Stay Alert

[Swizzlestick]

I love it reading from the posters who provide complex rationales for why we shouldn't leave the EU, why trading between nations is complex but they can interpret the data regard supply chain and cross border issues between the EU & the UK of the future is not workable. The same ones who can tell everyone regarding the Tory Gov. failure dating back 50 years and why Labour and socialist system work better plus why Blair was a wrinkle in the wonderful line of Labour policies. They can tell you how Income Tax and VAT work and should be changed.

Yet the same people can not interpret what stay alert/stay safe means and need a 50 page operators manual that they then still can't understand and to back up there lack of understanding introduce Piers Morgan as the spokesman such that it must be right, even though he is a ranter and never been right before.

Thank you for the entertainment this morning, love catching up on the minutia of things like why can I stand in supermarket between 2 people, it really is incredulous at times the detail of nit picking that goes on here, especially my favorite that was "well what happens if it's raining when I am talking to my family on the drive", priceless

Glad you’re having a good laugh after making a total arse of yourself the other night.

[dsr]

Why would I apologise ?
It says :
“Exercising more than once per day - the only relevant consideration is whether repeated exercise on the same day can be considered a ‘reasonable excuse’ for leaving home”

The exercise in itself is not a “reasonable excuse” as far as I understand this. This would seem to logically link into the advice on the gov website that you can exercise more than once if you have health issues that warrant this.

Leave it. Just face it. To you the words

"Likely to be reasonable - Exercising more than once per day - the only relevant consideration is whether repeated exercise on the same day can be considered a ‘reasonable excuse’ for leaving home"

constitute a clear and unequivocal statement that you must not leave the house twice a day for exercise. But other people see those words and interpret them differently. It doesn't mean they are stupid. It is possible to have a different opinion to you without being stupid. It is possible to claim a different opinion to you without being a liar.

[martin_p]

I love it reading from the posters who provide complex rationales for why we shouldn't leave the EU, why trading between nations is complex but they can interpret the data regard supply chain and cross border issues between the EU & the UK of the future is not workable. The same ones who can tell everyone regarding the Tory Gov. failure dating back 50 years and why Labour and socialist system work better plus why Blair was a wrinkle in the wonderful line of Labour policies. They can tell you how Income Tax and VAT work and should be changed.

Yet the same people can not interpret what stay alert/stay safe means and need a 50 page operators manual that they then still can't understand and to back up there lack of understanding introduce Piers Morgan as the spokesman such that it must be right, even though he is a ranter and never been right before.

Thank you for the entertainment this morning, love catching up on the minutia of things like why can I stand in supermarket between 2 people, it really is incredulous at times the detail of nit picking that goes on here, especially my favorite that was "well what happens if it's raining when I am talking to my family on the drive", priceless

I love reading the posters that can’t understand why clear messaging around a global pandemic that has already killed 40,000 in this country might be quite important. No one should be having to interpret anything.

[KateR]

Glad you’re having a good laugh after making a total arse of yourself the other night.

it's amazing you should be commenting in this way and trying to make the same justification that I might have been wrong, yet when you were previously and politely asked to respond and advise me where I got something wrong you failed miserable. Perhaps you could try again to make a valuable contribution and show me where I was wrong on my on my post, instead of your usual one liners attacking anyone who doesn't agree with your thoughts. You are better off sticking to your likes on all the people who you agree with, such that people know, rather than making earth shattering revelation with your insulting one liners, which clearly shows your complete lack of knowledge on the subject thread.

[boatshed bill]

Quite honestly, whether the message laid out is either clearly understandable or not doesn't take away the fact that the measures are a stupid mistake at the present time.

[Swizzlestick]

it's amazing you should be commenting in this way and trying to make the same justification that I might have been wrong, yet when you were previously and politely asked to respond and advise me where I got something wrong you failed miserable. Perhaps you could try again to make a valuable contribution and show me where I was wrong on my on my post, instead of your usual one liners attacking anyone who doesn't agree with your thoughts. You are better off sticking to your likes on all the people who you agree with, such that people know, rather than making earth shattering revelation with your insulting one liners, which clearly shows your complete lack of knowledge on the subject thread.

Well you interpreted the government info incorrectly and started banging on about visiting family members. My main issue with your posts was your tone though, which was haughty, condescending and patronising. Something you’ve continued today. As if people are concerning themselves over something trivial. A bit weird.

[KateR]

I love reading the posters that can’t understand why clear messaging around a global pandemic that has already killed 40,000 in this country might be quite important. No one should be having to interpret anything.

so you want the Gov. to tell you what to do when it's raining, the instructions are clear with very little change but I will agree some parts such as going back to work needs you, the reader to actually use your brain rather than having a Gov. explain each part for every industry, every size business from 2 people to 2,000 and how to start back. Same with other posters commenting on how there would be millions going back to work Monday morning because instruction were not clear.

You are better than this and you make sure you are safe and your family are safe rather than pointing to how many deaths and it's all the Gov. fault because that fits your blind bigotry comments all aimed at the Tory's and BJ in particularly. I firmly believe you know what is required but the very little change gave you and many an opportunity to complain and make excuses to blame/attack, which frankly makes you look silly.

