When will this shit end?

[Crazyfool01]

3 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

 

It’s only because we can’t see them in that effective camouflage  

[squirrelarmy]

16 minutes ago, zahidf said:

GET HIM JEDWARD

We are really at the end of days when Jedward are the voices of reason. 

[Ozanne]

7 minutes ago, ace56blaa said:

It's just good watching a politician who doesn't avoid a question at every turn, even if it's something that could make him look bad, like Nick's final question about antisemitism and taking 16 months to deal with a problematic minister. 

Also always good to see him acknowledging how Boris Johnson uses the last question of PMQs to just spew a monologue of insults with no repercussions.  

But yeah it's looking more hopeful everyday for labour

I liked that comment about Boris at PMQs too. He seems to understand how to act that is just normal and I feel has a way when he speaks that’s very personable. I have full confidence he’ll go away and look into Hammersmith bridge.

[SheffJeff]

23 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Agreed. He’s the best Labour leader since Tony Blair the great man himself. 

Not sure that's a compliment to be honest.

[Ayrshire Chris]

24 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Anyone want to meet up in a group of 7 to shoot grouses (grice?) ?

Sorted, turn Glasto into a huge grouse shoot with live music but only allow water pistols. 

[Homer]

32 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I liked that comment about Boris at PMQs too. He seems to understand how to act that is just normal and I feel has a way when he speaks that’s very personable. I have full confidence he’ll go away and look into Hammersmith bridge.

I quite like his approach of only criticising when he disagrees, not kjust disagreeing with EVERYTHING. I hope he carries it on beyond covid. It's quite grown- up though; it'll never catch on.

Edited September 14, 2020 by Homer

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, Homer said:

I quite like his approach of only criticising when he disagrees, not kjust disagreeing with EVERYTHING. I hope he carries it on beyond covid. It's quite grown- up though; it'll never catch on.

we'll see...I mean it's not a good look during a national crisis to be criticising everything govt does, but obviously the govt have messed up so much he has had a few opportunities to score a few political points. Things could be about to get messy though..recession, brexit as well as this virus continuing.

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, ace56blaa said:

I'm concerned about some rights and liberties being in the government hands. But I don't not worry about the government wanting to take away our freedom by implementing lockdown in a pandemic. Especially since at the first convenient moment the government eases restrictions, often too early because they want to save the economy and a lot of the things people have been calling authoritarian like mask rules or this rule of six have come after u-turns or the government constantly saying that they don't want to implement these draconian rules. I think it's stupid to think that the government is intentionally taking away our personal rights right now, obviously you should always keep an eye on how your government treats you. But I just don't see any of the governments actions as intentional or too control the masses anyway after the corona virus pandemic. 
 

It's one of those things where my opinion doesn't really feel represented, because it's not clearly one side of the political spectrum or the other. I'm concerned at the erosions of some of our rights. I'm really concerned at the idea that we can't meet more than six people in our own home, but basically can in a pub (as long as we don't arrive together). I understand why: one contributes to the economy, the other doesn't. But it's basically saying "you can see people as long as you can afford to pay" and that's a slippery slope. I feel the government would be just as happy for me to host 12 people at home if I sent the local pub £200. I am happy to given up some of liberty because of public health issues. I'm less okay with it for commercial interests.

But of course, all the "small government" agitators that don't like this stuff are mostly huge fans of big business and don't want to complain about the way they are being propped up. So the argument is only every made to say why we should still be able to meet at home, and not that we shouldn't be able to meet in pubs either.

 

[Homer]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

we'll see...I mean it's not a good look during a national crisis to be criticising everything govt does, but obviously the govt have messed up so much he has had a few opportunities to score a few political points. Things could be about to get messy though..recession, brexit as well as this virus continuing.

Yeah I know but you still get Corbyn supporters criticising him saying he just agrees with the government all the time. I'm not sure what PMQs they have been watching!

Talking of which, maybe someone should explain the format to Johnson. He does seem genuinely affronted when people use it as an opportunity to ask the prime minister questions.

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, FestivalJamie said:

Also, in the UK, if someone is not wearing a mask I have never seen anyone get told off, not once! But in germany, at the entrance to a shopping centre, the security guard was policing it, at McDonald’s the woman at the entrance was being so firm and not letting anyone in without one, on the train the guard came up and down making sure people were wearing them the whole time. And when I was in restaurants or a bar if someone had forgotten to put their mask on when moving around immediately the staff would say to them “Maske aufsetzen bitte” which means “put your mask on”. In the space of 5 days I’ve seen more people being told to put their masks on if they aren’t wearing them or wearing them properly than I’ve seen in 2 months over here (as I haven’t seen anyone be told off once). Also there didn’t really seem to be an emphasis on hidden medical exemptions over there like we have over here, it was more if you can’t wear a mask then you’re not coming in unless you provide documentation; they weren’t just taking people’s word for it.

