Jump to content

Living on the border of a tier 3/2 area!


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Legal Eagle said:

This is exactly the point Gordon referred to recently. Throughout the whole pandemic the wording has been "must not" and "should not". The former is legislation, the latter guideline.

 

So it seems curious that the Government should draft legislation that does provide plenty of direct 'must nots' (the lack of observance of which would create an offence) yet does not seek to do so with regards to the unnecessary movement of individuals from a higher Tier to a lower Tier which could just as easily be prohibited within the legislation.  Instead they prefer to simply offer guidance that it is a 'should not' activity.   Why would the Government chose not to do that if it believed it was a necessary step to prevent the spread of the virus?  Is it because it is thought to be unenforceable?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It depends what type of society you wish to reside in.  One which doesn't trust you in the slightest, forcibly restricts everything you can do for the long term even though disobedience is likely to b

Thank goodness covid will only transmit dangerously tomorrow and not today.   If only people could use a bit of common sense and not mix we would not have lockdown but hey, lets not blame us the

what the covidiots don't seem to realise is that if everyone complied with the rules in the first place, as the majority of people did, then perhaps  the virus would have been controlled.  Yes, I know

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Stockcroft said:

 

So it seems curious that the Government should draft legislation that does provide plenty of direct 'must nots' (the lack of observance of which would create an offence) yet does not seek to do so with regards to the unnecessary movement of individuals from a higher Tier to a lower Tier which could just as easily be prohibited within the legislation.  Instead they prefer to simply offer guidance that it is a 'should not' activity.   Why would the Government chose not to do that if it believed it was a necessary step to prevent the spread of the virus?  Is it because it is thought to be unenforceable?  

It depends what type of society you wish to reside in.  One which doesn't trust you in the slightest, forcibly restricts everything you can do for the long term even though disobedience is likely to be high, AKA a dictatorship or one that trusts the greater majority to understand the situation and do the right thing (knowing there will always be a very small disobedient minority) with some "must" restrictions and some "should" guidance, AKA a democracy.

 

All laws are enforceable, it's the volume of offending that can make it unmanageable. Current national policy is to engage, explain and encourage compliance with enforcement as a last resort (known as the 4 'E's). There will always be law breakers no matter what but the current approach of the 4 Es is working with a relatively small number of offenders issued with FPNs or prosecuted in Court. Much better than a Police State and fully legislated restrictions on all movement with a zero tolerance policy.

Edited by Legal Eagle
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SamD said:

 

We are 43rd Cases per capita but that and your stat are really best guess in how each country 'counts'

 

We don't seem to be doing as well as some think.

 

image.png.494678de4825eb5e71c0237bd116b4ec.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dave Capiro owner said:

 

We don't seem to be doing as well as some think.

 

image.png.494678de4825eb5e71c0237bd116b4ec.png

 

Who do we believe?

 

image.thumb.png.c88b8e087342eac2964dada22ebe685a.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Legal Eagle said:

It depends what type of society you wish to reside in.  One which doesn't trust you in the slightest, forcibly restricts everything you can do for the long term even though disobedience is likely to be high, AKA a dictatorship or one that trusts the greater majority to understand the situation and do the right thing (knowing there will always be a very small disobedient minority) with some "must" restrictions and some "should" guidance, AKA a democracy.

OK, we are straying into the realms of philosophical debate now.  This is clearly short-term legislation (not long term idealist dogma) designed to deal with and limit a specific threat (there is a 14 day review of Tiers so can't get more short term than that).  It's a 'here and now' issue - not one related to the theoretical type of society we might wish to move towards.  Its about coping with the situation in the type of society that exists around us today.....the good and the bad!   Bottom line - I think we both agree that movement across Tiers, although desirable to arrest the spread, is not something that the legislators believe to be enforceable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This may make the rules clearer for people , the North York’s Police commissioner was on local TV last night saying the same thing , I assume it applies nationwide .

 

https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/statement-from-supt-mike-walker-on-travel-between-tiers/

Apparently they have prosecuted over 200 people so far .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much bickering, point of order, are but, side stepping, and blatant wriggling around instructions to suit one’s own purpose went on during the YEARS of wartime UK, compared to our WEEKS of discomfort?

 

Ive never felt so ashamed to be British.

 

 

Edited by ericfield
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the guidelines do not ban travel between tiers only adv8se against unnecessary travel.

Obviously the golfers mentioned in earlier posts consider chasing a little ball around  is really necessary! Muppets:angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 664DaveS said:

Obviously the golfers mentioned in earlier posts consider chasing a little ball around  is really necessary! Muppets:angry:

Totally agree!  Was hoping that the legislation would be stronger on the movement across Tiers so that the club might be encouraged to be more direct to members that they must not come to the club from a Tier 3 area rather than saying it is not for the club to police.   They know where people live - they know who are disregarding the guidance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stockcroft said:

OK, we are straying into the realms of philosophical debate now.  This is clearly short-term legislation (not long term idealist dogma) designed to deal with and limit a specific threat (there is a 14 day review of Tiers so can't get more short term than that).  It's a 'here and now' issue - not one related to the theoretical type of society we might wish to move towards.  Its about coping with the situation in the type of society that exists around us today.....the good and the bad!   Bottom line - I think we both agree that movement across Tiers, although desirable to arrest the spread, is not something that the legislators believe to be enforceable.