I hate to think what this gang are going to complain about when we get to June and the next attempt at relaxation, but you have a few weeks to start trying to make you agenda clear on why everything will be wrong.

[TVC15]

Leave it. Just face it. To you the words

"Likely to be reasonable - Exercising more than once per day - the only relevant consideration is whether repeated exercise on the same day can be considered a ‘reasonable excuse’ for leaving home"

constitute a clear and unequivocal statement that you must not leave the house twice a day for exercise. But other people see those words and interpret them differently. It doesn't mean they are stupid. It is possible to have a different opinion to you without being stupid. It is possible to claim a different opinion to you without being a liar.

You need to read the thread to understand I was not accusing him of lying about this. I have already said that one is his interpretation and one is mine.
Better to not jump in eh without reading it - or don’t read it and don’t jump in.

[SalouClaret]

My dad would batter all of your dads

[martin_p]

so you want the Gov. to tell you what to do when it's raining, the instructions are clear with very little change but I will agree some parts such as going back to work needs you, the reader to actually use your brain rather than having a Gov. explain each part for every industry, every size business from 2 people to 2,000 and how to start back. Same with other posters commenting on how there would be millions going back to work Monday morning because instruction were not clear.

You are better than this and you make sure you are safe and your family are safe rather than pointing to how many deaths and it's all the Gov. fault because that fits your blind bigotry comments all aimed at the Tory's and BJ in particularly. I firmly believe you know what is required but the very little change gave you and many an opportunity to complain and make excuses to blame/attack, which frankly makes you look silly.

I hate to think what this gang are going to complain about when we get to June and the next attempt at relaxation, but you have a few weeks to start trying to make you agenda clear on why everything will be wrong.

Yes, raining and a global pandemic are almost exactly the same thing. If you’re going to be that ridiculous it’s not really worth putting in the effort to answer.

[TVC15]

Blind bigotry
Blind faith

Always comes out in these debates - when in reality it’s never either.

[NewClaret]

My dad would batter all of your dads

[KateR]

Yes, raining and a global pandemic are almost exactly the same thing. If you’re going to be that ridiculous it’s not really worth putting in the effort to answer.

your standard approach unfortunately Martin, so I'll take your comments at face value, you knew all along what it meant and just wanted to blame and jump on the negative bandwagon.

[Paul Waine]

Already done this to death and said that was your interpretation of the document. The government website was very clear that the only justification for exercising more than once a day was if a person needed to do this for health / medical reasons.
Let’s imagine that for one minute you were correct why would they be announcing now you can exercise more than once a day under the revised lockdown measures ?

Hi TVC15, what's this all about? Are you advising on the "old" lockdown advice, or the new, mid-May "stay alert" advice?

[TVC15]

Hi TVC15, what's this all about? Are you advising on the "old" lockdown advice, or the new, mid-May "stay alert" advice?

Hi Paul
It’s the old lockdown advice where in a previous debate on this board that somebody decided to bring up again today. My view as supported by the government website was that you were only allowed to exercise out of your home once a day unless you had specific health conditions which meant that you had to go out for exercise more than once a day.

The opposing view was that you could go out on exercise more than once a day under the old guidelines....even if that reason was you were too busy to do the exercise all in one session.

Begging the question as to why the government would announce this week being able to exercise more then once a day if that’s what you have been able to do all along ?!!

[android]

Thank you for the entertainment this morning, love catching up on the minutia of things like why can I stand in supermarket between 2 people, it really is incredulous at times the detail of nit picking that goes on here, especially my favorite that was "well what happens if it's raining when I am talking to my family on the drive", priceless

Hi Kate - I think that was me you are quoting about the raining - well almost! I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying, as I wasn't grumbling about the guidance at all - it seems clear enough to me.

The raining on the driveway thing was just one of a multitude of reasons why the govt might consider that family visiting family at their houses was not a good idea at present, as groups of more than 2 people could easily end up indoors (where virus spreads easily) and not social distancing unlike 2 people meeting in a park outdoors (virus thought not to spread very easily). But it wouldn't need to be raining - it was just one of many scenarios that I thought people might be able to identify with! Maybe I'm wrong and the government had another reason for not allowing it at present but I thought it was understandable for them not to allow it for now. Baby steps and all that.

[KateR]

Blind bigotry
Blind faith

Always comes out in these debates - when in reality it’s never either.

I agree with you totally except there is no debate, it's statements as if they are facts when perhaps it's perception, many with the perception it's not clear and try to add minutia to the justification of the "it's not clear" and others that have the perception of "it's clear enough", what is it you don't understand? It kicked off on Sunday evening, just a speech but straight away within minutes the insults started because it wasn't clear, people had a different view and read what was actually said on TV by BJ. Some statements were in answer to it's not clear were around the wait "until the details are published Monday" as might be clearer but no, that wouldn't do because it might be clearer and then I can't complain.

