Perhaps those with good eyesight will in future be required to wear lab or welding goggles to protect their eyes from incoming viruses, or simply (as the study suggests) to stop people touching their eyes and thus transferring the virus from their hands. Anecdata: a friend remarked to me some time ago that he'd not caught a cold since using tissues to rub his eyes.
There was a suggestion at work (iirc -- now redundant so cannot check) that people use a clean hand/dirty system by using their non-favoured hand to open doors, press buttons and so on. The rationale was that it was hard to stop touching your face, and that the favoured hand was invariably used so keep it clean.
So - if this morning’s newspaper reports are true - there will be no help for the one sector which has been specifically targeted by the latest restrictions: the hospitality sector, despite it being apparently a source of only 5% of the increase in infections.
If true, a disgrace.
This sector has lost most of its spring/summer season, will lose the Xmas/NY season, possibly the start of the next spring season and, even while open, is losing a very significant percentage of its normal trading. Early closing will do little to help stop the virus’s spread but will do a great deal of damage to this sector.
[OT Admin] the site is still very slow and often will not reload on Firefox, leading to long and misleading display of the message that comments are closed. Perhaps after November the site might spend some of its winnings from the Biden/Trump landslide (delete as appropriate) on a Vanilla/Wordpress consultant to work with @rcs1000 for a day or two.
Or just move that line.
It is the extra scrollbar that irritates me and the text of the replies seems to need both scrollbars as sometimes part of the first or messages are not visible depending on which scrollbar you last scrolled with.
I agree with the slowness of loading and on this version of Chrome the comments do not load at all unless the initial box with "Comments are closed" is visible on screen. If that is off-screen, loading does not start until you scroll "Comments are closed" back into view.
The extra scrollbar is the result of a quick-and-dirty workaround that I sent @rcs1000 for the previous problem where you couldn't see the lower comments at all. I think the size of the frame with the comments in it is supposed to automatically adjust itself, but that seems to have broken - probably because the browsers got stricter about communication between pages from different domains, which gets abused by hackers a lot. I think Robert got in touch with Vanilla about fixing the original problem, hopefully they'll work it out and the extra scrollbar won't be needed.
@Cyclefree Ian King on Sky saying they're expecting the support to be announced by Sunak to be targetted to hospitality.
I wouldn't be too worried until the announcement has been made.
I do hope so.
If, as I expect, we end up in a second strict lockdown, what then? And what happens when we lift restrictions again and the virus reappears? Aren’t we going to be in lockdown until there’s a viable vaccine which, frankly could be a year away?
Perhaps if they looked at alternate media sources rather than MSM perhaps the stats would be diferent. It really didn't have to be this way https://youtu.be/CZuq4DyoMfI
We could have just used magic!
Perhaps if those citing "Sweden!" actually looked at the facts behind their outcomes, their restrictions and what's around them, and what the architect of the strategy says it is (rather than a magical "no restrictions and it all goes away! Wheee!", people might listen to them.
I'm mournfully starting to believe that the tripe being paddled by the "lockdownsceptics" is, by percolating around the general population and convincing enough that covid isn't a thing, or not following restrictions magically makes it go away, or it's not actually around and all made up so that they ignore the restrictions, we'll continue having more and more of a surge so we do, in the end, find ourselves in another lockdown of some description.
It would be ironic if it wasn't so shit.
(The banging on about "It's false positives" was really illuminating as to how they can totally ignore any logic or arithmetic in favour of trumpeting a phrase they don't understand and haven't thought through:
1 - Conditional probability doesn't work like that; you can't bait and switch "random sample of entire population" with "sample of people who are symptomatic" when the latter has hugely greater positivity than the former. Of course, this bit does require understanding the use of the term and isn't instantly obvous
2 - Applying their claimed rate obviously meant that we would not only have had zero covid through much of July and August, it would actually have had to be a significant amount of negative covid (more false positives than the total of false and true positives, thus true positives need to be a negative number). I wonder how many covid-ill people landed in the UK and were instantly cured on breathing our air.
3 - The most obvious one, though - the larger the false positive number, the worse the surge in true positives had to be. If half the cases when it was 1,000 per day were false positives (500 false) and the testing rate was similar, then when it's 5,000 per day, it hasn't quintupled. It's gone up ten-fold. Choose a higher number of false positives (900 of those 1000), and it's gone up fifty-fold. Which probably screams for far harsher restrictions)
Yet they continued to bang on about it for days, obviously not actually thinking about it but clinging to it as the latest "proof" that it's all fine and an overreaction and let's please get back to normal it's all a Government conspiracy.
It's the scientists that I'm most disappointed in. A lot of the conspiracy and denialism comes from citing some scientist or other. Reasonable scientists can disagree, but too many are acting as advocates for some emotionally-held belief, not science.
I believe that experts being interviewed on the record have a moral duty to act somewhat like an expert witness: when an "opinion" is asked it should be a professional opinion backed by evidence rather than a personal opinion, and the expert has to be extremely careful not to stray from their area of expertise. (In court, one would hope that the opposing barrister would quickly expose an expert talking beyond their expertise or query the basis for opinion, but journalists conducting an interview are... rather far from forensic in their questioning.) An expert should also consider carefully whether they are engaging in motivated reasoning, and be willing to challenge themselves as best they can, though this is of course difficult.
I'm also a scientist, and ethics is an ever-increasing part of our job. But I see no discussion of the ethics of *not* answering a question when you don't really know the answer. Media training, sure - I've done piles of that, but it's mainly about how to get yourself in print or on TV, not whether you might do better shutting up about something, or considering carefully the consequences of what you say.
Perhaps after this is over the scientific establishment will take a look at how they behaved in the pandemic. Or perhaps they will feel self-satisfied at how many times they got on TV...
--AS
The Stanford scientists who were saying in March that the case fatality rate was only 0.01% have a lot to answer for.
Have they said anything since? Do they still have a job?
I just looked one of them up and now he seems to be saying that lockdowns don't work and there's no second wave. Surprise, surprise.
App downloaded. Somewhat surprised to see that 'Area risk level' is 'Medium'. Earlier in the week it was Low on the Gov.UK site. Two Uni's within about 20 miles, of course.
I've also just downloaded the app. I notice it has had 100K+ downloads and is rated 1.5 stars out of five. I've never seen such a poor rating for any app!
SW13 risk is medium.
In Newham we've had the app for a few weeks and we were put up to Medium yesterday evening so it doesn't sound all that sophisticated if I'm being honest.
The comments on the reviews are interesting
- Rants about the previous API issue. - Complaints that the QR code reader doesn't work with any old QR code. It works with NHS QR codes - for specific purposes - Complaints that the app doesn't have a way to report the *result* of a test. Apparently, according to the developers, a test booked through the app will report the result through the app.
TBF you can still wait and see who he picks, in the event that it was someone less hackish than the current GOP judges it might help to seat them.
Sure. I’m done being fair. This administration and its enablers have no respect for law or constitution except as tools of power; the evidence was long since overwhelming.
Sadly, that is now an attitude on this side of the pond too.
There is something of a difference, though. We are some way off our PM refusing in advance to accept the result if the election unless he wins. How anyone might think it appropriate to even consider appointing this man’s Supreme Court nominee before the election is quite beyond me.
"Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won't be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation,” Trump said. “The ballots are out of control. You know it, and you know who knows it better than anyone else? The Democrats know it better than anyone else.”
Get rid of people voting and there won't be a transfer there will be a continuation. People voting are out of control. Yes Trump, you're not supposed to control what people do with their ballots that is the point of democracy.
To be fair to Trump, it is clear he is talking about postal ballots there, and it is not unheard of for their veracity to be questioned even in this United Kingdom.
And is it that great a jump to our own government saying that it will abolish judicial reviews so it does not have to follow the law?
A single example in a safe Labour seat where the perpetrators have been brought to justice
There was also the embarrassing incident, where the police broke into a light industrial unit (based on information received) and found
a) several local councillors b) an operation to manufacture ballots c) sufficient ballots manufactured to turn the result(s) of local elections,
Birmingham, IIRC.
The point being that if that was a one off, it was extraordinarily well organised for a first attempt.
I lived in Tower Hamlets at the time the comedy was on. My flatmate had his vote stolen. The police weren't just not interested. They actively tried to stop him reporting it.
There're been a few relatively low level cases over the years. The case quoted in Birmingham (?) does sound sophisticated.
However, never in the UK since about the middle of the 19th C, has a party leader asserted so strongly as Trump has that the polls are fixed.
How's that going to work? The government announcing new restrictions but then parliament revoking them a week later will just create confusion. It should be done simultaneously, or introduced in Parliament before.
The next area of interest is or will be the vote to extend the Covid measures passed in late March which were given a 6-month duration.
It's hard to see Labour, after yesterday's support for the Government, opposing the extension of the measures but it may be indicative of feeling within the Conservative Party as to how many MPs abstain or whether there are any amendments introduced to ensure more control and scrutiny for Parliament and less authority for Ministers.
As posited at the start of this thread, Cummings' centralisation of government information has led to a right old mess.
Perhaps the guidelines are to be updated?
Yes, that is the point, although some of them have been but still do not say the same things. Perhaps they would have been updated in synchrony if left to departments and not centralised in (or near) Number 10 by someone who cannot possibly keep abreast of all this. As @alex_ said at the start of this thread, politicians (and their advisors) think government press offices deal only with front page headlines whereas in fact the vast majority of their time is taken with more mundane but possibly more important information.
I mean the two messages aren't contradictory. "It is not mandatory" vs. "It will be mandatory". Given how rapidly changing the current situation is I don't think it is that surprising to find some documents have yet to be updated.
How are ordinary people supposed to know which official government advice applies? That the document they found is contradicted by another page they have not seen (because most people will stop looking once they have found it). It is not much work to update a web page; civil servants are not chiselling Boris's words into Mount Rushmore. Most likely this inconsistency is a side effect of the Number 10 power grab of Whitehall's information machine.
Unlikely. Its only 24 hours since the news was announced and the news has been broadcast all over the news so maybe they will have heard that? Or seen the press release.
Otherwise if it is civil servants updating the web pages maybe it takes them more than 24 hours to get around to updating it, since they've only just found it out themselves. If it had been centralised to Number 10 then Number 10 might have more easily updated it quickly since they're the ones who have made the decision.
You're acting like the media looking for "inconsistencies" which are no such thing.
No, I am acting like someone who needs to know whether they must wear a mask at work today. Right now, in fact.
We received the daily mail each day on their app mainly as my wife likes their crosswords and puzzles
I tend to flick through it but today I read it in more detail and page after page attacks Boris demanding he stops pandering to the experts and reject increasing covid measures and address the economic consequences.
