Stay Alert

[KateR]

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.

what a great rebuttal, I stand corrected now it's very clear to me that things are not clear to you but it's clear you don't want to say what is not clear to you.

So now we're all clear and I thank you for that clarity.

[Rileybobs]

First of all thank you for a rational point to discuss. If we go back to Sunday it's a bit of a none entity for me beyond people including you saying it's not clear and attacking for 2 pages after he made a speech about what we could expect to be happening in several phases for the coming weeks months and that more detailed information would follow. I mentioned Sunday evening in that we would be allowed to drive further distances and that we could meet parents who live some way away, that up to this week would not have been allowed to drive to. That was without the details and then we moved to yesterday and going in I would have thought like many that I could see that people could meet both parents for some time and always in a safe condition, such as not sat at the same table, holding hands etc. and mentioned that in regard to perhaps through a window or even in a garden or driveway. Sunday evening was never meant to be clear is the message totally, you're only getting it once and we wont publish it or give more details so this is you're only chance to understand what is going to happen.

It was a surprise yesterday when the discussion around it's one parent at a time immerged and yes slightly different to my thinking but in reality I don't think a huge issue in terms of clarity and one that got clarified Monday, at least hopefully it is clear enough by Monday evening. Also I would say I don't agree with the seeing one at a time and I would predict people will be tempted not to adhere to that, but they have not adhered on many other things, you can also decide on the penalties to be applied in this and other regards.

In regard to this I think it was still clear on message that things were changing slightly, it's not a huge change and the basic message of stay safe, stay apart, but is the same message with the caveat of ,if you are going to do some things slightly different be aware more people will be out so stay alert to that.

I also think it's fair that you would want to know the rules regarding everything, however please be fair in terms of Sunday night you freely admitted you had not read anything but were arguing with people on things like sitting down and that the change only related to exercise more than once per day. What I don't think is fair of you is to argue on something you were clearly told more details would be given the next day and not to have read was actually written down from the speech immediately afterwards for you to read so you would have had some more clarity.

I don’t think I made a comment about the PM’s speech before your baa baa’ing. That post enticed me to post because I thought it was very childish to suggest that anyone who didn’t think the PM’s message was clear was being a sheep.

I would have expected that the speech would have included this fairly important point - it was certainly long enough.

I admitted to not reading any further about it that evening. I expected that the headlines would have been pointed out in the speech and I was happy to wait for further details on the Monday. I decided to put a film on as I considered that a more enjoyable way to spend an evening.

Naturally I was surprised to hear that after Johnson’s speech there were revelations about meeting family members. Then even more surprised on Monday to hear that we could actually meet two family members. Only to hear yet another message later that day.

So to just cut to the point, do you not think that my point, and subsequent discussion with Paul has proven that there has been a lack of clarity with the communication?

[martin_p]

what a great rebuttal, I stand corrected now it's very clear to me that things are not clear to you but it's clear you don't want to say what is not clear to you.

So now we're all clear and I thank you for that clarity.

I didn’t say whether it was clear to me or not. But when 1 in 3 people say it’s not clear to them in a poll in the Express then there’s a problem, especially as the people taking part in the Express poll aren’t likely to be the sort of people who ‘you love reading posts from’.

[boatshed bill]

what a great rebuttal, I stand corrected now it's very clear to me that things are not clear to you but it's clear you don't want to say what is not clear to you.

So now we're all clear and I thank you for that clarity.

HaHa.

Not clear, therefore impossible to identify what is not clear, that should be fairly obvious to anyone.

[KateR]

So to just cut to the point, do you not think that my point, and subsequent discussion with Paul has proven that there has been a lack of clarity with the communication?

to be honest I have not really read you & Paul having a discussion, nor have I read most of this thread since Sunday night, until I read a little this morning and had a chuckle about and then saw yours and Martins responses in my notifications so responded. In terms of you and Paul I thought the message was that a household so could be a couple, could be plus children can drive to see someone one person at a safe distance therefore if you are a single person with 2 parents you theoretically should be able to see them at the same time. I don't think the Gov. should be laying out details in terms of 1, 1+1, 2, 2+1, 2+2 etc. and who they can meet in detailed planning for every single eventuality, which is what many here still seem to be arguing for in terms of clarity. If a family can meet 1 person in the park, a family can meet one parent or a son/daughter/sister/brother etc. but always with stay safe, stay apart, stay alert in there mind and I, in my own opinion, don't believe the police will be fining anyone who stays apart and safe, can I guarantee this, no of course not. Just for absolute clarity here, I went out to the shop today for the first time in 3 weeks, my parents passed away, my sister is approx. 1.5 miles away and older than me, haven't seen her since Feb but I will be meeting her, safely on Friday.