Just my perception, plenty of insults and justifications of what was not clear but not one response to debate points, loads of links from other media, which is difficult to understand as I have heard only the far right have the media for the propaganda events that sway the stupid people of the UK.

Is it clear now or is not clear to all of you who started the it's not clear movement? Are some of you still unsure what you need to do, because I'd love to hear the rationale of why something is not clear that pertains specifically to you as a person/family but please only from those that have actually read the Gov. guidelines over the above the very clear statement of Stay Alert.

[martin_p]

your standard approach unfortunately Martin, so I'll take your comments at face value, you knew all along what it meant and just wanted to blame and jump on the negative bandwagon.

Seems you don’t understand why clarity of message is important in a crisis then. Thought not. I’ll let you continue to liken a global pandemic to a rain shower and just hope your ignorance doesn’t mean you get wet.

[KateR]

Hi Kate - I think that was me you are quoting about the raining - well almost! I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying, as I wasn't grumbling about the guidance at all - it seems clear enough to me.

The raining on the driveway thing was just one of a multitude of reasons why the govt might consider that family visiting family at their houses was not a good idea at present, as groups of more than 2 people could easily end up indoors (where virus spreads easily) and not social distancing unlike 2 people meeting in a park outdoors (virus thought not to spread very easily). But it wouldn't need to be raining - it was just one of many scenarios that I thought people might be able to identify with! Maybe I'm wrong and the government had another reason for not allowing it at present but I thought it was understandable for them not to allow it for now. Baby steps and all that.

Hi and thank you for that, my point is and I still maintain it, people should not expect the Gov. to provide a huge document with every eventuality of well what happens if this occurs? The main guidelines are in place and things will not always happen as planned within the guidelines and we are all capable of adapting to changes in a safe manner but it seems some people would rather continue throwing in petty things to the guidelines such that they can bask in the glory of, see it's not clear and get likes.

Maybe I am totally wrong but I always feel people can work these things out from what was said and what is written and if not they can ask for help in numerous places including here in a sensible manner but unfortunately many posters here are continually proving my thinking is flawed yet I remained convinced they can but they want to pick holes in things, especially if it can be an insult and use as proof of how poor the Gov. is.

[Grumps]

Hi Paul
It’s the old lockdown advice where in a previous debate on this board that somebody decided to bring up again today. My view as supported by the government website was that you were only allowed to exercise out of your home once a day unless you had specific health conditions which meant that you had to go out for exercise more than once a day.

The opposing view was that you could go out on exercise more than once a day under the old guidelines....even if that reason was you were too busy to do the exercise all in one session.

Begging the question as to why the government would announce this week being able to exercise more then once a day if that’s what you have been able to do all along ?!!

Not the old goverment guidelines, as I've explained to you..... BUT.... The police document telling the police, how to police the OLD GUIDELINES, two separate documents with two differing views.

Let it rest mate it will make you ill.

[KateR]

Seems you don’t understand why clarity of message is important in a crisis then. Thought not. I’ll let you continue to liken a global pandemic to a rain shower and just hope your ignorance doesn’t mean you get wet.

your continued ignorance in that what ever you say is gospel and everyone who disagrees is ignorant knows no bounds, you continue to fail miserably to actually make even one point to back up your perception that it's not clear, I'm not the only one here who has been saying since Sunday it is clear enough, what is your problem.

it is a pathetic attempt to sound knowledgeable when you clearly have an issue understanding basic instructions and do try to stop trying to deflect thing to rain showers when you know very well, as does every reader, what I said in that regard to it just makes your attempt to debate this subject of clarity to a basic I don't know, but let me try to justify what I'm saying.

If you've got nothing then best you stay quiet because all your doing is arguing nothing and add zero to my perception it is clear.

I am working with companies daily in regard to coming out of the lockdown/stay at home and economic and environment affect and I am debating/listening to business leaders world wide, you, you're giving me an alternative view from your perception and backing it up with Piers Morgan, sorry but I've heard nothing from you.

Very soon you'll revert to grammer/spelling/or the one I'm really looking forward from is that what you say/write/post makes no sense

[TVC15]

I agree with you totally except there is no debate, it's statements as if they are facts when perhaps it's perception, many with the perception it's not clear and try to add minutia to the justification of the "it's not clear" and others that have the perception of "it's clear enough", what is it you don't understand? It kicked off on Sunday evening, just a speech but straight away within minutes the insults started because it wasn't clear, people had a different view and read what was actually said on TV by BJ. Some statements were in answer to it's not clear were around the wait "until the details are published Monday" as might be clearer but no, that wouldn't do because it might be clearer and then I can't complain.

Just my perception, plenty of insults and justifications of what was not clear but not one response to debate points, loads of links from other media, which is difficult to understand as I have heard only the far right have the media for the propaganda events that sway the stupid people of the UK.

Is it clear now or is not clear to all of you who started the it's not clear movement? Are some of you still unsure what you need to do, because I'd love to hear the rationale of why something is not clear that pertains specifically to you as a person/family but please only from those that have actually read the Gov. guidelines over the above the very clear statement of Stay Alert.