In some ways the mail seems to want to lock and isolate away all of us oldies and let the disease have it's way.
I believe this is the 'herd' immunity theory but when expressed in the pages of the mail it is just repulsive and to be honest I am grateful Boris is following the science and not bowing to these idiotic right wing loons.
We experienced on this forum in the last couple of days the pain felt by Dura Ace when his 81 year old mother fell and on going to hospital for an X-ray picked up covid and dreadfully died 11 days later
Before anyone accuses me of being a Boris cheerleader I have not changed my mind that he is not the right PM for these times but he is at least trying to respect the lives of all of us
The daily mail should hang it's head in shame
Buying the mail for the crossword is like buying the Star for the football.
Are you criticising my wife as I do not buy it
Just making a point, if all she does is the crossword and doesn’t read a single article then fair enough.
To be fair, Mr N, if you don't sometimes look at what papers like the Mail are saying you don't realise why some people with whom you converse think the way they do. Staunch Labour friend of mine reads the Financial Times regularly for the articles.
I don’t find the FT particularly biased, it has its Interest groups but tends to be factual on the whole.
The FT has to be factual - there is money at stake.
@Cyclefree Ian King on Sky saying they're expecting the support to be announced by Sunak to be targetted to hospitality.
I wouldn't be too worried until the announcement has been made.
I do hope so.
If, as I expect, we end up in a second strict lockdown, what then? And what happens when we lift restrictions again and the virus reappears? Aren’t we going to be in lockdown until there’s a viable vaccine which, frankly could be a year away?
As posited at the start of this thread, Cummings' centralisation of government information has led to a right old mess.
Perhaps the guidelines are to be updated?
Yes, that is the point, although some of them have been but still do not say the same things. Perhaps they would have been updated in synchrony if left to departments and not centralised in (or near) Number 10 by someone who cannot possibly keep abreast of all this. As @alex_ said at the start of this thread, politicians (and their advisors) think government press offices deal only with front page headlines whereas in fact the vast majority of their time is taken with more mundane but possibly more important information.
I mean the two messages aren't contradictory. "It is not mandatory" vs. "It will be mandatory". Given how rapidly changing the current situation is I don't think it is that surprising to find some documents have yet to be updated.
How are ordinary people supposed to know which official government advice applies? That the document they found is contradicted by another page they have not seen (because most people will stop looking once they have found it). It is not much work to update a web page; civil servants are not chiselling Boris's words into Mount Rushmore. Most likely this inconsistency is a side effect of the Number 10 power grab of Whitehall's information machine.
Unlikely. Its only 24 hours since the news was announced and the news has been broadcast all over the news so maybe they will have heard that? Or seen the press release.
Otherwise if it is civil servants updating the web pages maybe it takes them more than 24 hours to get around to updating it, since they've only just found it out themselves. If it had been centralised to Number 10 then Number 10 might have more easily updated it quickly since they're the ones who have made the decision.
You're acting like the media looking for "inconsistencies" which are no such thing.
No, I am acting like someone who needs to know whether they must wear a mask at work today. Right now, in fact.
Why didn't you come to the conclusion that the more recent statement was the advice to follow?
It's of no real import I know but on my POTUS election "Guessmap" I've put PA in the Biden column so that gives him 278.
In essence, all Biden has to do is win Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and not lose any of Clinton's states and he's home.
For the record it's 278-144 with 116 in the TCTC column at this time though most of those leaning Trump.
And of course that was all Hillary needed to do on election day too and she led the polling averages in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania on election day and not a single poll in Wisconsin had Trump ahead the entire campaign.
On election night Trump won all 3 states and the EC and the presidency
@Cyclefree Ian King on Sky saying they're expecting the support to be announced by Sunak to be targetted to hospitality.
I wouldn't be too worried until the announcement has been made.
I do hope so.
If, as I expect, we end up in a second strict lockdown, what then? And what happens when we lift restrictions again and the virus reappears? Aren’t we going to be in lockdown until there’s a viable vaccine which, frankly could be a year away?
Yes the PM has said that he expects these restrictions to be in place until there's a vaccine available, which will probably take about six months.
If that's the case then hopefully a balance can be struck that doesn't entail a full lockdown.
If I was Chancellor then I'd be giving targetted support to hospitality and promising a repeat of Eat Out To Help Out after the restrictions get lifted, extended to three months, eg April to June next year if there's a vaccine by March. Get through what will most likely be a bloody miserable winter if there's no Christmas Parties etc and then have a very bumper Spring hopefully.
As posited at the start of this thread, Cummings' centralisation of government information has led to a right old mess.
Perhaps the guidelines are to be updated?
Yes, that is the point, although some of them have been but still do not say the same things. Perhaps they would have been updated in synchrony if left to departments and not centralised in (or near) Number 10 by someone who cannot possibly keep abreast of all this. As @alex_ said at the start of this thread, politicians (and their advisors) think government press offices deal only with front page headlines whereas in fact the vast majority of their time is taken with more mundane but possibly more important information.
I mean the two messages aren't contradictory. "It is not mandatory" vs. "It will be mandatory". Given how rapidly changing the current situation is I don't think it is that surprising to find some documents have yet to be updated.
How are ordinary people supposed to know which official government advice applies? That the document they found is contradicted by another page they have not seen (because most people will stop looking once they have found it). It is not much work to update a web page; civil servants are not chiselling Boris's words into Mount Rushmore. Most likely this inconsistency is a side effect of the Number 10 power grab of Whitehall's information machine.
Unlikely. Its only 24 hours since the news was announced and the news has been broadcast all over the news so maybe they will have heard that? Or seen the press release.
Otherwise if it is civil servants updating the web pages maybe it takes them more than 24 hours to get around to updating it, since they've only just found it out themselves. If it had been centralised to Number 10 then Number 10 might have more easily updated it quickly since they're the ones who have made the decision.
You're acting like the media looking for "inconsistencies" which are no such thing.
No, I am acting like someone who needs to know whether they must wear a mask at work today. Right now, in fact.
These are the changes to the mask wearing exemptions:
TBF you can still wait and see who he picks, in the event that it was someone less hackish than the current GOP judges it might help to seat them.
Sure. I’m done being fair. This administration and its enablers have no respect for law or constitution except as tools of power; the evidence was long since overwhelming.
Sadly, that is now an attitude on this side of the pond too.
There is something of a difference, though. We are some way off our PM refusing in advance to accept the result if the election unless he wins. How anyone might think it appropriate to even consider appointing this man’s Supreme Court nominee before the election is quite beyond me.
"Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won't be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation,” Trump said. “The ballots are out of control. You know it, and you know who knows it better than anyone else? The Democrats know it better than anyone else.”
Get rid of people voting and there won't be a transfer there will be a continuation. People voting are out of control. Yes Trump, you're not supposed to control what people do with their ballots that is the point of democracy.
To be fair to Trump, it is clear he is talking about postal ballots there, and it is not unheard of for their veracity to be questioned even in this United Kingdom.
And is it that great a jump to our own government saying that it will abolish judicial reviews so it does not have to follow the law?
A single example in a safe Labour seat where the perpetrators have been brought to justice
There was also the embarrassing incident, where the police broke into a light industrial unit (based on information received) and found
a) several local councillors b) an operation to manufacture ballots c) sufficient ballots manufactured to turn the result(s) of local elections,
Birmingham, IIRC.
The point being that if that was a one off, it was extraordinarily well organised for a first attempt.
I lived in Tower Hamlets at the time the comedy was on. My flatmate had his vote stolen. The police weren't just not interested. They actively tried to stop him reporting it.
The police are just completely frustrated by each side in an election reporting the other side for some misdemeanor or other so they can't see the wood for the trees and think their time is being wasted by these political nutjobs. On top of that they are not up to date with what is criminal and what is not and don't think these are 'real' crimes. They want to spend their time collaring 'real villains'. And to a certain extent you can't blame them.
In addition some of the electoral laws are just bizarre.
There is a ward in Woking where everyone knows cheating has been going on for decades. There has only ever been one prosecution to my knowledge.
In addition I was a witness in a case elsewhere in the 1990s. The CPS dropped the case after 2 years for lack of evidence. It was about as water tight as you could get.
As posited at the start of this thread, Cummings' centralisation of government information has led to a right old mess.
Perhaps the guidelines are to be updated?
Yes, that is the point, although some of them have been but still do not say the same things. Perhaps they would have been updated in synchrony if left to departments and not centralised in (or near) Number 10 by someone who cannot possibly keep abreast of all this. As @alex_ said at the start of this thread, politicians (and their advisors) think government press offices deal only with front page headlines whereas in fact the vast majority of their time is taken with more mundane but possibly more important information.
I mean the two messages aren't contradictory. "It is not mandatory" vs. "It will be mandatory". Given how rapidly changing the current situation is I don't think it is that surprising to find some documents have yet to be updated.
How are ordinary people supposed to know which official government advice applies? That the document they found is contradicted by another page they have not seen (because most people will stop looking once they have found it). It is not much work to update a web page; civil servants are not chiselling Boris's words into Mount Rushmore. Most likely this inconsistency is a side effect of the Number 10 power grab of Whitehall's information machine.
Unlikely. Its only 24 hours since the news was announced and the news has been broadcast all over the news so maybe they will have heard that? Or seen the press release.
Otherwise if it is civil servants updating the web pages maybe it takes them more than 24 hours to get around to updating it, since they've only just found it out themselves. If it had been centralised to Number 10 then Number 10 might have more easily updated it quickly since they're the ones who have made the decision.
You're acting like the media looking for "inconsistencies" which are no such thing.
No, I am acting like someone who needs to know whether they must wear a mask at work today. Right now, in fact.
And you've seen the answer. From the 24th you need to do so.
As posited at the start of this thread, Cummings' centralisation of government information has led to a right old mess.
Perhaps the guidelines are to be updated?
Yes, that is the point, although some of them have been but still do not say the same things. Perhaps they would have been updated in synchrony if left to departments and not centralised in (or near) Number 10 by someone who cannot possibly keep abreast of all this. As @alex_ said at the start of this thread, politicians (and their advisors) think government press offices deal only with front page headlines whereas in fact the vast majority of their time is taken with more mundane but possibly more important information.
I mean the two messages aren't contradictory. "It is not mandatory" vs. "It will be mandatory". Given how rapidly changing the current situation is I don't think it is that surprising to find some documents have yet to be updated.
How are ordinary people supposed to know which official government advice applies? That the document they found is contradicted by another page they have not seen (because most people will stop looking once they have found it). It is not much work to update a web page; civil servants are not chiselling Boris's words into Mount Rushmore. Most likely this inconsistency is a side effect of the Number 10 power grab of Whitehall's information machine.