Yeah, I feel like we have that wrong. Maybe very essential places like supermarkets, post offices and banks should be "no-challenge" but beyond that I feel like it should be "wear a mask or you can't come in". If you medically can't, that's a shame, you can't go to a pub or go clothes shopping for another 6 months. I don't think that's so bad a thing. I don't feel going to the pub is a fundamental human right. And you're still only essentially in the same position as those still shielding.

 

[DeanoL]

59 minutes ago, ace56blaa said:

Also always good to see him acknowledging how Boris Johnson uses the last question of PMQs to just spew a monologue of insults with no repercussions.  

I'd be interested to see if he attempts to tackle this - there's an element of game theory to it, and it's something he must be considering as a lawyer. He doesn't have to use all his six questions - if he knows that the PM always has a big swing coming that he can't respond to after question six, then he could stop at five. 

[zahidf]

Ooohhhh

 

[Fuzzy Afro]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Yeah, I feel like we have that wrong. Maybe very essential places like supermarkets, post offices and banks should be "no-challenge" but beyond that I feel like it should be "wear a mask or you can't come in". If you medically can't, that's a shame, you can't go to a pub or go clothes shopping for another 6 months. I don't think that's so bad a thing. I don't feel going to the pub is a fundamental human right. And you're still only essentially in the same position as those still shielding.

 

Can’t go shopping if you’re medically exempt from face covering 😂😂😂

 

Thats an all time bad take I’ve seen on this thread. 

[DeanoL]

1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Can’t go shopping if you’re medically exempt from face covering 😂😂😂

 

Thats an all time bad take I’ve seen on this thread. 

Why? 

None of us could go shopping for 4 months and no-one died from shopping withdrawal. 

41000 people died from COVID.

[zahidf]

 

[Fuzzy Afro]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Why? 

None of us could go shopping for 4 months and no-one died from shopping withdrawal. 

41000 people died from COVID.

What you’re basically saying is that those who are exempt from wearing face coverings should be excluded from society to protect vulnerable people.

 

I’d argue the first group have so much more to offer us as a society. 

[JoeyT]

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

Makes me laugh when the gap between tests processed and testing capacity stands at just below 150k yet people can't get a test!

[efcfanwirral]

 

10 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

that's one way to bring the numbers down....

[DeanoL]

1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

What you’re basically saying is that those who are exempt from wearing face coverings should be excluded from society to protect vulnerable people.

 

I’d argue the first group have so much more to offer us as a society. 

No, not just to protect vulnerable people. To protect anyone. Any of us can catch this. Any of us can die from this. And those who can't wear masks are just as likely to spread it as those who choose not to.

Plus the number of people who can't wear any sort of face covering (in most cases if you can't wear a mask, a face shield will work) is tiny. 

Or y'know, we could get our shit together and issue actual medical exemption papers for those who need it and normalise challenging and producing those too, but that's also seen as too draconian.

So instead we'll end up with a system where loads of the population don't wear masks because they "exempt" by which they mean "they make me uncomfortable".

[Fuzzy Afro]

4 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

No, not just to protect vulnerable people. To protect anyone. Any of us can catch this. Any of us can die from this. And those who can't wear masks are just as likely to spread it as those who choose not to.

Plus the number of people who can't wear any sort of face covering (in most cases if you can't wear a mask, a face shield will work) is tiny. 

Or y'know, we could get our shit together and issue actual medical exemption papers for those who need it and normalise challenging and producing those too, but that's also seen as too draconian.

So instead we'll end up with a system where loads of the population don't wear [b]masks[/b] because they "exempt" by which they mean "they make me uncomfortable".

Face coverings. 

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Face coverings. 

If you stop and consider the point I'm trying to make it's just that: most people with a medical exemption for a mask don't have a medical exemption for any face covering. 

I'm happy to start saying face coverings all the time if you're happy to agree that people with asthma aren't exempt from wearing say, a face shield, so shouldn't be medically exempted from the face covering requirement.

Deal?

[squirrelarmy]

5 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Face coverings. 

Masks 

[Fuzzy Afro]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

If you stop and consider the point I'm trying to make it's just that: most people with a medical exemption for a mask don't have a medical exemption for any face covering. 

I'm happy to start saying face coverings all the time if you're happy to agree that people with asthma aren't exempt from wearing say, a face shield, so shouldn't be medically exempted from the face covering requirement.

Deal?

Absolutely a deal, given that the science seems to be that face coverings seem to protect both the wearer from the risk of catching the virus, and the risk of spreading it if they already have it, then we should be encouraging and mandating their use in the appropriate scenario. This, to me, means:

 

- All those who can wear face coverings should wear them in indoor settings where social distancing and/or contact tracing is impractical

 

- The definition of face covering should be expanded to be inclusive for those who cannot wear actual masks

[Fuzzy Afro]

2 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

Masks 

Why do you feel so strongly about using exclusive language?

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

Masks 

Muzzles.