You used the term blind bigotry - and I was pointing out that is just as inaccurate as those who accuse people of having blind faith and backing everything the government does. In truth I don’t know anyone who in this board who would fall into either extreme but I can see which are towards the end of each spectrum !
I think you are distance away from me personally but that’s fine - neither of us are at the extremes !

I’m not sure why you have taken the stance on Sundays message - it’s coming across the wrong way to me in the way you are saying it.
It’s not an intellectual or superiority thing to say you think it’s clear and you don’t need your hand holding etc - again that just ends up being insulting and condescending.

When Tory ministers and MPs are saying the wrong thing about the guidelines even after they are in receipt of the 50 page guidelines then to me it’s a bit of a clue that there is not as much clarity as some people assume.

I have already said that I think the new guidelines - even from the rather vague announcement on Sunday have been pitched at the appropriate level of risk for where we are with the virus. Of course the media and lots of people will want the minutiae and that’s where the debate and lack of clarity is exposed - sometimes because it’s fair game and sells papers or viewers to trip up arrogant and stupid government members but sometimes because individuals who are impacted by the changes are genuinely unclear as to what they are supposed to do. To start to criticise the latter in my view is wrong.

[mikeS]

I don’t get the excercise / don’t exercise in the park bit.

3A7A2542-0EFD-42D6-B446-933B6CE70F30.jpeg (90.8 KiB) Viewed 2266 times

[Grumps]

I don’t get the excercise / don’t exercise in the park bit.
3A7A2542-0EFD-42D6-B446-933B6CE70F30.jpeg

Means you can sit on the grass or a bench?

[Devils_Advocate]

I don’t get the excercise / don’t exercise in the park bit.
3A7A2542-0EFD-42D6-B446-933B6CE70F30.jpeg

The two messages you have referenced in this context aren't linked to each other.

The second one is saying enjoy parks without exercising because that is an update to the last position that you could only use parks for exercise and not for things like sunbathing.

Hope that makes sense

[KateR]

You used the term blind bigotry - and I was pointing out that is just as inaccurate as those who accuse people of having blind faith and backing everything the government does. In truth I don’t know anyone who in this board who would fall into either extreme but I can see which are towards the end of each spectrum !
I think you are distance away from me personally but that’s fine - neither of us are at the extremes !

I’m not sure why you have taken the stance on Sundays message - it’s coming across the wrong way to me in the way you are saying it.
It’s not an intellectual or superiority thing to say you think it’s clear and you don’t need your hand holding etc - again that just ends up being insulting and condescending.

When Tory ministers and MPs are saying the wrong thing about the guidelines even after they are in receipt of the 50 page guidelines then to me it’s a bit of a clue that there is not as much clarity as some people assume.

I have already said that I think the new guidelines - even from the rather vague announcement on Sunday have been pitched at the appropriate level of risk for where we are with the virus. Of course the media and lots of people will want the minutiae and that’s where the debate and lack of clarity is exposed - sometimes because it’s fair game and sells papers or viewers to trip up arrogant and stupid government members but sometimes because individuals who are impacted by the changes are genuinely unclear as to what they are supposed to do. To start to criticise the latter in my view is wrong.

I am definitely a distance away from you but some of what you post I find good and sometimes enlightens me to something I had not thought of and I would agree that neither of us are at the extremes but after reading some posters for years and several subjects it is absolutely clear to me that a few are at the extreme of blaming the Tories and Gov. for all ills regardless.

If the Sunday thing I wrote came across that way I apologize, not meant to, Sunday was only in reference to we did not have the full details but several tried to make it subject that they could beat the Gov. with and I simply don't agree with that.

I saw and read what KS had to say and have no problem with it as it's part of his job, I don't agree with everything he said but that's fine, yet I admit certain posters here just want to blame and insult and I simply do not believe what they were saying was said because something was not clear. Except for a those that later came back and said well I've read nothing but I listened to BJ and it's not clear.

[TVC15]

Not the old goverment guidelines, as I've explained to you..... BUT.... The police document telling the police, how to police the OLD GUIDELINES, two separate documents with two differing views.

Let it rest mate it will make you ill.

I was responding to someone else - why you keep on sticking your beak into everything I’m not sure.
You do it on so many threads - go out get some exercise. It will be good for that mind of yours....and give you a break from 40 years of reading and wrongly interpreting documents.

[Grumps]

I was responding to someone else - why you keep on sticking your beak into everything I’m not sure.
You do it on so many threads - go out get some exercise. It will be good for that mind of yours....and give you a break from 40 years of reading and wrongly interpreting documents.

Only sticking my beak in on a post where you referred to me, and I was pointing out it wasn't quite like you stated.
I guess the chief constable wrongly interpreted as well, he should have sought your advice.
I thought the idea of a messageboard was to join in conversations, you think its sticking your beak in

Now I was polite with you, and wished your daughter well in her career, be nice if you followed a similar way.

