Coronavirus

[badgerx16]

The problem in interpretation is that whilst the Guidelines state "village, town, part of city', the actual Law leaves it to the discretion of the Police, and does not contain that phrase, ( as far as I can make out ).

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, egg said:

That guidance was published 5th January 2021, last Tuesday. Here's the link for you. 

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/20200512-about-bc-news-British-Cycling-Updated-Coronavirus-Guidance-0

And is a re-hash of the advice they have been giving since March!

This one was updated on the 8th of January, yesterday : https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/coronavirus-qa-cycling-guidance which is where the graphic comes from.

It also states (which is a re-hash from March since the Government haven't updated their vague guidelines!):

Quote

The definition of "local area" is unclear, but government guidance is that you should "avoid travelling outside of your village, town or the part of a city where you live". You can travel a short distance within your local area in order to exercise, but again the distance is not defined.

The graphic also states at the top "this is national advice and does not reflect localised restrictions".

I'm happy to follow the response from the local constable regarding this as they are responsible for interpretation of local.  I appreciate that makes you very unhappy Egg, but that's one for you and Avon and Somerset police to thrash out!  Besides, you've already agreed that (aside from the unlikely event of an accident requiring ICU intervention), the risk of me catching and or spreading the virus is so low as to be considered negligible!

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Indeed. The point is that neither of you like the regs, and the frankly obvious correct interpretation. None of us like this situation. Ignoring them / bending them / finding ways around them is not on. 

I've made my point, British Cycling agree with me, it's what the regs say. 

I'll leave it there. 

How 'local' do you stay to your home ? Have you not even stretched a single piece of Government guidance since the start of LD1 ?

[Weston Super Saint]

This is what blatantly breaking the regulations looks like :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55604382

I think only the most pedantic would consider cycling a couple of miles outside of town to be comparable.

[Weston Super Saint]

A definition...

Quote

What are the legally-permitted reasons I can leave my local area under lockdown rules?

There is a strict list of reasons for why you would be legally allowed to leave your local area. They are:

• Work, where you cannot reasonably work from home
• Accessing education
• Caring responsibilities
• Visiting those in your support bubble – or your childcare bubble for childcare
• Hospital, GP and other medical appointments or visits where you have had an accident or are concerned about your health
• Buying goods or services that you need, but this should be within your local area wherever possible
• Outdoor exercise. This should be done locally wherever possible, but you can travel a short distance within your area to do so if necessary (for example, to access an open space)
• Attending the care and exercise of an animal, or veterinary services

So, riding to an area that is open and largely devoid of traffic (like the Somerset levels) would appear to be well WITHIN the rules. Fancy that!

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/what-counts-your-local-area-4855820

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

A definition...

So, riding to an area that is open and largely devoid of traffic (like the Somerset levels) would appear to be well WITHIN the rules. Fancy that!

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/what-counts-your-local-area-4855820

Bless. So to read the British Cycling interpretation and didn't like it, so went heavy on Google to find an interpretation you preferred. And the best you do was an article on a local Nottingham newspaper. Jesus wept.

You keep telling yourself you're not a selfish rule breaker mate. You're wrong, but it's clear that you you'll do what you want. 

 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Bless. So to read the British Cycling interpretation and didn't like it, so went heavy on Google to find an interpretation you preferred. And the best you do was an article on a local Nottingham newspaper. Jesus wept.

You keep telling yourself you're not a selfish rule breaker mate. You're wrong, but it's clear that you you'll do what you want. 

 

That was for your benefit.

I've already said I've had confirmation from the local constable. That's good enough for me 😉

 

[egg]

32 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

How 'local' do you stay to your home ? Have you not even stretched a single piece of Government guidance since the start of LD1 ?

I walk and run around the village where I live. Boring af but if we all jumped in our cars for a change of scene it'd defeat the object of all of this. Traffic = accidents plus restricting ambulances. 

What any of us has done in earlier lockdowns is irrelevant. We are where we are, and that is past crisis point both health wise and economically. We've gotta get it right this time otherwise the NHS will fall over and the economy will become fucked beyond repair. 