I think whether people like it/agree with it or not (which is a different subject/thread) the UK are starting the relaxation measures, I can agree there was not 100% clarity Sunday evening, Monday there was a 50 page document detailing things to provide more clarity. I can agree a few people, can't say how many, who appear to have said something that was not 100% right, whether they read the document or not I can't say. I can agree it caused a little confusion but again think it was quickly cleared up and all a storm in a teacup in some of the comments here Sunday.

I can say everything that has been brought up as not clear is just nit picking and going to the Nth degree to try and prove the point that someone was right when they said it wasn't clear. Just IMO of course and I can say I find it frustrating, every one knows the basic rules, which haven't changed, everyone knows that older people are more susceptible to catching the virus, everyone knows that parents are older than they are. So I'll go out on a limb and say everyone knows they shouldn't be mingling with parents or anyone else, seeing parents as I have tried to say is a boon, even if you only get to see one at a time for a short while it should be welcomed rather than having to listen to people continually moaning it's not clear.

[martin_p]

to be honest I have not really read you & Paul having a discussion, nor have I read most of this thread since Sunday night, until I read a little this morning and had a chuckle about and then saw yours and Martins responses in my notifications so responded. In terms of you and Paul I thought the message was that a household so could be a couple, could be plus children can drive to see someone one person at a safe distance therefore if you are a single person with 2 parents you theoretically should be able to see them at the same time. I don't think the Gov. should be laying out details in terms of 1, 1+1, 2, 2+1, 2+2 etc. and who they can meet in detailed planning for every single eventuality, which is what many here still seem to be arguing for in terms of clarity. If a family can meet 1 person in the park, a family can meet one parent or a son/daughter/sister/brother etc. but always with stay safe, stay apart, stay alert in there mind and I, in my own opinion, don't believe the police will be fining anyone who stays apart and safe, can I guarantee this, no of course not. Just for absolute clarity here, I went out to the shop today for the first time in 3 weeks, my parents passed away, my sister is approx. 1.5 miles away and older than me, haven't seen her since Feb but I will be meeting her, safely on Friday.

I think whether people like it/agree with it or not (which is a different subject/thread) the UK are starting the relaxation measures, I can agree there was not 100% clarity Sunday evening, Monday there was a 50 page document detailing things to provide more clarity. I can agree a few people, can't say how many, who appear to have said something that was not 100% right, whether they read the document or not I can't say. I can agree it caused a little confusion but again think it was quickly cleared up and all a storm in a teacup in some of the comments here Sunday.

I can say everything that has been brought up as not clear is just nit picking and going to the Nth degree to try and prove the point that someone was right when they said it wasn't clear. Just IMO of course and I can say I find it frustrating, every one knows the basic rules, which haven't changed, everyone knows that older people are more susceptible to catching the virus, everyone knows that parents are older than they are. So I'll go out on a limb and say everyone knows they shouldn't be mingling with parents or anyone else, seeing parents as I have tried to say is a boon, even if you only get to see one at a time for a short while it should be welcomed rather than having to listen to people continually moaning it's not clear.

So the person claiming everything is clear doesn’t understand the new guidance. QED.

[KateR]

I didn’t say whether it was clear to me or not. But when 1 in 3 people say it’s not clear to them in a poll in the Express then there’s a problem, especially as the people taking part in the Express poll aren’t likely to be the sort of people who ‘you love reading posts from’.

I love reading posts from you, they are one of my great sources of amusement.

did you get stuck at work Monday morning for 8 hours wondering why they had not opened the door, or at the very least the tea lady had not been along outside on the pavement to give the thousands of confused people like you a drink of tea at the very least. What the hell is Boris doing, I don't know, such confusing times isn't it that we live in

[Burnley Ace]

We can work out now why there was panic buying of toilet paper - it was all the practice they needed because there was no written directive from central government telling them how to wipe their arse!!