Unlikely. Its only 24 hours since the news was announced and the news has been broadcast all over the news so maybe they will have heard that? Or seen the press release.
Otherwise if it is civil servants updating the web pages maybe it takes them more than 24 hours to get around to updating it, since they've only just found it out themselves. If it had been centralised to Number 10 then Number 10 might have more easily updated it quickly since they're the ones who have made the decision.
You're acting like the media looking for "inconsistencies" which are no such thing.
No, I am acting like someone who needs to know whether they must wear a mask at work today. Right now, in fact.
And you've seen the answer. From the 24th you need to do so.
What more do you need to know?
Actually according to the regulations, he does not need to do so.
As posited at the start of this thread, Cummings' centralisation of government information has led to a right old mess.
Perhaps the guidelines are to be updated?
Yes, that is the point, although some of them have been but still do not say the same things. Perhaps they would have been updated in synchrony if left to departments and not centralised in (or near) Number 10 by someone who cannot possibly keep abreast of all this. As @alex_ said at the start of this thread, politicians (and their advisors) think government press offices deal only with front page headlines whereas in fact the vast majority of their time is taken with more mundane but possibly more important information.
I mean the two messages aren't contradictory. "It is not mandatory" vs. "It will be mandatory". Given how rapidly changing the current situation is I don't think it is that surprising to find some documents have yet to be updated.
How are ordinary people supposed to know which official government advice applies? That the document they found is contradicted by another page they have not seen (because most people will stop looking once they have found it). It is not much work to update a web page; civil servants are not chiselling Boris's words into Mount Rushmore. Most likely this inconsistency is a side effect of the Number 10 power grab of Whitehall's information machine.
It's be one full day since that policy was announced? If confronted with two conflicting statements, wouldn't an ordinary person look at the dates that the two statements were published and come to the conclusion that the policy has changed in the interim?
An ordinary person would have read one page or the other, not both.
You think Whitehall might not have had advance notice of any change? Or would have done had Boris and Cummings not broken the system.
How's that going to work? The government announcing new restrictions but then parliament revoking them a week later will just create confusion. It should be done simultaneously, or introduced in Parliament before.
The next area of interest is or will be the vote to extend the Covid measures passed in late March which were given a 6-month duration.
It's hard to see Labour, after yesterday's support for the Government, opposing the extension of the measures but it may be indicative of feeling within the Conservative Party as to how many MPs abstain or whether there are any amendments introduced to ensure more control and scrutiny for Parliament and less authority for Ministers.
Indeed, the only way to strike down the populist and drive a stake through their still-beating heart (metaphorically of course) is to show them not to be popular.
I worry about the Transition IF Biden wins on November 3rd - Trump will be surly, un co-operative and will, I expect, try to govern by Executive Order until mid January. Obviously, if the GOP have lost the Senate that will be harder for him and it will be interesting to see how, if still in control, the GOP Senate reacts to a Trump defeat. Will they abandon him completely because they will have to deal with a Biden administration or will they stay loyal as the ship sinks?
The other option is Trump just walks away but I suspect he'll spend most of the Transition period tweeting about he was cheated out of the Presidency and blaming everyone and everything for his defeat. I also fear a Scorched Earth policy within the West Wing with records destroyed and emails deleted while the Trump administration staffers fall over themselves to be the first to write the story of what it was REALLY like in the Trump White House.
If Trump's reputation needs any further shredding his former staffers will provide
How's that going to work? The government announcing new restrictions but then parliament revoking them a week later will just create confusion. It should be done simultaneously, or introduced in Parliament before.
Just be thankful parliament is finally reining in this ridiculous and unsustainable lunacy.
TBF you can still wait and see who he picks, in the event that it was someone less hackish than the current GOP judges it might help to seat them.
Sure. I’m done being fair. This administration and its enablers have no respect for law or constitution except as tools of power; the evidence was long since overwhelming.
Sadly, that is now an attitude on this side of the pond too.
There is something of a difference, though. We are some way off our PM refusing in advance to accept the result if the election unless he wins. How anyone might think it appropriate to even consider appointing this man’s Supreme Court nominee before the election is quite beyond me.
"Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won't be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation,” Trump said. “The ballots are out of control. You know it, and you know who knows it better than anyone else? The Democrats know it better than anyone else.”
Get rid of people voting and there won't be a transfer there will be a continuation. People voting are out of control. Yes Trump, you're not supposed to control what people do with their ballots that is the point of democracy.
To be fair to Trump, it is clear he is talking about postal ballots there, and it is not unheard of for their veracity to be questioned even in this United Kingdom.
And is it that great a jump to our own government saying that it will abolish judicial reviews so it does not have to follow the law?
A single example in a safe Labour seat where the perpetrators have been brought to justice
There was also the embarrassing incident, where the police broke into a light industrial unit (based on information received) and found
a) several local councillors b) an operation to manufacture ballots c) sufficient ballots manufactured to turn the result(s) of local elections,
Birmingham, IIRC.
The point being that if that was a one off, it was extraordinarily well organised for a first attempt.
I lived in Tower Hamlets at the time the comedy was on. My flatmate had his vote stolen. The police weren't just not interested. They actively tried to stop him reporting it.
There're been a few relatively low level cases over the years. The case quoted in Birmingham (?) does sound sophisticated.
However, never in the UK since about the middle of the 19th C, has a party leader asserted so strongly as Trump has that the polls are fixed.
Trump is an arse. In the US, in general, there is too much interest in finding fraud for it to be hidden. The days of Chicago machine are over. These days, to quote President Bartlett, "We've legalised bribery"
*Without* the Trumpian shite, American elections are bought and sold. Not by stuffing the ballot box, though.
IIRC international election monitoring organisations have commented in the past that UK elections are behind the curve on resistance to fraud.
App downloaded. Somewhat surprised to see that 'Area risk level' is 'Medium'. Earlier in the week it was Low on the Gov.UK site. Two Uni's within about 20 miles, of course.
I've also just downloaded the app. I notice it has had 100K+ downloads and is rated 1.5 stars out of five. I've never seen such a poor rating for any app!
SW13 risk is medium.
I have.
The reviews seem to be mostly stupid issues from when it was in Beta phase ie "its not working in my area" when it was never meant to work in their area!
"Why is this only for Newham and the Isle of Wight" seems to be written in a lot of reviews. Muppets.
The parents can just send a cheque and a hamper, many students will be quite grateful that they don’t have to go home for Christmas, more fun with your mates at uni than with grandma and great aunt Margaret.
Credit, where credit is due... government done well here.
On a per-capita basis, the UK has built the largest and most diversified vaccine portfolio, according to data from Deutsche Bank, having pre-ordered more than five doses per citizen spread across six leading vaccine candidates.
Has anyone managed to get a cheap webcam that actually works properly? Got a Microsoft LifeCam Hd-3000 and it emits a high pitched whine despite trying many tweaks and options. Poor. Amazon has a massive range but the reviews are dubious in terms of authenticity making it a minefield.
We received the daily mail each day on their app mainly as my wife likes their crosswords and puzzles
I tend to flick through it but today I read it in more detail and page after page attacks Boris demanding he stops pandering to the experts and reject increasing covid measures and address the economic consequences.
In some ways the mail seems to want to lock and isolate away all of us oldies and let the disease have it's way.
I believe this is the 'herd' immunity theory but when expressed in the pages of the mail it is just repulsive and to be honest I am grateful Boris is following the science and not bowing to these idiotic right wing loons.
We experienced on this forum in the last couple of days the pain felt by Dura Ace when his 81 year old mother fell and on going to hospital for an X-ray picked up covid and dreadfully died 11 days later
Before anyone accuses me of being a Boris cheerleader I have not changed my mind that he is not the right PM for these times but he is at least trying to respect the lives of all of us
The daily mail should hang it's head in shame
Buying the mail for the crossword is like buying the Star for the football.
Are you criticising my wife as I do not buy it
Just making a point, if all she does is the crossword and doesn’t read a single article then fair enough.
To be fair, Mr N, if you don't sometimes look at what papers like the Mail are saying you don't realise why some people with whom you converse think the way they do. Staunch Labour friend of mine reads the Financial Times regularly for the articles.
I don’t find the FT particularly biased, it has its Interest groups but tends to be factual on the whole.
The FT has to be factual - there is money at stake.
Ha ha ha
Because everyone in business is perfectly clear headed and rational, making perfect decisions, obviously.
I realise you are a Government supporter but why do Ministers keep coming up with pronouncements, guidelines and "rules" which they must know cannot be enforced?
I know some on here think mask wearing is "enforced" (and use that as a basis for an entirely false argument) but the truth is while the majority of law-abiding citizens can and do follow the rules, a minority do not and the virus doesn't know or care if you are following the rules or not.
The rules aren't bad in and of themselves but they are not enforced, at least in my part of London, by any kind of authority (be it the BTP or the Met). There is no one on every tube checking and enforcing compliance with mask wearing and while it took four officers to deal with a beggar dressed as Mickey Mouse in East Ham High Street yesterday, I do wonder if our invisible and useless Home Secretary whose ability to talk tough on crime is matched only by her inability to take any action, might wish to consider re-prioritising Police resources to support the enforcement of the coronavirus regulations.
TBF you can still wait and see who he picks, in the event that it was someone less hackish than the current GOP judges it might help to seat them.
Sure. I’m done being fair. This administration and its enablers have no respect for law or constitution except as tools of power; the evidence was long since overwhelming.
Sadly, that is now an attitude on this side of the pond too.
There is something of a difference, though. We are some way off our PM refusing in advance to accept the result if the election unless he wins. How anyone might think it appropriate to even consider appointing this man’s Supreme Court nominee before the election is quite beyond me.
"Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won't be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation,” Trump said. “The ballots are out of control. You know it, and you know who knows it better than anyone else? The Democrats know it better than anyone else.”
Get rid of people voting and there won't be a transfer there will be a continuation. People voting are out of control. Yes Trump, you're not supposed to control what people do with their ballots that is the point of democracy.
To be fair to Trump, it is clear he is talking about postal ballots there, and it is not unheard of for their veracity to be questioned even in this United Kingdom.
And is it that great a jump to our own government saying that it will abolish judicial reviews so it does not have to follow the law?
A single example in a safe Labour seat where the perpetrators have been brought to justice
There was also the embarrassing incident, where the police broke into a light industrial unit (based on information received) and found
a) several local councillors b) an operation to manufacture ballots c) sufficient ballots manufactured to turn the result(s) of local elections,
Birmingham, IIRC.
The point being that if that was a one off, it was extraordinarily well organised for a first attempt.
I lived in Tower Hamlets at the time the comedy was on. My flatmate had his vote stolen. The police weren't just not interested. They actively tried to stop him reporting it.