[badgerx16]

So now we know that "local" means at least 7 miles.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55620138

"A No 10 spokesman would not confirm if Mr Johnson had been driven to the park or cycled there, but said the PM had complied with Covid-19 guidelines."

 

"Health Secretary Matt Hancock was asked at Monday's Downing Street press conference whether travelling seven miles for a cycle ride was within the rules.

Mr Hancock said: "It is ok to go if you went for a long walk and ended up seven miles from home, that is OK, but you should stay local.

"It is ok to go for a long walk or a cycle ride or to exercise but stay local.""

[egg]

27 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

So now we know that "local" means at least 7 miles.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55620138

"A No 10 spokesman would not confirm if Mr Johnson had been driven to the park or cycled there, but said the PM had complied with Covid-19 guidelines."

 

"Health Secretary Matt Hancock was asked at Monday's Downing Street press conference whether travelling seven miles for a cycle ride was within the rules.

Mr Hancock said: "It is ok to go if you went for a long walk and ended up seven miles from home, that is OK, but you should stay local.

"It is ok to go for a long walk or a cycle ride or to exercise but stay local.""

It's not a quite a Cummings moment, but he's certainly given people permission to go beyond "their village, town and part of the city where they live", and probably gifted a lot of people an appeal against their penalties. Enjoy your bike riding! 

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

It's not a quite a Cummings moment, but he's certainly given people permission to go beyond "their village, town and part of the city where they live", and probably gifted a lot of people an appeal against their penalties. Enjoy your bike riding! 

I might once I've got over the hangover from CoViD which since the second week of November has severely knocked my stamina.

[Whitey Grandad]

A letter in The Times today,

Sir, If a cup of tea counts as a picnic, does that mean that when we’re allowed back into the pubs we don’t need a Scotch egg?
Iain McCoubrey
Letcombe Regis, Oxon

 

[Chapel End]

Is 7 miles classed as local then?

 

[badgerx16]

23 minutes ago, Chapel End said:

Is 7 miles classed as local then?

 

This is local exercise for local people.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, Chapel End said:

Is 7 miles classed as local then?

 

My 'local' news on BBC covers from Glastonbury to Bristol (about 28 miles), so 7 would be well within that definition...

[Weston Super Saint]

Metropolitan police Commissioner has her say on the definition of 'local' 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55630164

Quote

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the trip had not been "against the law - that's for sure".

People should go for exercise "from your front door and come back to your front door", she said, adding: "That's my view of local."

Although I'm not holding my breath that egg will accept this definition and certainly won't take back his 'selfish cunt' accusations  

Edited 12 January, 2021 by Weston Super Saint

[badgerx16]

33 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Metropolitan police Commissioner has her say on the definition of 'local' 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55630164

Although I'm not holding my breath that egg will accept this definition and certainly won't take back his 'selfish cunt' accusations  

This is the Scottish regulation;

......local outdoor recreation, sport or exercise, walking, cycling, golf, or running that starts and finishes at the same place (which can be up to 5 miles from the boundary of your local authority area) as long as you abide by the rules on meeting other households.

 

 

[Weston Super Saint]

16 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

This is the Scottish regulation;

......local outdoor recreation, sport or exercise, walking, cycling, golf, or running that starts and finishes at the same place (which can be up to 5 miles from the boundary of your local authority area) as long as you abide by the rules on meeting other households.

 

 

Annoying really, that wee Jimmy Krankie can put something together that is simple to understand and implement, yet the entire British government can't decide the definition of local!

[egg]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Metropolitan police Commissioner has her say on the definition of 'local' 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55630164

Although I'm not holding my breath that egg will accept this definition and certainly won't take back his 'selfish cunt' accusations  

Weston, ask yourself what the prospect was of the Commissioner saying anything that was critical of the PM. He made his decision, set a precedent and has given everyone the ability to do what they want. The guidance was perfectly clear being the village, town or part of the city where you live. Boris's little outing has given the green light for people to do what they want. You termed yourself a selfish cunt, and I agreed with you. 

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Weston, ask yourself what the prospect was of the Commissioner saying anything that was critical of the PM. He made his decision, set a precedent and has given everyone the ability to do what they want. The guidance was perfectly clear being the village, town or part of the city where you live. Boris's little outing has given the green light for people to do what they want. You termed yourself a selfish cunt, and I agreed with you. 