[martin_p]

I love reading posts from you, they are one of my great sources of amusement.

did you get stuck at work Monday morning for 8 hours wondering why they had not opened the door, or at the very least the tea lady had not been along outside on the pavement to give the thousands of confused people like you a drink of tea at the very least. What the hell is Boris doing, I don't know, such confusing times isn't it that we live in

You have a habit of playing the man not the ball, perhaps because you don’t have a reasoned argument. Do you think it’s a problem that, according to a survey, 33% think the messaging on the new measures isn’t clear?

[KateR]

So the person claiming everything is clear doesn’t understand the new guidance. QED.

I have offered several times to explain to you what you found to be not clear, you've failed numerous times to explain what is not clear so as I said for you everything is obviously clear but you want to argue for the sake of arguing, for the life in me I don't know why. But that time has come Martin, bye bye, stay in, don't go out, stay safe and above all stay alert just in case someone comes to visit you, but ensure you tell your parents/relatives/loved ones that you can't drive to visit them because it's not clear, I'm sure they will understand you better than I do.

[Rileybobs]

to be honest I have not really read you & Paul having a discussion, nor have I read most of this thread since Sunday night, until I read a little this morning and had a chuckle about and then saw yours and Martins responses in my notifications so responded. In terms of you and Paul I thought the message was that a household so could be a couple, could be plus children can drive to see someone one person at a safe distance therefore if you are a single person with 2 parents you theoretically should be able to see them at the same time. I don't think the Gov. should be laying out details in terms of 1, 1+1, 2, 2+1, 2+2 etc. and who they can meet in detailed planning for every single eventuality, which is what many here still seem to be arguing for in terms of clarity. If a family can meet 1 person in the park, a family can meet one parent or a son/daughter/sister/brother etc. but always with stay safe, stay apart, stay alert in there mind and I, in my own opinion, don't believe the police will be fining anyone who stays apart and safe, can I guarantee this, no of course not. Just for absolute clarity here, I went out to the shop today for the first time in 3 weeks, my parents passed away, my sister is approx. 1.5 miles away and older than me, haven't seen her since Feb but I will be meeting her, safely on Friday.

I think whether people like it/agree with it or not (which is a different subject/thread) the UK are starting the relaxation measures, I can agree there was not 100% clarity Sunday evening, Monday there was a 50 page document detailing things to provide more clarity. I can agree a few people, can't say how many, who appear to have said something that was not 100% right, whether they read the document or not I can't say. I can agree it caused a little confusion but again think it was quickly cleared up and all a storm in a teacup in some of the comments here Sunday.

I can say everything that has been brought up as not clear is just nit picking and going to the Nth degree to try and prove the point that someone was right when they said it wasn't clear. Just IMO of course and I can say I find it frustrating, every one knows the basic rules, which haven't changed, everyone knows that older people are more susceptible to catching the virus, everyone knows that parents are older than they are. So I'll go out on a limb and say everyone knows they shouldn't be mingling with parents or anyone else, seeing parents as I have tried to say is a boon, even if you only get to see one at a time for a short while it should be welcomed rather than having to listen to people continually moaning it's not clear.

But, just like Paul has, you've proved my point. Some people, including yourself still aren't clear. This fairly fundamental point should have been made loud and clear on Sunday night. For whatever reason Johnson decided not to, and it would certainly have been a conscious decision to leave that out of his speech. The press were then briefed which included the 1 person meeting another 1 person, and then the following morning Dominic Raab said someone could meet 2 people. It really isn't that difficult to get basic communication like this right.

This lack of a clear message is why you and Paul still think that a single person can go and meet 2 members of a different household which just isn't the case. By default if my two parents are meeting me I am also meeting them. 2+1=3, 1+2=3.

So you could be unwittingly breaking the rules and getting fined for doing so, but hold the view that people questioning the clarity of the communication are sheep.

[martin_p]

I have offered several times to explain to you what you found to be not clear, you've failed numerous times to explain what is not clear so as I said for you everything is obviously clear but you want to argue for the sake of arguing, for the life in me I don't know why. But that time has come Martin, bye bye, stay in, don't go out, stay safe and above all stay alert just in case someone comes to visit you, but ensure you tell your parents/relatives/loved ones that you can't drive to visit them because it's not clear, I'm sure they will understand you better than I do.

You’re completely and utterly missing the point. This isn’t about whether I think it’s clear or you think it’s clear (although for the record you claimed it was clear then showed you didn’t understand it), it’s whether enough people think it’s clear. The evidence is they don’t.