[TVC15]

Only sticking my beak in on a post where you referred to me, and I was pointing out it wasn't quite like you stated.
I guess the chief constable wrongly interpreted as well, he should have sought your advice.
I thought the idea of a messageboard was to join in conversations, you think its sticking your beak in

Now I was polite with you, and wished your daughter well in her career, be nice if you followed a similar way.

There you go - disingenuous as ever.
If you read my reply back I said guidelines not government guidelines...why you are mentioning the Chief Constable now I haven’t got a clue. It’s embarrassing the lengths you will go to try and justify your interpretation.
Just look at what you used as an example of a reason - did the chief Constable say that too ? He said that somebody was allowed to leave home for exercise more than once because they were too busy to do their exercise in one session ? Did he say that ? Or is that your interpretation of what he said after your 40 years of experience ?

As I said go out - get some fresh air. You sound like you need it.

[Grumps]

There you go - disingenuous as ever.
If you read my reply back I said guidelines not government guidelines...why you are mentioning the Chief Constable now I haven’t got a clue. It’s embarrassing the lengths you will go to try and justify your interpretation.
Just look at what you used as an example of a reason - did the chief Constable say that too ? He said that somebody was allowed to leave home for exercise more than once because they were too busy to do their exercise in one session ? Did he say that ? Or is that your interpretation of what he said after your 40 years of experience ?

As I said go out - get some fresh air. You sound like you need it.

The police chief was mentioned this afternoon
You'll be pleased to know I've no intention of replying to any of your posts, you can be rude to somebody else, iam sure you'll find someone.

[aggi]

Isn't KateR in the US somewhere? On that basis I can see why they'd think the messaging in the UK has a reasonable level of clairty.

[chadders]

Stay alert is a wee bit woolly. I fully inderstand what alert means but tricky if you can't see it or the symptoms. Our organisation has been working since Sunday on how we move forward following the announcement. The thing is, with anything regarding H&S it needs to be clear and not open to too much interpretation. Folk aren't always that competent sadly and some are less risk averse than others.

Give an inch and folk will and do take the mickey and its so easy to be lured into a false sense of security especially as we want it to be safe and normal. Everybody's common sense is different. Just look at the varying opinions on here that's why clear guidance is important.

We had issues over the bank holiday with groups of young lads partying and campers arriving on our sites- the roads were busier too.

Anyway, hopefully all will be well and we don't get a 2nd spike.

You folks simmer down. Share the love and stay alert! Utc

[Rileybobs]

I am definitely a distance away from you but some of what you post I find good and sometimes enlightens me to something I had not thought of and I would agree that neither of us are at the extremes but after reading some posters for years and several subjects it is absolutely clear to me that a few are at the extreme of blaming the Tories and Gov. for all ills regardless.

If the Sunday thing I wrote came across that way I apologize, not meant to, Sunday was only in reference to we did not have the full details but several tried to make it subject that they could beat the Gov. with and I simply don't agree with that.

I saw and read what KS had to say and have no problem with it as it's part of his job, I don't agree with everything he said but that's fine, yet I admit certain posters here just want to blame and insult and I simply do not believe what they were saying was said because something was not clear. Except for a those that later came back and said well I've read nothing but I listened to BJ and it's not clear.

Here’s a single example of the lack of clarity - it is only one specific part of the current rules but probably the one at the top of my list of priorities and I would imagine a lot of others;

In Johnson’s address to the nation on Sunday evening he didn’t once mention whether we could meet friends or family. Not a single mention. Surely that was an important enough issue for him to clearly explain?

Then shortly after, on the news programme that immediately followed Johnson’s speech we were told that we could meet one person from another household outdoors. There we go, straight away, conflicting messages and confusion.

On Radio 4 on Monday morning Dominic Raab was asked instead of meeting just one person could we meet two people from another household ie. both parents. He confirmed that yes, we could, provided we keep 2 metres apart. That statement was later withdrawn by the government.

So on the one particular issue that I was really keen to hear an update about I received 3 different messages in the space of 18 hours. How is that not a lack of clarity?

In Johnson’s speech he managed to find the time to explain that he would be increasing fines for the people who are caught breaking the rules. Now, call me a sheep again if you want, but I think it’s perfectly fair for me to expect to know what the actual rules are before I unwittingly break them.

This isn’t about using common sense - it is common sense to me that I could meet both of my parents at a safe distance, but if that is against the rules that have been laid out to save lives I will adhere to those rules.

So please can you explain how this single, yet very pertinent example, does not demonstrate a lack of clarity?

[TVC15]

The police chief was mentioned this afternoon
You'll be pleased to know I've no intention of replying to any of your posts, you can be rude to somebody else, iam sure you'll find someone.

Thank f-uck for that - I wish you’d have kept your patronising arrogant beak out of it in the first place.

For a change stick to your promise - hopefully you don’t need your 40 years of interpreting things in your own special way to understand this message.