Pony!

[revolution saint]

Jesus Christ, what is the point of these press conferences when Patel is incapable of answering a question?

[Tamesaint]

So Chartwells send out food which costs just over a fiver in Asda and then claim £30 from the Government. Nice work if you can get it.

I wonder if Chartwells have a connection with the Government 

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2021/01/free-school-meal-scandal-why-government-failing-feed-people-during-pandemic

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Pony!

No, bike!

[CB Fry]

10 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

Jesus Christ, what is the point of these press conferences when Patel is incapable of answering a question?

She has been very clear that we are, in fact, in a pandemic.

[Turkish]

33 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

She has been very clear that we are, in fact, in a pandemic.

Did she not mention the reduction in burglaries during lock down like she did last time?

[aintforever]

42 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

So Chartwells send out food which costs just over a fiver in Asda and then claim £30 from the Government. Nice work if you can get it.

I wonder if Chartwells have a connection with the Government 

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2021/01/free-school-meal-scandal-why-government-failing-feed-people-during-pandemic

Classic Tories that, just to avoid giving out vouchers in case those nasty poor people swap them for fags.

[Lighthouse]

So basically even after all the precautions we’ve put in place to limit the spread, excess deaths have equated to basically the whole population of Bath. Yet some people still think it’s just a bad flu.

[trousers]

2 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

So Chartwells send out food which costs just over a fiver in Asda and then claim £30 from the Government. Nice work if you can get it.

I wonder if Chartwells have a connection with the Government 

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2021/01/free-school-meal-scandal-why-government-failing-feed-people-during-pandemic

I fully appreciate that Guido isn't anywhere near as impartial as the New Statesmen... but it would appear there is possibly two sides to this story... 

https://order-order.com/2021/01/12/food-box-firm-under-fire-from-rashford-is-part-of-his-own-food-poverty-task-force/

 

[The Cat]

Maybe it wasn't Chartwell who sent out the packages in the Twitter photos. They aren't the only company doing it.

The Chairman of Compass who own Chartwell is a Tory donor though. 

[Tamesaint]

2 minutes ago, trousers said:

I fully appreciate that Guido isn't anywhere near as impartial as the New Statesmen... but it would appear there is possibly two sides to this story... 

https://order-order.com/2021/01/12/food-box-firm-under-fire-from-rashford-is-part-of-his-own-food-poverty-task-force/

 

I am not really sure that just because they were part of "Rashford's taskforce" their actions are justified. If anything it makes  them worse - proud to be associated with Rashford but not too proud to miss the chance of ripping off the Government  and Rashford's intended beneficiaries.  Presumably they won't be on his task force for much longer.

Chartwells' parent company is Compass.Their chairman is Paul Walsh (ex Diageo boss - not ex footballer!)who just happens to be a major donor to the Conservative party. Now there's a surprise.

 

[trousers]

7 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

I am not really sure that just because they were part of "Rashford's taskforce" their actions are justified. If anything it makes  them worse - proud to be associated with Rashford but not too proud to miss the chance of ripping off the Government  and Rashford's intended beneficiaries.  Presumably they won't be on his task force for much longer.

 

 

Chartwell's CEO appears to have disputed the figures being quoted. How does one deduce who is telling the truth? 

 

[CB Fry]

27 minutes ago, trousers said:

I fully appreciate that Guido isn't anywhere near as impartial as the New Statesmen... but it would appear there is possibly two sides to this story... 

https://order-order.com/2021/01/12/food-box-firm-under-fire-from-rashford-is-part-of-his-own-food-poverty-task-force/

 

Typical Guido horseshit.

If there's two sides to the story why did Chartwells apologise?

And now Marcus Rushford is now accountable for Chartwells output?

Not the Sovereign Conservative government handing out contracts to them, or the leadership of Compass/Chartwells who have links and a history of donations to the Conservatives long before Rushford turned up. Maybe they are actually responsible for this.

But yeah. Everyone's favourite tax dodging drink driver Guido decides to make the story about the young black guy. 