There're been a few relatively low level cases over the years. The case quoted in Birmingham (?) does sound sophisticated.
However, never in the UK since about the middle of the 19th C, has a party leader asserted so strongly as Trump has that the polls are fixed.
Trump is an arse. In the US, in general, there is too much interest in finding fraud for it to be hidden. The days of Chicago machine are over. These days, to quote President Bartlett, "We've legalised bribery"
*Without* the Trumpian shite, American elections are bought and sold. Not by stuffing the ballot box, though.
IIRC international election monitoring organisations have commented in the past that UK elections are behind the curve on resistance to fraud.
Electoral fraud, interference from hostile states, deliberate misinformation. Nothing will be done to clean up our elections while the winners benefit from the same techniques as the bad guys.
As posited at the start of this thread, Cummings' centralisation of government information has led to a right old mess.
Perhaps the guidelines are to be updated?
Yes, that is the point, although some of them have been but still do not say the same things. Perhaps they would have been updated in synchrony if left to departments and not centralised in (or near) Number 10 by someone who cannot possibly keep abreast of all this. As @alex_ said at the start of this thread, politicians (and their advisors) think government press offices deal only with front page headlines whereas in fact the vast majority of their time is taken with more mundane but possibly more important information.
I mean the two messages aren't contradictory. "It is not mandatory" vs. "It will be mandatory". Given how rapidly changing the current situation is I don't think it is that surprising to find some documents have yet to be updated.
How are ordinary people supposed to know which official government advice applies? That the document they found is contradicted by another page they have not seen (because most people will stop looking once they have found it). It is not much work to update a web page; civil servants are not chiselling Boris's words into Mount Rushmore. Most likely this inconsistency is a side effect of the Number 10 power grab of Whitehall's information machine.
Unlikely. Its only 24 hours since the news was announced and the news has been broadcast all over the news so maybe they will have heard that? Or seen the press release.
Otherwise if it is civil servants updating the web pages maybe it takes them more than 24 hours to get around to updating it, since they've only just found it out themselves. If it had been centralised to Number 10 then Number 10 might have more easily updated it quickly since they're the ones who have made the decision.
You're acting like the media looking for "inconsistencies" which are no such thing.
No, I am acting like someone who needs to know whether they must wear a mask at work today. Right now, in fact.
These are the changes to the mask wearing exemptions:
Interesting that cinemas, theatres and bingo halls are all listed seperately.
Credit, where credit is due... government done well here.
On a per-capita basis, the UK has built the largest and most diversified vaccine portfolio, according to data from Deutsche Bank, having pre-ordered more than five doses per citizen spread across six leading vaccine candidates.
Plus the UK is at the front of the queue for most of those vaccines as well. We signed a lot of contracts before the EU had signed any, so even if they've signed some afterwards for the same vaccines I believe we should get ours first.
Remarkably the UK has spent nearly as much on vaccines as the "EU alliance" has combined.
Is that because we don't have our own planes? Looks a bit "vassal state"-y to me.
Does the UK have any control over these planes?
Given that the fueling systems, the magazines, the maintenance shops and the ship are in UK control, it would be damned hard to do anything with the US aircraft that doesn't get the nod from the Captain.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
So the regulations state that:
3.—(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.
(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply—
....
(b) to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment
The regulations have now been amended to remove that exception in the following circumstances:
As far as I read, a takeaway still falls under the exception unless you argue it is a "shop".
Thus employees of a takeaway do not need to wear masks under the law.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but that's my take.
TBF you can still wait and see who he picks, in the event that it was someone less hackish than the current GOP judges it might help to seat them.
Sure. I’m done being fair. This administration and its enablers have no respect for law or constitution except as tools of power; the evidence was long since overwhelming.
Sadly, that is now an attitude on this side of the pond too.
There is something of a difference, though. We are some way off our PM refusing in advance to accept the result if the election unless he wins. How anyone might think it appropriate to even consider appointing this man’s Supreme Court nominee before the election is quite beyond me.
"Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won't be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation,” Trump said. “The ballots are out of control. You know it, and you know who knows it better than anyone else? The Democrats know it better than anyone else.”
Get rid of people voting and there won't be a transfer there will be a continuation. People voting are out of control. Yes Trump, you're not supposed to control what people do with their ballots that is the point of democracy.
To be fair to Trump, it is clear he is talking about postal ballots there, and it is not unheard of for their veracity to be questioned even in this United Kingdom.
And is it that great a jump to our own government saying that it will abolish judicial reviews so it does not have to follow the law?
A single example in a safe Labour seat where the perpetrators have been brought to justice
There was also the embarrassing incident, where the police broke into a light industrial unit (based on information received) and found
a) several local councillors b) an operation to manufacture ballots c) sufficient ballots manufactured to turn the result(s) of local elections,
Birmingham, IIRC.
The point being that if that was a one off, it was extraordinarily well organised for a first attempt.
I lived in Tower Hamlets at the time the comedy was on. My flatmate had his vote stolen. The police weren't just not interested. They actively tried to stop him reporting it.
There're been a few relatively low level cases over the years. The case quoted in Birmingham (?) does sound sophisticated.
However, never in the UK since about the middle of the 19th C, has a party leader asserted so strongly as Trump has that the polls are fixed.
Trump is an arse. In the US, in general, there is too much interest in finding fraud for it to be hidden. The days of Chicago machine are over. These days, to quote President Bartlett, "We've legalised bribery"
*Without* the Trumpian shite, American elections are bought and sold. Not by stuffing the ballot box, though.
IIRC international election monitoring organisations have commented in the past that UK elections are behind the curve on resistance to fraud.
Electoral fraud, interference from hostile states, deliberate misinformation. Nothing will be done to clean up our elections while the winners benefit from the same techniques as the bad guys.
The winners usually are the bad guys, that's the problem.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
So the regulations state that:
3.—(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.
(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply—
....
(b) to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment
The regulations have now been amended to remove that exception in the following circumstances:
As far as I read, a takeaway still falls under the exception unless you argue it is a "shop".
Thus employees of a takeaway do not need to wear masks under the law.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but that's my take.
Why argue though just wear a mask as any sane person would do.
I realise you are a Government supporter but why do Ministers keep coming up with pronouncements, guidelines and "rules" which they must know cannot be enforced?
I know some on here think mask wearing is "enforced" (and use that as a basis for an entirely false argument) but the truth is while the majority of law-abiding citizens can and do follow the rules, a minority do not and the virus doesn't know or care if you are following the rules or not.
The rules aren't bad in and of themselves but they are not enforced, at least in my part of London, by any kind of authority (be it the BTP or the Met). There is no one on every tube checking and enforcing compliance with mask wearing and while it took four officers to deal with a beggar dressed as Mickey Mouse in East Ham High Street yesterday, I do wonder if our invisible and useless Home Secretary whose ability to talk tough on crime is matched only by her inability to take any action, might wish to consider re-prioritising Police resources to support the enforcement of the coronavirus regulations.
Which is why Boris this week has said he will increase the fine for non compliance and suggested he may bring in the army to support the police while more of the police switch to enforcing mask wearing and compliance with Covid rules.
New Covid Marshalls will also help the police in enforcing Covid rules
I'm mournfully starting to believe that the tripe being paddled by the "lockdownsceptics" is, by percolating around the general population and convincing enough that covid isn't a thing, or not following restrictions magically makes it go away, or it's not actually around and all made up so that they ignore the restrictions, we'll continue having more and more of a surge so we do, in the end, find ourselves in another lockdown of some description.
It would be ironic if it wasn't so shit.
(The banging on about "It's false positives" was really illuminating as to how they can totally ignore any logic or arithmetic in favour of trumpeting a phrase they don't understand and haven't thought through:
1 - Conditional probability doesn't work like that; you can't bait and switch "random sample of entire population" with "sample of people who are symptomatic" when the latter has hugely greater positivity than the former. Of course, this bit does require understanding the use of the term and isn't instantly obvous
2 - Applying their claimed rate obviously meant that we would not only have had zero covid through much of July and August, it would actually have had to be a significant amount of negative covid (more false positives than the total of false and true positives, thus true positives need to be a negative number). I wonder how many covid-ill people landed in the UK and were instantly cured on breathing our air.
3 - The most obvious one, though - the larger the false positive number, the worse the surge in true positives had to be. If half the cases when it was 1,000 per day were false positives (500 false) and the testing rate was similar, then when it's 5,000 per day, it hasn't quintupled. It's gone up ten-fold. Choose a higher number of false positives (900 of those 1000), and it's gone up fifty-fold. Which probably screams for far harsher restrictions)
Yet they continued to bang on about it for days, obviously not actually thinking about it but clinging to it as the latest "proof" that it's all fine and an overreaction and let's please get back to normal it's all a Government conspiracy.
It's the scientists that I'm most disappointed in. A lot of the conspiracy and denialism comes from citing some scientist or other. Reasonable scientists can disagree, but too many are acting as advocates for some emotionally-held belief, not science.
I believe that experts being interviewed on the record have a moral duty to act somewhat like an expert witness: when an "opinion" is asked it should be a professional opinion backed by evidence rather than a personal opinion, and the expert has to be extremely careful not to stray from their area of expertise...
And scientists should realise that a lot of the public see them as a sort of arcane thing where you don't actually look at what they say, but simply cite them as an authority as soon as you find someone who says something you want to believe.
Like a religious leader, or something along those lines.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
So the regulations state that:
3.—(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.
(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply—
....
(b) to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment
The regulations have now been amended to remove that exception in the following circumstances:
As far as I read, a takeaway still falls under the exception unless you argue it is a "shop".
Thus employees of a takeaway do not need to wear masks under the law.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but that's my take.
Why argue though just wear a mask as any sane person would do.
I don't disagree - I would certainly wear a mask in any case. But that's not the point is it?
Is that because we don't have our own planes? Looks a bit "vassal state"-y to me.
It was a joint NATO exercise with US and UK planes on board the British aircraft carrier
Do we have enough planes to fill the carrier?
It's 5 x UK and 9 x US F-35B. Then, in a typical MoD ass-to-mouth move, they stacked 8 x Merlin on it to get 22 a/c on the deck. This was purely to be able to say it was bigger than the 21 a/c of the Hermes air wing.
The British Cdr (Air) on the carrier has command of the US jets as long as he's tasking them to do something they want to do anyway... A polite fiction.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
So the regulations state that:
3.—(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.
(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply—
....
(b) to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment
The regulations have now been amended to remove that exception in the following circumstances:
As far as I read, a takeaway still falls under the exception unless you argue it is a "shop".
Thus employees of a takeaway do not need to wear masks under the law.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but that's my take.