[martin_p]

your continued ignorance in that what ever you say is gospel and everyone who disagrees is ignorant knows no bounds, you continue to fail miserably to actually make even one point to back up your perception that it's not clear, I'm not the only one here who has been saying since Sunday it is clear enough, what is your problem.

it is a pathetic attempt to sound knowledgeable when you clearly have an issue understanding basic instructions and do try to stop trying to deflect thing to rain showers when you know very well, as does every reader, what I said in that regard to it just makes your attempt to debate this subject of clarity to a basic I don't know, but let me try to justify what I'm saying.

If you've got nothing then best you stay quiet because all your doing is arguing nothing and add zero to my perception it is clear.

I am working with companies daily in regard to coming out of the lockdown/stay at home and economic and environment affect and I am debating/listening to business leaders world wide, you, you're giving me an alternative view from your perception and backing it up with Piers Morgan, sorry but I've heard nothing from you.

Very soon you'll revert to grammer/spelling/or the one I'm really looking forward from is that what you say/write/post makes no sense

It’s not clear because a lot of people are saying it’s not clear, that’s all you need to know. You may not think that but an awful lot of people do. That being the case the messaging has failed whether it’s clear to you or not.

[Grumps]

It’s not clear because a lot of people are saying it’s not clear, that’s all you need to know. You may not think that but an awful lot of people do. That being the case the messaging has failed whether it’s clear to you or not.

I don't always agree with Martin, but on this he's bang on
The messaging since Sunday has failed miserably

[Siddo]

My dad would batter all of your dads

He wouldn't batter Cricketfield Claret's dad!

[Paul Waine]

Hi Paul
It’s the old lockdown advice where in a previous debate on this board that somebody decided to bring up again today. My view as supported by the government website was that you were only allowed to exercise out of your home once a day unless you had specific health conditions which meant that you had to go out for exercise more than once a day.

The opposing view was that you could go out on exercise more than once a day under the old guidelines....even if that reason was you were too busy to do the exercise all in one session.

Begging the question as to why the government would announce this week being able to exercise more then once a day if that’s what you have been able to do all along ?!!

Thanks, TVC15, I've got the context. I'm pretty sure the "first lockdown period" rule was only leave home to exercise once a day. I'm not even sure there was a "but you can do it more than once if your health / medical needs requires." My understanding was that you could also leave the house to visit pharmacy/GPs/hospital (or dentist, if you could find one open) for health / medical needs, but that this wasn't considered "exercise." Four years back I was attending gym sessions every week as part of my cardio (heart attack) rehabilitation. I'd guess this sort of thing would have been in the "health / medical" needs area - always assuming the NHS would keep physiotherapy led cardio rehab sessions going with a bunch of, predominantly over 70s (I was one of the "younger ones") in the class, if covid-19 had been around then.

Yes, good development that we can now go out several times a day (with a clear conscience) to exercise.

I don't think I'll be driving anywhere to exercise - I've just seen I can get a discount on my car insurance if I can report lower mileage.

[Grumps]

Thanks, TVC15, I've got the context. I'm pretty sure the "first lockdown period" rule was only leave home to exercise once a day. I'm not even sure there was a "but you can do it more than once if your health / medical needs requires." My understanding was that you could also leave the house to visit pharmacy/GPs/hospital (or dentist, if you could find one open) for health / medical needs, but that this wasn't considered "exercise." Four years back I was attending gym sessions every week as part of my cardio (heart attack) rehabilitation. I'd guess this sort of thing would have been in the "health / medical" needs area - always assuming the NHS would keep physiotherapy led cardio rehab sessions going with a bunch of, predominantly over 70s (I was one of the "younger ones") in the class, if covid-19 had been around then.

Yes, good development that we can now go out several times a day (with a clear conscience) to exercise.

I don't think I'll be driving anywhere to exercise - I've just seen I can get a discount on my car insurance if I can report lower mileage.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Xf1DzKgYnT

[Paul Waine]

Here’s a single example of the lack of clarity - it is only one specific part of the current rules but probably the one at the top of my list of priorities and I would imagine a lot of others;

In Johnson’s address to the nation on Sunday evening he didn’t once mention whether we could meet friends or family. Not a single mention. Surely that was an important enough issue for him to clearly explain?

Then shortly after, on the news programme that immediately followed Johnson’s speech we were told that we could meet one person from another household outdoors. There we go, straight away, conflicting messages and confusion.

On Radio 4 on Monday morning Dominic Raab was asked instead of meeting just one person could we meet two people from another household ie. both parents. He confirmed that yes, we could, provided we keep 2 metres apart. That statement was later withdrawn by the government.

So on the one particular issue that I was really keen to hear an update about I received 3 different messages in the space of 18 hours. How is that not a lack of clarity?

In Johnson’s speech he managed to find the time to explain that he would be increasing fines for the people who are caught breaking the rules. Now, call me a sheep again if you want, but I think it’s perfectly fair for me to expect to know what the actual rules are before I unwittingly break them.

This isn’t about using common sense - it is common sense to me that I could meet both of my parents at a safe distance, but if that is against the rules that have been laid out to save lives I will adhere to those rules.

So please can you explain how this single, yet very pertinent example, does not demonstrate a lack of clarity?