Edited 12 January, 2021 by CB Fry

[trousers]

I had a hunch there'd be a simple explanation

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

So basically even after all the precautions we’ve put in place to limit the spread, excess deaths have equated to basically the whole population of Bath. Yet some people still think it’s just a bad flu.

Because, to the overwhelming majority of people in the country (and world), it is.

That doesn't detract from the fact that it can be devastating for those aged 70 and above and also those in certain at risk groups.  Both concepts can exist concurrently.

[Tamesaint]

3 hours ago, trousers said:

Chartwell's CEO appears to have disputed the figures being quoted. How does one deduce who is telling the truth? 

 

So even they say they claim £10.50 for supplying food which costs £5.22 in Asda. Only a 100% mark up after allowing a nice donation to the Conservative party.  

Nice business if you can get it.

 

[Tamesaint]

3 hours ago, trousers said:

Chartwell's CEO appears to have disputed the figures being quoted. How does one deduce who is telling the truth? 

 

So even they admit that they claim £10.50 for supplying food which costs £5.22 in Asda. Only a 100% mark up after allowing a nice donation to the Conservative party.  

Nice business if you can get it.

 

Edited 12 January, 2021 by Tamesaint

[Weston Super Saint]

8 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

So even they admit that they claim £10.50 for supplying food which costs £5.22 in Asda. Only a 100% mark up after allowing a nice donation to the Conservative party.  

Nice business if you can get it.

 

Or, in other news, company makes circa 50% GP for it's product in an industry where 70-75% GP would be the norm.  Unless you thought they were doing it for free other than the conspiracy theory of a donation to the Conservative party?

For the record, I can't imagine for a minute that Chartwells will be heading down to their local Asda for their shopping needs, but will, like every other large catering company, be ordering in bulk from wholesalers.  I imagine that they will therefore be achieving a reasonable 70% GP.

[CB Fry]

8 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

So even they admit that they claim £10.50 for supplying food which costs £5.22 in Asda. Only a 100% mark up after allowing a nice donation to the Conservative party.  

Nice business if you can get it.

 

What i didn't realise yesterday was that Rashford yesterday actually had a conference call with Chartwells telling them his view and to get things sorted. A twenty something footballer on the day of a game.

So Conservative-donating big business works out a way to deliver less than the bare minimum to maximise their return on their contract awardedwith view of feeding the most vulnerable in a pandemic.

Chartwells have apologised, offered refunds and to investigate with schools/LEAs. The schools minister spoke with Chartwells yesterday and told them to get things sorted.

 

But on the other hand, partisan right wing website runs a smear hit-piece because that Rashford needs fucking taking down a peg or two so let's implicate him in the blame for something he had absolutely nothing to do with.

So yeah. Two sides to every story.

[rallyboy]

The NHS parcels were the same last summer, less than a tenner of often really poor quality food, often not even wanted - £40 each to the taxpayer.

Unboxed cereal bags, bizarre soups, tuna, soap and tea in the same bag, and much of the 'fresh' produce I saw went straight back in the bin it must have been bought from.

Someone did the stats at the time and even if you spent £10m on a distribution hub and accounted for delivery charges, the profit margins were in the region of £9m - a week.

It was an incredible lottery win for the companies awarded the gig - people were able to retire on one government contract.

 

 

[Guided Missile]

I think this video should serve as a lesson to take regular tests.

[Tamesaint]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Or, in other news, company makes circa 50% GP for it's product in an industry where 70-75% GP would be the norm.  Unless you thought they were doing it for free other than the conspiracy theory of a donation to the Conservative party?

For the record, I can't imagine for a minute that Chartwells will be heading down to their local Asda for their shopping needs, but will, like every other large catering company, be ordering in bulk from wholesalers.  I imagine that they will therefore be achieving a reasonable 70% GP.

 

... or the Government could just issue vouchers for shopping which would enable the recipients to buy food themselves. The vouchers could be for even less than £30, the recipients could get more food than they are currently  getting and the Government would save money.

The only problem then is that the Government's mates don't get their snouts in the trough.