You asked why did the Government chose not to legislate against movement between tiers if it believed it was a necessary step to prevent the spread of the virus and if  it is because it is thought to be unenforceable.

I answered with my understanding of how the electorates' expectations of British democracy are managed by all of our governments regardless of political party.

I do not agree that the legislators believe it would be unenforceable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Legal Eagle said:

You asked why did the Government chose not to legislate against movement between tiers if it believed it was a necessary step to prevent the spread of the virus and if  it is because it is thought to be unenforceable.

I answered with my understanding of how the electorates' expectations of British democracy are managed by all of our governments regardless of political party.

I do not agree that the legislators believe it would be unenforceable.

 

The legislation specifically outlaws a whole host of activities and freedoms that we (ie the democratic electorate) all take for granted and expect in normal times - eg don't gather in groups of more than 2 in a Tier 3 area.  But this is emergency legislation and that nettle has been grasped.  So I'm still struggling to see why they would shy away from legislating against unnecessary movement from higher tier to lower tier if it was to stop the spread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 664DaveS said:

Unfortunately the guidelines do not ban travel between tiers only adv8se against unnecessary travel.

Obviously the golfers mentioned in earlier posts consider chasing a little ball around  is really necessary! Muppets:angry:

 

But.........

 

Golf is played outside and is clearly exercise so is OK on both criteria.

 

The clubhouse of course is a whole different matter ;)

Experience is something you acquire after you have an urgent need for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Stockcroft said:

......So I'm still struggling to see why they would shy away from legislating against unnecessary movement from higher tier to lower tier if it was to stop the spread.

...and with the benefit of my professional knowledge and experience I gave my understanding of why that is. Puzzling for some though it may be, for want of a better analogy, it's the British way!

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are hoping to travel to North Wales on Saturday to secure our caravan that is stored there. This is our 3rd attempt to go and we have checked with the caravan park owners if this is ok as we are in tier 3. We have been told that its ok to go as winterising a caravan is classed as necessary travel. We don't want to break any rules but really would like to sort our van out before the worst of the weather comes.  Are we really ok to go?  Still unsure. 

Edited by hymermad
Link to post
Share on other sites

have a look on Wales on line they have the outline of it. It does say that it's only tiers 1&2, but it does say that those from tier 3 are prohibited which you can read on the Wales gov website

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Wales has removed restrictions on Tier 1 & 2 people travelling from England, but not those from Tier 3. As HM is from a Tier 3 area, the advisability of a visit rests upon whether visiting to secure/winterise a caravan is 'necessary travel' if that is a relevant justification in Wales.

I've got nothing to do on this hot afternoon

but to settle down and write you a line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as i have been informed by our park owners  Andy, winterising our caravan is classed as necessary travel into  Wales.  We would only be going into the storage compound then straight home so will not pose any risk to anyone but it's going to be a nervy journey if we do go. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/12/2020 at 16:31, Woodentop said:

 

Peterborough is a unitary authority so technically not in a county. It was in Northamptonshire until 1965 when it was moved into Huntingdonshire. Huntingdon has since been absorbed administratively into Cambridgeshire.

 


same with Hull, except our boundaries are so tight they don’t include our suburbs which are in the East Riding of Yorkshire.   Lots of snobbishness going on where the ER residents use Hull for work and shopping, hospitals etc but don’t want to be associated with us at any other time.  Despite having lower cases, they are in Tier 3 with us which makes sense as despite its huge area, there are only two small hospitals and one large one which is part of the Hull University Hospital Trust.    Therefore, the area has a large elderly population and  doesn’t have enough healthcare if there was a surge of cases.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

We live in South Glos! Lumped in with Bristol. So in level 3!

Our cases are quite low compared to Bristol. Unfortunately back in 2007 or so, the government at the time decided to shut our hospital, and build a new one in North Bristol.

Net loss of beds is 800! Ever since our area has really struggled in the winter months.

However today the hospital is on only 85% full. This time last year it was 95% full!

Edited by PR1

2019 Bailey Platinum (640) Phoenix from Chipping Sodbury caravans, towed by our  2017 my Discovery Sport!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'fullness' of hospitals can be misleading. 

 

In 'normal' times they're expected to keep spare capacity available in case of sudden surges. Since Covid hospital have had to reconfigure to enable isolation of Covid patients. This has reduced their potential capacity by an average of about 15%. In addition they generally have a proportion of staff off, either infected with Covid or isolating in case of infection. This has also affected the number of beds that can be safely manned.

 

So, generally a reconfigured hospital will currently be 15% below it's notional number of beds, plus, say 10% as a safety gap, plus maybe 5 % due to staff absence and it therefore could actually have around 30% less beds available than its notional headline number of beds. So if it's running at 85% it is, effectively, stuffed to the gunnels. In a normal year 95% it would also be full. 

I've got nothing to do on this hot afternoon

but to settle down and write you a line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...