The definition of "shop" according to the original SI is:
In these Regulations, “shop” means any building, room or other indoor establishment which is open to the public in whole or in part and is used wholly or mainly for the purposes of retail sale or hire of goods or services, but not including the premises listed in [F8Schedule 2].
The schedule 2 is rather limited - medical or dental services, gyms and photography studios.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
It's of no real import I know but on my POTUS election "Guessmap" I've put PA in the Biden column so that gives him 278.
In essence, all Biden has to do is win Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and not lose any of Clinton's states and he's home.
For the record it's 278-144 with 116 in the TCTC column at this time though most of those leaning Trump.
And of course that was all Hillary needed to do on election day too and she led the polling averages in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania on election day and not a single poll in Wisconsin had Trump ahead the entire campaign.
On election night Trump won all 3 states and the EC and the presidency
Yep, on election day Trump needed to roll a "double or a seven" to win, which he did. IF the odds are again 30-70 this time, he needs to get lucky again.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
So the regulations state that:
3.—(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.
(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply—
....
(b) to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment
The regulations have now been amended to remove that exception in the following circumstances:
As far as I read, a takeaway still falls under the exception unless you argue it is a "shop".
Thus employees of a takeaway do not need to wear masks under the law.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but that's my take.
The definition of "shop" according to the original SI is:
In these Regulations, “shop” means any building, room or other indoor establishment which is open to the public in whole or in part and is used wholly or mainly for the purposes of retail sale or hire of goods or services, but not including the premises listed in [F8Schedule 2].
The schedule 2 is rather limited - medical or dental services, gyms and photography studios.
So perhaps a takeaway is a "shop" for the purpose of the rules? It is far from clear though.
A restaurant would perhaps fall under that description and yet that is listed separately?
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
So the regulations state that:
3.—(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.
(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply—
....
(b) to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment
The regulations have now been amended to remove that exception in the following circumstances:
As far as I read, a takeaway still falls under the exception unless you argue it is a "shop".
Thus employees of a takeaway do not need to wear masks under the law.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but that's my take.
Why argue though just wear a mask as any sane person would do.
I don't disagree - I would certainly wear a mask in any case. But that's not the point is it?
No the rules should be crystal clear and understandable by someone with the ability of a five year old.
TBF you can still wait and see who he picks, in the event that it was someone less hackish than the current GOP judges it might help to seat them.
Sure. I’m done being fair. This administration and its enablers have no respect for law or constitution except as tools of power; the evidence was long since overwhelming.
Sadly, that is now an attitude on this side of the pond too.
There is something of a difference, though. We are some way off our PM refusing in advance to accept the result if the election unless he wins. How anyone might think it appropriate to even consider appointing this man’s Supreme Court nominee before the election is quite beyond me.
"Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won't be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation,” Trump said. “The ballots are out of control. You know it, and you know who knows it better than anyone else? The Democrats know it better than anyone else.”
Get rid of people voting and there won't be a transfer there will be a continuation. People voting are out of control. Yes Trump, you're not supposed to control what people do with their ballots that is the point of democracy.
To be fair to Trump, it is clear he is talking about postal ballots there, and it is not unheard of for their veracity to be questioned even in this United Kingdom.
And is it that great a jump to our own government saying that it will abolish judicial reviews so it does not have to follow the law?
A single example in a safe Labour seat where the perpetrators have been brought to justice
There was also the embarrassing incident, where the police broke into a light industrial unit (based on information received) and found
a) several local councillors b) an operation to manufacture ballots c) sufficient ballots manufactured to turn the result(s) of local elections,
Birmingham, IIRC.
The point being that if that was a one off, it was extraordinarily well organised for a first attempt.
I lived in Tower Hamlets at the time the comedy was on. My flatmate had his vote stolen. The police weren't just not interested. They actively tried to stop him reporting it.
There're been a few relatively low level cases over the years. The case quoted in Birmingham (?) does sound sophisticated.
However, never in the UK since about the middle of the 19th C, has a party leader asserted so strongly as Trump has that the polls are fixed.
Trump is an arse. In the US, in general, there is too much interest in finding fraud for it to be hidden. The days of Chicago machine are over. These days, to quote President Bartlett, "We've legalised bribery"
*Without* the Trumpian shite, American elections are bought and sold. Not by stuffing the ballot box, though.
IIRC international election monitoring organisations have commented in the past that UK elections are behind the curve on resistance to fraud.
Electoral fraud, interference from hostile states, deliberate misinformation. Nothing will be done to clean up our elections while the winners benefit from the same techniques as the bad guys.
The winners usually are the bad guys, that's the problem.
The UK problem (which is not enormous) is the use of mail-in ballots to enforce voting to the wishes of "community leaders". Usually for local elections.
The parallels between practice and the days of non-secret ballots and the Squireachy are interesting.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
So the regulations state that:
3.—(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.
(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply—
....
(b) to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment
The regulations have now been amended to remove that exception in the following circumstances:
As far as I read, a takeaway still falls under the exception unless you argue it is a "shop".
Thus employees of a takeaway do not need to wear masks under the law.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but that's my take.
The definition of "shop" according to the original SI is:
In these Regulations, “shop” means any building, room or other indoor establishment which is open to the public in whole or in part and is used wholly or mainly for the purposes of retail sale or hire of goods or services, but not including the premises listed in [F8Schedule 2].
The schedule 2 is rather limited - medical or dental services, gyms and photography studios.
So perhaps a takeaway is a "shop" for the purpose of the rules? It is far from clear though.
A restaurant would perhaps fall under that description and yet that is listed separately?
Yes, but it is listed as an exemption so whether or not it falls under that description it has been explicitly excluded. There's nothing obvious here that suggests you wouldn't consider a takeaway to be a shop.
40 days until the US election and Biden remains 7 points ahead in the national poll averages. It makes me wonder, when is most early voting (in person or by mail) expected to happen this year? And how big will the percentages be given Covid-19 etc?
It seems to me Trump is running out of time for a swing back to him, especially once a meaningful proportion of the votes have been cast. So the debate on Tuesday is surely critical for him - the next Presidential one is 2 weeks later, by which point he'll be running out of time.
It would be good to have a PB piece giving an overview of the key states and their position on early and postal voting, and any data on how it's going so far. I saw one post that said a million out of 6 million votes in that state had been sent out, though not many received back yet.
Some interesting notes on key states from New York Times on this:
1. Pennsylvania has moved to no reason needed postal voting so has 22% registrations compared with 1% in 2016. They are going out already in most counties. Party affiliation of requesters is 70% Democrat. This shows the risk of Trump's position on postal votes in a state not used to postal voting - no doubt his supporters do plan to vote on the day, but they've clearly been put off the postal route in Pennsylvania and he is vulnerable to weather or a virus upsurge causing him problems there.
2. Florida is more used to postal voting and has 33% requesting compared with 25% in 2016. Traditionally, the split is fairly even between Democrats and GOP requesting but there is some imbalance this time - 46% Dem, 31% GOP, 22% neither. So again, Trump has made himself a little more reliant on turnout on the day although not as dramatic as elsewhere. Ballots going out from today.
3. New Hampshire is restrictive on postal voting and only 4% have requested. NH is one to watch for a possible surprise Trump gain if he gets a late swing - can see him spending time here late on.
4. North Carolina has 13% requests compared with 4% in 2016 and these have been going out for weeks. 50% Democrat, 18% GOP, 33% neither. Importantly, there is also a very high percentage of early in-person voting there (from mid October). Indications are that Biden (and Cunningham for Senate) have very narrow leads and it becomes really hard for Trump (and Tillis) if that endures much into October as a lot of votes will be locked in - late swing isn't much good for them.
5. Wisconsin has 32% requesting (5% in 2016) and these have been hitting letterboxes for a week. No party affiliation, but you'd assume on pattern elsewhere this is good for Democrats. Wisconsin always looked tough for Trump to keep, and it's going to get ever tougher unless he makes serious inroads soon as so many votes will have been cast.
6. Michigan isn't quite so dramatic as Wisconsin but has had a big rise in requests (from 15% in 2016 to 31% now). Going out from today. Again, makes it less vulnerable to a late swing and Trump needs to move fairly fast to repeat his trick of last time there.
7. Georgia also has a fairly big rise in postal requests (17% compared with 4% in 2016). If Georgia is close and decisive (which I think is quite unlikely - if Biden/Trump are very close here, I think Biden will have already won nationally so it's moot) it could be extremely messy with rejected ballots as the state GOP have form on this. Senate could also be messy.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
So the regulations state that:
3.—(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.
(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply—
....
(b) to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment
The regulations have now been amended to remove that exception in the following circumstances:
As far as I read, a takeaway still falls under the exception unless you argue it is a "shop".
Thus employees of a takeaway do not need to wear masks under the law.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but that's my take.
The definition of "shop" according to the original SI is:
In these Regulations, “shop” means any building, room or other indoor establishment which is open to the public in whole or in part and is used wholly or mainly for the purposes of retail sale or hire of goods or services, but not including the premises listed in [F8Schedule 2].
The schedule 2 is rather limited - medical or dental services, gyms and photography studios.
So perhaps a takeaway is a "shop" for the purpose of the rules? It is far from clear though.
A restaurant would perhaps fall under that description and yet that is listed separately?
Yes, but it is listed as an exemption so whether or not it falls under that description it has been explicitly excluded. There's nothing obvious here that suggests you wouldn't consider a takeaway to be a shop.
A takeaway could be considered a restaurant that does not have table service.
Restaurants *with* table service are explicitly listed as requiring employees to wear face-coverings, suggesting that restaurants *without* table service do not.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
I didn't realise John worked in a takeaway.
Somebody working in a takeaway, is not a reason for the rules to be complicated.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
So the regulations state that:
3.—(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.
(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply—
....
(b) to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment
The regulations have now been amended to remove that exception in the following circumstances:
As far as I read, a takeaway still falls under the exception unless you argue it is a "shop".
Thus employees of a takeaway do not need to wear masks under the law.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but that's my take.
The definition of "shop" according to the original SI is:
In these Regulations, “shop” means any building, room or other indoor establishment which is open to the public in whole or in part and is used wholly or mainly for the purposes of retail sale or hire of goods or services, but not including the premises listed in [F8Schedule 2].
The schedule 2 is rather limited - medical or dental services, gyms and photography studios.
So perhaps a takeaway is a "shop" for the purpose of the rules? It is far from clear though.
A restaurant would perhaps fall under that description and yet that is listed separately?
Yes, but it is listed as an exemption so whether or not it falls under that description it has been explicitly excluded. There's nothing obvious here that suggests you wouldn't consider a takeaway to be a shop.
A takeaway could be considered a restaurant that does not have table service.
Restaurants *with* table service are explicitly listed as requiring employees to wear face-coverings, suggesting that restaurants *without* table service do not.
