the UK would be instead of forever accepting that it is at least not yet at the bottom of the pile and continue singing the praises in ignorance of better possibilities.
I agree with Sqad 18.49 yesterday and would add to his list (both he and I have considerable experience/knowledge of elsewhere):
They have a disturbing tendency to set unhelpful priorities based on a determination for maintaining a ceiling on their expectations and maintaining ever lower standards than found in increasing numbers of other countries (difficult to articulate/list but let's just mention social cohesion, socio-economic wellbeing, level/degree of aims/expectations/ambition, even just hygiene) - the UK is determined to be nth rate and proud of it (especially if it is conspicuous).
No surprise that some withdraw from exposure to "The Best of British" and leave discussions.
Incidentally, you made another wrong assumption.
I agree with Sqad 18.49 yesterday and would add to his list (both he and I have considerable experience/knowledge of elsewhere):
They have a disturbing tendency to set unhelpful priorities based on a determination for maintaining a ceiling on their expectations and maintaining ever lower standards than found in increasing numbers of other countries (difficult to articulate/list but let's just mention social cohesion, socio-economic wellbeing, level/degree of aims/expectations/ambition, even just hygiene) - the UK is determined to be nth rate and proud of it (especially if it is conspicuous).
No surprise that some withdraw from exposure to "The Best of British" and leave discussions.
Incidentally, you made another wrong assumption.
//NJ, how many folk do you think should be allowed to meet up in the same house and why?//
My quick answer would be "as many as they feel comfortable with, having assessed the risk of infection to themselves." Their guests should be informed of the likely number of attendees (and who they might be) and similarly make their own decision. The reason why is that the people should be provided with information and allowed to make their own informed decisions. As I keep saying, the virus will spread. Locking down (aka "keeping everybody away from everybody else") may slow (though not eliminate) the spread for a while but as soon as the lockdown is released it will spread again.
But it goes deeper than that. My gripe with the "rule of six" is that, as I have demonstrated, it is not a rule of six at all and it is certainly not, as the PM suggests, "simple". If it was a rule that you could invite no more than (say) six people into your home and those six remained inviolate and not changeable I could see its purpose. But it isn't. You can invite a whole procession of people into your home and so long as the total does not exceed six you are within the law. That change would make the law a little less disreputable. They only then need to remove the other nine and a half pages which are principally there to provide exceptions for people who have shouted loud enough. That just leaves making it easily enforceable to worry about because, once again, people will socialise whatever ministers proclaim. Those on here demonising people for behaving in a perfectly normal way need to get real because the virus is going nowhere and it will spread. To expect people to continue complying with these rules is pointless and a different approach is required.
My quick answer would be "as many as they feel comfortable with, having assessed the risk of infection to themselves." Their guests should be informed of the likely number of attendees (and who they might be) and similarly make their own decision. The reason why is that the people should be provided with information and allowed to make their own informed decisions. As I keep saying, the virus will spread. Locking down (aka "keeping everybody away from everybody else") may slow (though not eliminate) the spread for a while but as soon as the lockdown is released it will spread again.
But it goes deeper than that. My gripe with the "rule of six" is that, as I have demonstrated, it is not a rule of six at all and it is certainly not, as the PM suggests, "simple". If it was a rule that you could invite no more than (say) six people into your home and those six remained inviolate and not changeable I could see its purpose. But it isn't. You can invite a whole procession of people into your home and so long as the total does not exceed six you are within the law. That change would make the law a little less disreputable. They only then need to remove the other nine and a half pages which are principally there to provide exceptions for people who have shouted loud enough. That just leaves making it easily enforceable to worry about because, once again, people will socialise whatever ministers proclaim. Those on here demonising people for behaving in a perfectly normal way need to get real because the virus is going nowhere and it will spread. To expect people to continue complying with these rules is pointless and a different approach is required.
APG @ 9:55
You took the time to write a long reply - so I'll take the time to answer and then ask one question that puzzles me.
I apologise for assuming that you were writing in the first person (you did say 'I') about Darlington visits - it wasn't clear that your point was hypothetical.
Our situations are surprisingly similar - we too have seen no family (and only a very few select, trusted friends) since March - we too lost a parent without being able to attend either her dying moments or her funeral - we too live in a rurally isolated location and make only the briefest of visits to nearby small towns for essential purposes and wouldn't go to a city if you paid us.
You are obviously acting within the spirit of the current guidelines (indeed probably going beyond them in terms of restricting you activities) - and encouraging others to do the same in their interactions with you and for their own safety. We are doing exactly the same here.
You are less than enthusiastic about Boris's performance - we have similar worries about Micheál Martin (he's a pale shadow of the excellent leadership we had from Leo Varadkar earlier in the pandemic).
Just one question then :
What puzzles me is that whilst I am railing (or preaching as it was said yesterday) against the idiots who flout all guidelines/rules/laws and hoping against hope that the majority still see sense, you are simply giving oxygen to the naysayers by your nitpicking and pettifogging about the details of the law, rather than encouraging adherence to the spirit/objectives of said law.
I know you like little better than a good argument and can often be disputatious for the sake of it, but surely our own self-interests (and that of the populace as a whole) are better served by my approach than yours?
Dave
You took the time to write a long reply - so I'll take the time to answer and then ask one question that puzzles me.
I apologise for assuming that you were writing in the first person (you did say 'I') about Darlington visits - it wasn't clear that your point was hypothetical.
Our situations are surprisingly similar - we too have seen no family (and only a very few select, trusted friends) since March - we too lost a parent without being able to attend either her dying moments or her funeral - we too live in a rurally isolated location and make only the briefest of visits to nearby small towns for essential purposes and wouldn't go to a city if you paid us.
You are obviously acting within the spirit of the current guidelines (indeed probably going beyond them in terms of restricting you activities) - and encouraging others to do the same in their interactions with you and for their own safety. We are doing exactly the same here.
You are less than enthusiastic about Boris's performance - we have similar worries about Micheál Martin (he's a pale shadow of the excellent leadership we had from Leo Varadkar earlier in the pandemic).
Just one question then :
What puzzles me is that whilst I am railing (or preaching as it was said yesterday) against the idiots who flout all guidelines/rules/laws and hoping against hope that the majority still see sense, you are simply giving oxygen to the naysayers by your nitpicking and pettifogging about the details of the law, rather than encouraging adherence to the spirit/objectives of said law.
I know you like little better than a good argument and can often be disputatious for the sake of it, but surely our own self-interests (and that of the populace as a whole) are better served by my approach than yours?
Dave
Dave, I think the same could apply to me, but it's more devil's advocate, as people will often "get around" a law or guideline if there are enough easy loopholes.
I totally understand "the spirit" of it.... but that does rely on people using common sense... and I think we have already seen, that that is not reliable.
I totally understand "the spirit" of it.... but that does rely on people using common sense... and I think we have already seen, that that is not reliable.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Two Yellow Cards But Not Sent Off
Football9 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
News10 mins ago
Definitely A Change In The Climate
News12 mins ago