Hi Rileybobs, I've got an idea that can help you, your parents (can I assume they are in one household?) can meet you - i.e. you are the one person they can meet. Does that solve it?

These are difficult things to message. Boris Johnson only had limited time to address the nation on Sunday night. If he tried to pack even more in (1) he'd have been speaking for a very long time and (2) many people would have misunderstood even more of what he said - and, that would be the case if everyone was listening intent only on understanding what he had to say. Of course, many people were only listening to "find fault" - so, of course, the message is hard to grasp clearly.

I didn't hear Raab on Monday morning. Was he specifically asked could an individual meet both parents? If yes, he gave the correct answer - as I posted above. But, if you are the "one person" you are thinking "but I'm meeting two people...."

I'm pretty sure BJ "mis-spoke" when he said "back to work tomorrow...." I'm sure he knew it was Wednesday. He would probably believe he did say "Wednesday" - until he watched back his own recording. We all do that, whether we are speaking (or typing) in a conversation with our mates, or we are making a very important speech - while under stress (never mind coming back from a very serious illness).

By rights, we can all work these things out for ourselves. We can all "find" the clarity we need - and we can consult/research/ask someone to assist if we are stuck with something that really matters.

Stay safe.

[TVC15]

There you go Paul - have a read of that and see whether you think that the following quote is giving people a reason to go out and exercise more than once with an excuse as flimsy as “they were too busy” to complete their exercise in one single session !

In relation to your response to me the government guidelines on their Covid website did say that you could go out and exercise more than once if you had health conditions that warranted it. Not sure if that was
updated or whether it was there from the start of lockdown. The logical assumption (without the 40 years of expertise reading experience) is that the “reasonable excuse” for leaving your home more than once for exercise is that it would be for the health issues referenced in the government guidelines rather than being a bit busy (or anything else people might come up with to justify them doing this)
Fortunately as someone who runs myself and knows lots of runners I don’t know anyone who thought anything other than you can only go out to exercise once a day so the spirit and purpose of the lockdown measure was adhered to.

“Exercising more than once per day - the only relevant consideration is whether repeated exercise on the same day can be considered a ‘reasonable excuse’ for leaving home”

[Paul Waine]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Xf1DzKgYnT

Hi Grumps, I wish you'd not posted that link.

Quote - from the "reasonable" column: "Exercising more than once per day - the only relevant consideration is whether repeated exercise on the same day can be considered a ‘reasonable excuse’ for leaving home.

So, the leaflet asks a question (though doesn't use a question mark) - "the only relevant consideration is whether repeated exercise on the same day can be considered a ‘reasonable excuse’ for leaving home" - why didn't it answer the question. Isn't that what the "reasonable/not reasonable" columns are all about, plus the "comment" column. Once, we know is reasonable. Twice? Three times? and so on...

I wonder, did any police constable say "well, what is it, sarge?"

[Rileybobs]

Hi Rileybobs, I've got an idea that can help you, your parents (can I assume they are in one household?) can meet you - i.e. you are the one person they can meet. Does that solve it?

These are difficult things to message. Boris Johnson only had limited time to address the nation on Sunday night. If he tried to pack even more in (1) he'd have been speaking for a very long time and (2) many people would have misunderstood even more of what he said - and, that would be the case if everyone was listening intent only on understanding what he had to say. Of course, many people were only listening to "find fault" - so, of course, the message is hard to grasp clearly.

I didn't hear Raab on Monday morning. Was he specifically asked could an individual meet both parents? If yes, he gave the correct answer - as I posted above. But, if you are the "one person" you are thinking "but I'm meeting two people...."

I'm pretty sure BJ "mis-spoke" when he said "back to work tomorrow...." I'm sure he knew it was Wednesday. He would probably believe he did say "Wednesday" - until he watched back his own recording. We all do that, whether we are speaking (or typing) in a conversation with our mates, or we are making a very important speech - while under stress (never mind coming back from a very serious illness).

By rights, we can all work these things out for ourselves. We can all "find" the clarity we need - and we can consult/research/ask someone to assist if we are stuck with something that really matters.

Stay safe.

Hi Paul. You’re wrong. You cannot meet two people from outside of your household at the same time. So my parents could both meet me but I would be breaking the rules because I would be meeting 2 people. I would therefore be subject to a £100 fine if caught. You’ve proved my point perfectly. Even now, people, like yourself, are confused.

Of course Johnson only had limited time but I think my example must be one of the most important rules that people were waiting to hear about. Can I see my parents, children, grandchildren? I’m not sure how you can excuse that not being included in his quite long speech - yet an increase to the fine could.

I think it’s naive to think that Johnson mid-spoke with an autocue in front of him. But I don’t even hold Johnson to full account for this, he has a whole team of people to write his speeches and prepare him.

So you have proven your last paragraph about working things out for ourselves to be incorrect. If you went to the park next weekend and your 2 children met you, you would be breaking the rules.

[martin_p]

This thread continues to prove my point about the clarity of the message.

[aggi]

Hi Rileybobs, I've got an idea that can help you, your parents (can I assume they are in one household?) can meet you - i.e. you are the one person they can meet. Does that solve it?