[saint1977]

3 hours ago, CB Fry said:

What i didn't realise yesterday was that Rashford yesterday actually had a conference call with Chartwells telling them his view and to get things sorted. A twenty something footballer on the day of a game.

So Conservative-donating big business works out a way to deliver less than the bare minimum to maximise their return on their contract awardedwith view of feeding the most vulnerable in a pandemic.

Chartwells have apologised, offered refunds and to investigate with schools/LEAs. The schools minister spoke with Chartwells yesterday and told them to get things sorted.

 

But on the other hand, partisan right wing website runs a smear hit-piece because that Rashford needs fucking taking down a peg or two so let's implicate him in the blame for something he had absolutely nothing to do with.

So yeah. Two sides to every story.

This times a million. Let’s see if Matthew Sinclair wants to run a story on how a Conservative donor is wasting taxpayers money at an obscene rate? No, thought not, but one can’t bite the hand that feeds them I suppose 

[Sheaf Saint]

3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Or, in other news, company makes circa 50% GP for it's product in an industry where 70-75% GP would be the norm.  Unless you thought they were doing it for free other than the conspiracy theory of a donation to the Conservative party?

You are spectacularly missing the point here, which is that there is simply no need for a middle man in this situation to cream ANY money off the top. Just issue vouchers to the parents and let them decide how best to feed their kids with it FFS. Even if you think that their mark-up rate is reasonable, they are still riding the gravy train of government funds, taking food out of the mouths of disadvantaged kids, in the middle of a pandemic, to line their own pockets, which is just shameless profiteering at the expense of the most vulnerable. It's absolutely sick. Even 1% of that money going to a private company is too much. 

I've been following this story closely for the last couple of days and I am horrified at some of the pictures I've seen of the 'hampers' that parents have been given. I'm lucky that my wife and I are comfortable enough to not have to rely on this scheme, but if we weren't we would be screwed if we got given such an inflexible selection of food as our daughter is the world's fussiest eater and there is virtually nothing in any of them that she would actually eat, save for the bread. 

[Weston Super Saint]

44 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

 

... or the Government could just issue vouchers for shopping which would enable the recipients to buy food themselves. The vouchers could be for even less than £30, the recipients could get more food than they are currently  getting and the Government would save money.

The only problem then is that the Government's mates don't get their snouts in the trough.

I agree with the vouchers - although they should have caveats about what can and can't be bought, but I think they did previously anyway???

You may be wrong about the Government's mates though - but you'd have to research the political leanings of the supermarket 'bosses' as it would be their profits rising...

[Weston Super Saint]

As if by magic....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55641740

Quote

The education secretary said schools will be able to offer vouchers rather than food parcels from next week.

 

[Sheaf Saint]

8 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

As if by magic....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55641740

 

Once again, the government being shamed into a change of policy by a young footballer.

[Sheaf Saint]

Starmer just took Johnson apart on this at PMQs. When he asked the PM to address the issue, he said the images of the food parcels were shameful and disgraceful and pinned the blame squarely on the private contractors. Starmer then proceeded to read out the government's own guidance on what contents they should include, and they match pretty much exactly with what's been reported.

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

 

... or the Government could just issue vouchers for shopping which would enable the recipients to buy food themselves. The vouchers could be for even less than £30, the recipients could get more food than they are currently  getting and the Government would save money.

The only problem then is that the Government's mates don't get their snouts in the trough.

The only problem ???

They’ll be howls of outrage from lefties if Government issued food vouchers. Thin end of the wedge, once you accept the principle, what’s to stop a Government paying a portion of welfare benefits in food vouchers. 

[Tamesaint]

10 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

The only problem ???

They’ll be howls of outrage from lefties if Government issued food vouchers. Thin end of the wedge, once you accept the principle, what’s to stop a Government paying a portion of welfare benefits in food vouchers. 

Would only happen if the Government's mates could make a few bob for themselves.

[Whitey Grandad]

53 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

The only problem ???

They’ll be howls of outrage from lefties if Government issued food vouchers. Thin end of the wedge, once you accept the principle, what’s to stop a Government paying a portion of welfare benefits in food vouchers. 

It would not surprise me to find out that food vouchers were being traded on the black market.