I don't read it that way. A restaurant is a shop under the definition given in the SI, and only restaurants with table service have been excluded from the requirement.
I'll be working in a shop later. Have been told I have to wear a mask. But then I'm in the NE, so that may be different. Just to muddy the crystal clear waters.
The whole focus on grassing up your neighbour and fines is totally the wrong messaging to try and get nationwide compliance.
It should be focused on how your actions can kill loved ones, the old, the disabled...and reminder that even if you are young long covid is a thing.
I'm sure long covid is partly mental. People have been terrified into thinking covid is the plague. It would be completely unsurprising if there were anxiety and depression related physical symptoms in the wake of it. These are very common. Ask anybody with anxiety.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
I didn't realise John worked in a takeaway.
Somebody working in a takeaway, is not a reason for the rules to be complicated.
I don't think they are complicated.
And if your boss says you need to wear a mask then wear a mask.
I'll be working in a shop later. Have been told I have to wear a mask. But then I'm in the NE, so that may be different. Just to muddy the crystal clear waters.
If you are working in a shop it's clear. As long as you know what a shop is
I'll be working in a shop later. Have been told I have to wear a mask. But then I'm in the NE, so that may be different. Just to muddy the crystal clear waters.
Precisely, most employees will be getting their instructions from their employers not from trawling government websites.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
So the regulations state that:
3.—(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.
(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply—
....
(b) to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment
The regulations have now been amended to remove that exception in the following circumstances:
As far as I read, a takeaway still falls under the exception unless you argue it is a "shop".
Thus employees of a takeaway do not need to wear masks under the law.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but that's my take.
The definition of "shop" according to the original SI is:
In these Regulations, “shop” means any building, room or other indoor establishment which is open to the public in whole or in part and is used wholly or mainly for the purposes of retail sale or hire of goods or services, but not including the premises listed in [F8Schedule 2].
The schedule 2 is rather limited - medical or dental services, gyms and photography studios.
So perhaps a takeaway is a "shop" for the purpose of the rules? It is far from clear though.
A restaurant would perhaps fall under that description and yet that is listed separately?
Yes, but it is listed as an exemption so whether or not it falls under that description it has been explicitly excluded. There's nothing obvious here that suggests you wouldn't consider a takeaway to be a shop.
A takeaway could be considered a restaurant that does not have table service.
Restaurants *with* table service are explicitly listed as requiring employees to wear face-coverings, suggesting that restaurants *without* table service do not.
I don't read it that way. A restaurant is a shop under the definition given in the SI, and only restaurants with table service have been excluded from the requirement.
Eh? The original SI states that ALL employees do not have to wear a mask under the law.
The new SI states that this exemption does not apply to those who work in a shop, or those who work in a restaurant *with* table service.
Thus if a takeaway is not a shop, and is indeed a restaurant *without* table service, then employees do not need to wear masks.
App downloaded. Somewhat surprised to see that 'Area risk level' is 'Medium'. Earlier in the week it was Low on the Gov.UK site. Two Uni's within about 20 miles, of course.
I've also just downloaded the app. I notice it has had 100K+ downloads and is rated 1.5 stars out of five. I've never seen such a poor rating for any app!
SW13 risk is medium.
I have.
The reviews seem to be mostly stupid issues from when it was in Beta phase ie "its not working in my area" when it was never meant to work in their area!
"Why is this only for Newham and the Isle of Wight" seems to be written in a lot of reviews. Muppets.
I downloaded it at 8 a.m. this morning today and got the IoW/Newnham only version. Wazzock.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
So the regulations state that:
3.—(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.
(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply—
....
(b) to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment
The regulations have now been amended to remove that exception in the following circumstances:
As far as I read, a takeaway still falls under the exception unless you argue it is a "shop".
Thus employees of a takeaway do not need to wear masks under the law.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but that's my take.
The definition of "shop" according to the original SI is:
In these Regulations, “shop” means any building, room or other indoor establishment which is open to the public in whole or in part and is used wholly or mainly for the purposes of retail sale or hire of goods or services, but not including the premises listed in [F8Schedule 2].
The schedule 2 is rather limited - medical or dental services, gyms and photography studios.
So perhaps a takeaway is a "shop" for the purpose of the rules? It is far from clear though.
A restaurant would perhaps fall under that description and yet that is listed separately?
Yes, but it is listed as an exemption so whether or not it falls under that description it has been explicitly excluded. There's nothing obvious here that suggests you wouldn't consider a takeaway to be a shop.
A takeaway could be considered a restaurant that does not have table service.
Restaurants *with* table service are explicitly listed as requiring employees to wear face-coverings, suggesting that restaurants *without* table service do not.
I don't read it that way. A restaurant is a shop under the definition given in the SI, and only restaurants with table service have been excluded from the requirement.
Eh? The original SI states that ALL employees do not have to wear a mask under the law.
The new SI states that this exemption does not apply to those who work in a shop, or those who work in a restaurant *with* table service.
Thus if a takeaway is not a shop, and is indeed a restaurant *without* table service, then employees do not need to wear masks.
It's not very clear at all.
The original SI requires people to wear masks when entering or remaining within a "relevant place". It then goes on to exempt certain types of places from this requirement. It doesn't start from the premise that no one needs to wear a mask and then proscribe where they need to be worn. You need to wear a mask in all shops, except for...
App downloaded. Somewhat surprised to see that 'Area risk level' is 'Medium'. Earlier in the week it was Low on the Gov.UK site. Two Uni's within about 20 miles, of course.
I've also just downloaded the app. I notice it has had 100K+ downloads and is rated 1.5 stars out of five. I've never seen such a poor rating for any app!
SW13 risk is medium.
I have.
The reviews seem to be mostly stupid issues from when it was in Beta phase ie "its not working in my area" when it was never meant to work in their area!
"Why is this only for Newham and the Isle of Wight" seems to be written in a lot of reviews. Muppets.
I downloaded it at 8 a.m. this morning today and got the IoW/Newnham only version. Wazzock.
Edited for pleonasm.
The reviews I'm referring to were dated previously.
I downloaded it at about 1am this morning and got the mainstream version. No idea why the app store messed it up for you.
I'll be working in a shop later. Have been told I have to wear a mask. But then I'm in the NE, so that may be different. Just to muddy the crystal clear waters.
Precisely, most employees will be getting their instructions from their employers not from trawling government websites.
And most employers will be getting their instructions from xxxxxxxxx not from trawling government websites.
TBF you can still wait and see who he picks, in the event that it was someone less hackish than the current GOP judges it might help to seat them.
Sure. I’m done being fair. This administration and its enablers have no respect for law or constitution except as tools of power; the evidence was long since overwhelming.
Sadly, that is now an attitude on this side of the pond too.
There is something of a difference, though. We are some way off our PM refusing in advance to accept the result if the election unless he wins. How anyone might think it appropriate to even consider appointing this man’s Supreme Court nominee before the election is quite beyond me.
"Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won't be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation,” Trump said. “The ballots are out of control. You know it, and you know who knows it better than anyone else? The Democrats know it better than anyone else.”
Get rid of people voting and there won't be a transfer there will be a continuation. People voting are out of control. Yes Trump, you're not supposed to control what people do with their ballots that is the point of democracy.
To be fair to Trump, it is clear he is talking about postal ballots there, and it is not unheard of for their veracity to be questioned even in this United Kingdom.
And is it that great a jump to our own government saying that it will abolish judicial reviews so it does not have to follow the law?
A single example in a safe Labour seat where the perpetrators have been brought to justice
There was also the embarrassing incident, where the police broke into a light industrial unit (based on information received) and found
a) several local councillors b) an operation to manufacture ballots c) sufficient ballots manufactured to turn the result(s) of local elections,
Birmingham, IIRC.
The point being that if that was a one off, it was extraordinarily well organised for a first attempt.
I lived in Tower Hamlets at the time the comedy was on. My flatmate had his vote stolen. The police weren't just not interested. They actively tried to stop him reporting it.
There're been a few relatively low level cases over the years. The case quoted in Birmingham (?) does sound sophisticated.
However, never in the UK since about the middle of the 19th C, has a party leader asserted so strongly as Trump has that the polls are fixed.
Trump is an arse. In the US, in general, there is too much interest in finding fraud for it to be hidden. The days of Chicago machine are over. These days, to quote President Bartlett, "We've legalised bribery"
*Without* the Trumpian shite, American elections are bought and sold. Not by stuffing the ballot box, though.
IIRC international election monitoring organisations have commented in the past that UK elections are behind the curve on resistance to fraud.
Electoral fraud, interference from hostile states, deliberate misinformation. Nothing will be done to clean up our elections while the winners benefit from the same techniques as the bad guys.
The winners usually are the bad guys, that's the problem.
The UK problem (which is not enormous) is the use of mail-in ballots to enforce voting to the wishes of "community leaders". Usually for local elections.
The parallels between practice and the days of non-secret ballots and the Squireachy are interesting.
Yeah, it's revolting and needs to be squashed. Relevance for UK general elections probably close to zero.
App downloaded. Somewhat surprised to see that 'Area risk level' is 'Medium'. Earlier in the week it was Low on the Gov.UK site. Two Uni's within about 20 miles, of course.
I've also just downloaded the app. I notice it has had 100K+ downloads and is rated 1.5 stars out of five. I've never seen such a poor rating for any app!
SW13 risk is medium.
I have.
The reviews seem to be mostly stupid issues from when it was in Beta phase ie "its not working in my area" when it was never meant to work in their area!
"Why is this only for Newham and the Isle of Wight" seems to be written in a lot of reviews. Muppets.
I downloaded it at 8 a.m. this morning today and got the IoW/Newnham only version. Wazzock.
Edited for pleonasm.
The reviews I'm referring to were dated previously.
I downloaded it at about 1am this morning and got the mainstream version. No idea why the app store messed it up for you.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
So the regulations state that:
3.—(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.
(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply—
....
(b) to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment
The regulations have now been amended to remove that exception in the following circumstances:
As far as I read, a takeaway still falls under the exception unless you argue it is a "shop".
Thus employees of a takeaway do not need to wear masks under the law.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but that's my take.
The definition of "shop" according to the original SI is:
In these Regulations, “shop” means any building, room or other indoor establishment which is open to the public in whole or in part and is used wholly or mainly for the purposes of retail sale or hire of goods or services, but not including the premises listed in [F8Schedule 2].
The schedule 2 is rather limited - medical or dental services, gyms and photography studios.
So perhaps a takeaway is a "shop" for the purpose of the rules? It is far from clear though.
A restaurant would perhaps fall under that description and yet that is listed separately?
Yes, but it is listed as an exemption so whether or not it falls under that description it has been explicitly excluded. There's nothing obvious here that suggests you wouldn't consider a takeaway to be a shop.