These are difficult things to message. Boris Johnson only had limited time to address the nation on Sunday night. If he tried to pack even more in (1) he'd have been speaking for a very long time and (2) many people would have misunderstood even more of what he said - and, that would be the case if everyone was listening intent only on understanding what he had to say. Of course, many people were only listening to "find fault" - so, of course, the message is hard to grasp clearly.

I didn't hear Raab on Monday morning. Was he specifically asked could an individual meet both parents? If yes, he gave the correct answer - as I posted above. But, if you are the "one person" you are thinking "but I'm meeting two people...."

This is a pretty good illustration of the lack of clarity. The example you give (2 people meeting 1 person) isn't allowed.

The speech being at the same time as the briefing documents, etc were released would have helped a lot. We wouldn't have had a day of people guessing what it meant, confusing news stories and social media, etc.

[Grumps]

Hi Grumps, I wish you'd not posted that link.

Quote - from the "reasonable" column: "Exercising more than once per day - the only relevant consideration is whether repeated exercise on the same day can be considered a ‘reasonable excuse’ for leaving home.

So, the leaflet asks a question (though doesn't use a question mark) - "the only relevant consideration is whether repeated exercise on the same day can be considered a ‘reasonable excuse’ for leaving home" - why didn't it answer the question. Isn't that what the "reasonable/not reasonable" columns are all about, plus the "comment" column. Once, we know is reasonable. Twice? Three times? and so on...

I wonder, did any police constable say "well, what is it, sarge?"

At the time it was produced a senior police officer was on the TV explaining it. Basically they knew they couldn't police the once a day rule
So, because policing of the rules was expected to be the softly softly approach it was said it was possible to exercise more than once if it was deemed reasonable.
The examples he gave included the elderly splitting exercise, somebody who was busy at work could perhaps split some before work, some after. If an officer stopped someone, the only consideration was if it was reasonable, the above two examples would have been deemed to be reasonable
All instances would be treated on merit.
Hope that helps

[Paul Waine]

Hi Paul. You’re wrong. You cannot meet two people from outside of your household at the same time. So my parents could both meet me but I would be breaking the rules because I would be meeting 2 people. I would therefore be subject to a £100 fine if caught. You’ve proved my point perfectly. Even now, people, like yourself, are confused.

Of course Johnson only had limited time but I think my example must be one of the most important rules that people were waiting to hear about. Can I see my parents, children, grandchildren? I’m not sure how you can excuse that not being included in his quite long speech - yet an increase to the fine could.

I think it’s naive to think that Johnson mid-spoke with an autocue in front of him. But I don’t even hold Johnson to full account for this, he has a whole team of people to write his speeches and prepare him.

So you have proven your last paragraph about working things out for ourselves to be incorrect. If you went to the park next weekend and your 2 children met you, you would be breaking the rules.

We will have to disagree, Rileybobs. Did you know that you'd typed "mid-spoke" rather than "mis-spoke?" Have you ever used an autocue? Did you get the impression that Johnson was only reading from his autocue? I''d suggest that the only reason you think "can I meet..." was the most important question was because that was what was in the forefront of your own mind. It was also important for me, but not so that that was all I was listening for Johnson to say.

[FactualFrank]

So basically - dogging.

park.png (438.95 KiB) Viewed 1925 times

[NewClaret]

So basically - dogging.


park.png

Got to lift the nations spirits

[Rileybobs]

We will have to disagree, Rileybobs. Did you know that you'd typed "mid-spoke" rather than "mis-spoke?" Have you ever used an autocue? Did you get the impression that Johnson was only reading from his autocue? I''d suggest that the only reason you think "can I meet..." was the most important question was because that was what was in the forefront of your own mind. It was also important for me, but not so that that was all I was listening for Johnson to say.

How can you agree to disagree with me about a fact? Surely when someone makes you aware that you’re incorrect about something you change your mind?

My typo has absolutely nothing to do with Johnson’s speech, I don’t know why you’re deflecting. I have fat fingers and if my hastily typed out comment was a fraction as important as Johnson’s speech I would be embarrassed about publishing the comment with such a mistake in.

Yes - I do think that Johnson was reading his speech from an autocue. As he should. I don’t expect him to remember the entire speech. Which is why it’s very doubtful that he mixed up the words tomorrow and Wednesday. But in any case, I didn’t pull him up on that - you brought that to our discussion.

I didn’t say that ‘can I meet’ was the most important question, and I think you know I didn’t. I said for me, it was probably the most important rule change that I was interested to hear. Because I’d like to see my family and I know my family would like to see me and my son. Surely that was one of the things most people were interested in hearing about?

It’s also not the only thing I was listening for Johnson to say, where do you get that from? When the speech finished I thought there had been no relaxation as to who I could meet. It was only on the news immediately afterwards that I saw I could meet a single person from outside of my household.

So again, you’ve proven perfectly that there is confusion about the message. It’s just that in this case the person who is confused doesn’t know it, or refuses to accept it.