A takeaway could be considered a restaurant that does not have table service.
Restaurants *with* table service are explicitly listed as requiring employees to wear face-coverings, suggesting that restaurants *without* table service do not.
I don't read it that way. A restaurant is a shop under the definition given in the SI, and only restaurants with table service have been excluded from the requirement.
Eh? The original SI states that ALL employees do not have to wear a mask under the law.
The new SI states that this exemption does not apply to those who work in a shop, or those who work in a restaurant *with* table service.
Thus if a takeaway is not a shop, and is indeed a restaurant *without* table service, then employees do not need to wear masks.
It's not very clear at all.
The original SI requires people to wear masks when entering or remaining within a "relevant place". It then goes on to exempt certain types of places from this requirement. It doesn't start from the premise that no one needs to wear a mask and then proscribe where they need to be worn.
I've already quoted the original SI. It states that all people need to wear masks when entering or remaining within a "relevant place". It then exempts employees.
The new amendment keeps this exemption for employees, but proscribes environments where this exemption does not apply.
The government really should have asked for the rating to be reset, as the previous app that got 1 star (quite rightly) is what windows 3.1 is to windows 10. They aren't the same app at all.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
So the regulations state that:
3.—(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.
(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply—
....
(b) to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment
The regulations have now been amended to remove that exception in the following circumstances:
As far as I read, a takeaway still falls under the exception unless you argue it is a "shop".
Thus employees of a takeaway do not need to wear masks under the law.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but that's my take.
Can't they make the rules based on whether visitors are present or expected? This would apply to all those in the list above, takeaways and offices in which a person from another company is visiting. Deliverers and receptionists taking deliveries would also need to wear masks under this rule.
I realise that there will need to be some more detail eg schools could if necessary be exempted. But the advantage is that the reasoning and intention is made clear.
This means that when the chippie closes, the staff no longer have to wear masks, as there are only 2 or three staff there, who are there every day. Before opening they do have to wear masks, as visitors ie customers are expected in an enclosed area soon.
App downloaded. Somewhat surprised to see that 'Area risk level' is 'Medium'. Earlier in the week it was Low on the Gov.UK site. Two Uni's within about 20 miles, of course.
I've also just downloaded the app. I notice it has had 100K+ downloads and is rated 1.5 stars out of five. I've never seen such a poor rating for any app!
SW13 risk is medium.
I have.
The reviews seem to be mostly stupid issues from when it was in Beta phase ie "its not working in my area" when it was never meant to work in their area!
"Why is this only for Newham and the Isle of Wight" seems to be written in a lot of reviews. Muppets.
I downloaded it at 8 a.m. this morning today and got the IoW/Newnham only version. Wazzock.
Edited for pleonasm.
The reviews I'm referring to were dated previously.
I downloaded it at about 1am this morning and got the mainstream version. No idea why the app store messed it up for you.
Android or iOS might be the difference?
iOS version was OK for me.
I'm Android. Play Store technically not app store.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
So the regulations state that:
3.—(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.
(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply—
....
(b) to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment
The regulations have now been amended to remove that exception in the following circumstances:
As far as I read, a takeaway still falls under the exception unless you argue it is a "shop".
Thus employees of a takeaway do not need to wear masks under the law.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but that's my take.
Can't they make the rules based on whether visitors are present or expected? This would apply to all those in the list above, takeaways and offices in which a person from another company is visiting. Deliverers and receptionists taking deliveries would also need to wear masks under this rule.
I realise that there will need to be some more detail eg schools could if necessary be exempted. But the advantage is that the reasoning and intention is made clear.
This means that when the chippie closes, the staff no longer have to wear masks, as there are only 2 or three staff there, who are there every day. Before opening they do have to wear masks, as visitors ie customers are expected in an enclosed area soon.
My first impression is that your idea would be better and much clearer.
Meeting somebody who is not an employee of the same business? = wear a mask.
App downloaded. Somewhat surprised to see that 'Area risk level' is 'Medium'. Earlier in the week it was Low on the Gov.UK site. Two Uni's within about 20 miles, of course.
I've also just downloaded the app. I notice it has had 100K+ downloads and is rated 1.5 stars out of five. I've never seen such a poor rating for any app!
SW13 risk is medium.
I have.
The reviews seem to be mostly stupid issues from when it was in Beta phase ie "its not working in my area" when it was never meant to work in their area!
"Why is this only for Newham and the Isle of Wight" seems to be written in a lot of reviews. Muppets.
I downloaded it at 8 a.m. this morning today and got the IoW/Newnham only version. Wazzock.
Edited for pleonasm.
The reviews I'm referring to were dated previously.
I downloaded it at about 1am this morning and got the mainstream version. No idea why the app store messed it up for you.
Android or iOS might be the difference?
iOS version was OK for me.
I downloaded the Android version and i initially got the beta version (region locked and required invite code), but just went to play store updates and then updated to release version.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
So the regulations state that:
3.—(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.
(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply—
....
(b) to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment
The regulations have now been amended to remove that exception in the following circumstances:
As far as I read, a takeaway still falls under the exception unless you argue it is a "shop".
Thus employees of a takeaway do not need to wear masks under the law.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but that's my take.
The definition of "shop" according to the original SI is:
In these Regulations, “shop” means any building, room or other indoor establishment which is open to the public in whole or in part and is used wholly or mainly for the purposes of retail sale or hire of goods or services, but not including the premises listed in [F8Schedule 2].
The schedule 2 is rather limited - medical or dental services, gyms and photography studios.
So perhaps a takeaway is a "shop" for the purpose of the rules? It is far from clear though.
A restaurant would perhaps fall under that description and yet that is listed separately?
Yes, but it is listed as an exemption so whether or not it falls under that description it has been explicitly excluded. There's nothing obvious here that suggests you wouldn't consider a takeaway to be a shop.
A takeaway could be considered a restaurant that does not have table service.
Restaurants *with* table service are explicitly listed as requiring employees to wear face-coverings, suggesting that restaurants *without* table service do not.
I don't read it that way. A restaurant is a shop under the definition given in the SI, and only restaurants with table service have been excluded from the requirement.
Eh? The original SI states that ALL employees do not have to wear a mask under the law.
The new SI states that this exemption does not apply to those who work in a shop, or those who work in a restaurant *with* table service.
Thus if a takeaway is not a shop, and is indeed a restaurant *without* table service, then employees do not need to wear masks.
It's not very clear at all.
The original SI requires people to wear masks when entering or remaining within a "relevant place". It then goes on to exempt certain types of places from this requirement. It doesn't start from the premise that no one needs to wear a mask and then proscribe where they need to be worn.
I've already quoted the original SI. It states that all people need to wear masks when entering or remaining within a "relevant place". It then exempts employees.
The new amendment keeps this exemption for employees, but proscribes environments where this exemption does not apply.
I see nothing in here which suggests that a restaurant or a takeaway aren't covered by the definition of a "shop", otherwise they wouldn't need to explicitly exclude restaurants in the schedule.
More likely enforced early term end and self-isolation for returnees from high infection rate institutions? I.e. coming home from uni = coming home from abroad.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
So the regulations state that:
3.—(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.
(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply—
....
(b) to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment
The regulations have now been amended to remove that exception in the following circumstances:
As far as I read, a takeaway still falls under the exception unless you argue it is a "shop".
Thus employees of a takeaway do not need to wear masks under the law.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but that's my take.
The definition of "shop" according to the original SI is:
In these Regulations, “shop” means any building, room or other indoor establishment which is open to the public in whole or in part and is used wholly or mainly for the purposes of retail sale or hire of goods or services, but not including the premises listed in [F8Schedule 2].
The schedule 2 is rather limited - medical or dental services, gyms and photography studios.
So perhaps a takeaway is a "shop" for the purpose of the rules? It is far from clear though.
A restaurant would perhaps fall under that description and yet that is listed separately?
Yes, but it is listed as an exemption so whether or not it falls under that description it has been explicitly excluded. There's nothing obvious here that suggests you wouldn't consider a takeaway to be a shop.
A takeaway could be considered a restaurant that does not have table service.
Restaurants *with* table service are explicitly listed as requiring employees to wear face-coverings, suggesting that restaurants *without* table service do not.
I don't read it that way. A restaurant is a shop under the definition given in the SI, and only restaurants with table service have been excluded from the requirement.
Eh? The original SI states that ALL employees do not have to wear a mask under the law.
The new SI states that this exemption does not apply to those who work in a shop, or those who work in a restaurant *with* table service.
Thus if a takeaway is not a shop, and is indeed a restaurant *without* table service, then employees do not need to wear masks.
It's not very clear at all.
The original SI requires people to wear masks when entering or remaining within a "relevant place". It then goes on to exempt certain types of places from this requirement. It doesn't start from the premise that no one needs to wear a mask and then proscribe where they need to be worn.
I've already quoted the original SI. It states that all people need to wear masks when entering or remaining within a "relevant place". It then exempts employees.
The new amendment keeps this exemption for employees, but proscribes environments where this exemption does not apply.
I see nothing in here which suggests that a restaurant or a takeaway aren't covered by the definition of a "shop", otherwise they wouldn't need to explicitly exclude restaurants in the schedule.
OK yes I think you are right. Apologies.
And apologies @Philip_Thompson although I still think they are unclear and that @eristdoof's idea would be better.
More likely enforced early term end and self-isolation for returnees from high infection rate institutions? I.e. coming home from uni = coming home from abroad.
Did you go to university? compare that with what young people today are going through.
The government really should have asked for the rating to be reset, as the previous app that got 1 star (quite rightly) is what windows 3.1 is to windows 10. They aren't the same app at all.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
So the regulations state that:
3.—(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.
(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply—
....
(b) to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment
The regulations have now been amended to remove that exception in the following circumstances:
As far as I read, a takeaway still falls under the exception unless you argue it is a "shop".
Thus employees of a takeaway do not need to wear masks under the law.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but that's my take.
The definition of "shop" according to the original SI is:
In these Regulations, “shop” means any building, room or other indoor establishment which is open to the public in whole or in part and is used wholly or mainly for the purposes of retail sale or hire of goods or services, but not including the premises listed in [F8Schedule 2].
The schedule 2 is rather limited - medical or dental services, gyms and photography studios.
So perhaps a takeaway is a "shop" for the purpose of the rules? It is far from clear though.
A restaurant would perhaps fall under that description and yet that is listed separately?
Yes, but it is listed as an exemption so whether or not it falls under that description it has been explicitly excluded. There's nothing obvious here that suggests you wouldn't consider a takeaway to be a shop.
A takeaway could be considered a restaurant that does not have table service.
Restaurants *with* table service are explicitly listed as requiring employees to wear face-coverings, suggesting that restaurants *without* table service do not.
I don't read it that way. A restaurant is a shop under the definition given in the SI, and only restaurants with table service have been excluded from the requirement.
Eh? The original SI states that ALL employees do not have to wear a mask under the law.
The new SI states that this exemption does not apply to those who work in a shop, or those who work in a restaurant *with* table service.
Thus if a takeaway is not a shop, and is indeed a restaurant *without* table service, then employees do not need to wear masks.
It's not very clear at all.
The original SI requires people to wear masks when entering or remaining within a "relevant place". It then goes on to exempt certain types of places from this requirement. It doesn't start from the premise that no one needs to wear a mask and then proscribe where they need to be worn.
I've already quoted the original SI. It states that all people need to wear masks when entering or remaining within a "relevant place". It then exempts employees.
The new amendment keeps this exemption for employees, but proscribes environments where this exemption does not apply.
I see nothing in here which suggests that a restaurant or a takeaway aren't covered by the definition of a "shop", otherwise they wouldn't need to explicitly exclude restaurants in the schedule.
OK yes I think you are right. Apologies.
And apologies @Philip_Thompson although I still think they are unclear and that @eristdoof's idea would be better.
No need to - the deeper I looked the more confusing it got. The contradictory advice on the government websites for restaurants in general isn't ideal, but as I said earlier it isn't all that surprising certain things are out of date. If it continues to be out of date in a few days perhaps there's a way to contact someone via the website to point this out.
Comments
If, as I expect, we end up in a second strict lockdown, what then? And what happens when we lift restrictions again and the virus reappears? Aren’t we going to be in lockdown until there’s a viable vaccine which, frankly could be a year away?
Perhaps if those citing "Sweden!" actually looked at the facts behind their outcomes, their restrictions and what's around them, and what the architect of the strategy says it is (rather than a magical "no restrictions and it all goes away! Wheee!", people might listen to them.
- Rants about the previous API issue.
- Complaints that the QR code reader doesn't work with any old QR code. It works with NHS QR codes - for specific purposes
- Complaints that the app doesn't have a way to report the *result* of a test. Apparently, according to the developers, a test booked through the app will report the result through the app.
However, never in the UK since about the middle of the 19th C, has a party leader asserted so strongly as Trump has that the polls are fixed.
It's hard to see Labour, after yesterday's support for the Government, opposing the extension of the measures but it may be indicative of feeling within the Conservative Party as to how many MPs abstain or whether there are any amendments introduced to ensure more control and scrutiny for Parliament and less authority for Ministers.
And we may never have a vaccine.
On election night Trump won all 3 states and the EC and the presidency
If that's the case then hopefully a balance can be struck that doesn't entail a full lockdown.
If I was Chancellor then I'd be giving targetted support to hospitality and promising a repeat of Eat Out To Help Out after the restrictions get lifted, extended to three months, eg April to June next year if there's a vaccine by March. Get through what will most likely be a bloody miserable winter if there's no Christmas Parties etc and then have a very bumper Spring hopefully.
https://www.ft.com/content/e5012891-58da-4a4f-8a05-182adf3ba0e2?shareType=nongift
In addition some of the electoral laws are just bizarre.
There is a ward in Woking where everyone knows cheating has been going on for decades. There has only ever been one prosecution to my knowledge.
In addition I was a witness in a case elsewhere in the 1990s. The CPS dropped the case after 2 years for lack of evidence. It was about as water tight as you could get.
'thank god for a free press'
Superb hatchet jobs on Vallance and Carrie by our fourth estate.
The Johnson government is unravelling.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-54278053
What more do you need to know?
You think Whitehall might not have had advance notice of any change? Or would have done had Boris and Cummings not broken the system.
I worry about the Transition IF Biden wins on November 3rd - Trump will be surly, un co-operative and will, I expect, try to govern by Executive Order until mid January. Obviously, if the GOP have lost the Senate that will be harder for him and it will be interesting to see how, if still in control, the GOP Senate reacts to a Trump defeat. Will they abandon him completely because they will have to deal with a Biden administration or will they stay loyal as the ship sinks?
The other option is Trump just walks away but I suspect he'll spend most of the Transition period tweeting about he was cheated out of the Presidency and blaming everyone and everything for his defeat. I also fear a Scorched Earth policy within the West Wing with records destroyed and emails deleted while the Trump administration staffers fall over themselves to be the first to write the story of what it was REALLY like in the Trump White House.
If Trump's reputation needs any further shredding his former staffers will provide
*Without* the Trumpian shite, American elections are bought and sold. Not by stuffing the ballot box, though.
IIRC international election monitoring organisations have commented in the past that UK elections are behind the curve on resistance to fraud.
It should be focused on how your actions can kill loved ones, the old, the disabled...and reminder that even if you are young long covid is a thing.
Also do quite a bit of carrier training with the US. CTOL carrier aviation with one carrier is a serious pain...
On a per-capita basis, the UK has built the largest and most diversified vaccine portfolio, according to data from Deutsche Bank, having pre-ordered more than five doses per citizen spread across six leading vaccine candidates.
Got a Microsoft LifeCam Hd-3000 and it emits a high pitched whine despite trying many tweaks and options. Poor.
Amazon has a massive range but the reviews are dubious in terms of authenticity making it a minefield.
Because everyone in business is perfectly clear headed and rational, making perfect decisions, obviously.
I know some on here think mask wearing is "enforced" (and use that as a basis for an entirely false argument) but the truth is while the majority of law-abiding citizens can and do follow the rules, a minority do not and the virus doesn't know or care if you are following the rules or not.
The rules aren't bad in and of themselves but they are not enforced, at least in my part of London, by any kind of authority (be it the BTP or the Met). There is no one on every tube checking and enforcing compliance with mask wearing and while it took four officers to deal with a beggar dressed as Mickey Mouse in East Ham High Street yesterday, I do wonder if our invisible and useless Home Secretary whose ability to talk tough on crime is matched only by her inability to take any action, might wish to consider re-prioritising Police resources to support the enforcement of the coronavirus regulations.
Remarkably the UK has spent nearly as much on vaccines as the "EU alliance" has combined.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
So the regulations state that:
(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply—
....
(b) to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment
The regulations have now been amended to remove that exception in the following circumstances:
As far as I read, a takeaway still falls under the exception unless you argue it is a "shop".
Thus employees of a takeaway do not need to wear masks under the law.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but that's my take.
New Covid Marshalls will also help the police in enforcing Covid rules
Like a religious leader, or something along those lines.
The British Cdr (Air) on the carrier has command of the US jets as long as he's tasking them to do something they want to do anyway... A polite fiction.
In these Regulations, “shop” means any building, room or other indoor establishment which is open to the public in whole or in part and is used wholly or mainly for the purposes of retail sale or hire of goods or services, but not including the premises listed in [F8Schedule 2].
The schedule 2 is rather limited - medical or dental services, gyms and photography studios.
A restaurant would perhaps fall under that description and yet that is listed separately?
The parallels between practice and the days of non-secret ballots and the Squireachy are interesting.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1309066954167275527?s=21
1. Pennsylvania has moved to no reason needed postal voting so has 22% registrations compared with 1% in 2016. They are going out already in most counties. Party affiliation of requesters is 70% Democrat. This shows the risk of Trump's position on postal votes in a state not used to postal voting - no doubt his supporters do plan to vote on the day, but they've clearly been put off the postal route in Pennsylvania and he is vulnerable to weather or a virus upsurge causing him problems there.
2. Florida is more used to postal voting and has 33% requesting compared with 25% in 2016. Traditionally, the split is fairly even between Democrats and GOP requesting but there is some imbalance this time - 46% Dem, 31% GOP, 22% neither. So again, Trump has made himself a little more reliant on turnout on the day although not as dramatic as elsewhere. Ballots going out from today.
3. New Hampshire is restrictive on postal voting and only 4% have requested. NH is one to watch for a possible surprise Trump gain if he gets a late swing - can see him spending time here late on.
4. North Carolina has 13% requests compared with 4% in 2016 and these have been going out for weeks. 50% Democrat, 18% GOP, 33% neither. Importantly, there is also a very high percentage of early in-person voting there (from mid October). Indications are that Biden (and Cunningham for Senate) have very narrow leads and it becomes really hard for Trump (and Tillis) if that endures much into October as a lot of votes will be locked in - late swing isn't much good for them.
5. Wisconsin has 32% requesting (5% in 2016) and these have been hitting letterboxes for a week. No party affiliation, but you'd assume on pattern elsewhere this is good for Democrats. Wisconsin always looked tough for Trump to keep, and it's going to get ever tougher unless he makes serious inroads soon as so many votes will have been cast.
6. Michigan isn't quite so dramatic as Wisconsin but has had a big rise in requests (from 15% in 2016 to 31% now). Going out from today. Again, makes it less vulnerable to a late swing and Trump needs to move fairly fast to repeat his trick of last time there.
7. Georgia also has a fairly big rise in postal requests (17% compared with 4% in 2016). If Georgia is close and decisive (which I think is quite unlikely - if Biden/Trump are very close here, I think Biden will have already won nationally so it's moot) it could be extremely messy with rejected ballots as the state GOP have form on this. Senate could also be messy.
Restaurants *with* table service are explicitly listed as requiring employees to wear face-coverings, suggesting that restaurants *without* table service do not.
Just to muddy the crystal clear waters.
And if your boss says you need to wear a mask then wear a mask.
The new SI states that this exemption does not apply to those who work in a shop, or those who work in a restaurant *with* table service.
Thus if a takeaway is not a shop, and is indeed a restaurant *without* table service, then employees do not need to wear masks.
It's not very clear at all.
this morningtoday and got the IoW/Newnham only version. Wazzock.Edited for pleonasm.
I downloaded it at about 1am this morning and got the mainstream version. No idea why the app store messed it up for you.
Fill in the blank.
iOS version was OK for me.
The new amendment keeps this exemption for employees, but proscribes environments where this exemption does not apply.
I realise that there will need to be some more detail eg schools could if necessary be exempted. But the advantage is that the reasoning and intention is made clear.
This means that when the chippie closes, the staff no longer have to wear masks, as there are only 2 or three staff there, who are there every day. Before opening they do have to wear masks, as visitors ie customers are expected in an enclosed area soon.
Meeting somebody who is not an employee of the same business? = wear a mask.
I see nothing in here which suggests that a restaurant or a takeaway aren't covered by the definition of a "shop", otherwise they wouldn't need to explicitly exclude restaurants in the schedule.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1364130/Chaotic_Airport_Construction_Simulator/
And apologies @Philip_Thompson although I still think they are unclear and that @eristdoof's idea would be better.