[Rileybobs]

I have offered several times to explain to you what you found to be not clear, you've failed numerous times to explain what is not clear so as I said for you everything is obviously clear but you want to argue for the sake of arguing, for the life in me I don't know why. But that time has come Martin, bye bye, stay in, don't go out, stay safe and above all stay alert just in case someone comes to visit you, but ensure you tell your parents/relatives/loved ones that you can't drive to visit them because it's not clear, I'm sure they will understand you better than I do.

Just to be perfectly clear. Nobody can visit anybody else at their home. So Martin hopefully won't be visiting family and they won't be visiting him.

[RingoMcCartney]

Disappointing news for whining lefty europhiles.

Macron has adopted a similar slogan as the uk as France also moves into the next stage of this unprecedented global pandemic.

On Sunday, Emmanuel Macron unveiled the “sauvez des vies, restez prudents” tagline, which roughly translates to “save lives, stay cautious”.

[RingoMcCartney]

I just wish people would be more honest.

Instead of pretending they don't understand what "stay alert " and use your common sense means. Why cant they just admit they hate Boris Johnson and what ever he does will never ever be good enough?

[martin_p]

I just wish people would be more honest.

Instead of pretending they don't understand what "stay alert " and use your common sense means. Why cant they just admit they hate Boris Johnson and what ever he does will never ever be good enough?

So you think 33% of Express readers hate Boris Johnson?

[KateR]

But, just like Paul has, you've proved my point. Some people, including yourself still aren't clear. This fairly fundamental point should have been made loud and clear on Sunday night. For whatever reason Johnson decided not to, and it would certainly have been a conscious decision to leave that out of his speech. The press were then briefed which included the 1 person meeting another 1 person, and then the following morning Dominic Raab said someone could meet 2 people. It really isn't that difficult to get basic communication like this right.

This lack of a clear message is why you and Paul still think that a single person can go and meet 2 members of a different household which just isn't the case. By default if my two parents are meeting me I am also meeting them. 2+1=3, 1+2=3.

So you could be unwittingly breaking the rules and getting fined for doing so, but hold the view that people questioning the clarity of the communication are sheep.

let's make it real simple and use the law/policing to ensure you avoid a fine shall we:

From Wednesday in England, two people from different households can meet in outdoor settings, such as parks, as long as they stay more than two metres (six feet) apart.

However, just for clarity such that even Martin can understand you can NOT go to meet someone in a park or other out door settings if it is in Wales or Scotland or any other country in the world just England

I'm really sorry I could not give you this on Sunday evening but hopefully you feel you've proved your point now and you can rest safe in the knowledge of this one bit of the change being clear.

I told you, and many of our followers that you were sheep on Sunday night, you were, they were, you were bleating about nothing/zero/nada and simply couldn't wait until Monday, one day for more details so bah

Right that's one down in the 50 page document, what's next

[NewClaret]

While we’re all over reacting to a small tweak to some words on a lectern, in Manila their president has instructed the police to shoot dead anyone who breaks lockdown.

Can you imagine the sheet that would go down on here if Boris did that?!?!

[ksrclaret]

So you think 33% of Express readers hate Boris Johnson?

Yep, that's the only possible reason people could be critical of the government's handling of this. Nothing to do with the 32,000 dead, nothing to do with the consistent lack of testing and PPE. Nothing to do with the horrific mixed messaging.

It can only be because people don't like Boris. Because everything's great right now.

[Rileybobs]

let's make it real simple and use the law/policing to ensure you avoid a fine shall we:

From Wednesday in England, two people from different households can meet in outdoor settings, such as parks, as long as they stay more than two metres (six feet) apart.

However, just for clarity such that even Martin can understand you can NOT go to meet someone in a park or other out door settings if it is in Wales or Scotland or any other country in the world just England

I'm really sorry I could not give you this on Sunday evening but hopefully you feel you've proved your point now and you can rest safe in the knowledge of this one bit of the change being clear.

I told you, and many of our followers that you were sheep on Sunday night, you were, they were, you were bleating about nothing/zero/nada and simply couldn't wait until Monday, one day for more details so bah

Right that's one down in the 50 page document, what's next

You’ve demonstrated numerous times above that you didn’t understand the rules regarding meeting people from other households. You’ve just copied the government text which proves that the original communication in the PM’s address, and subsequent communication from Raab was both incorrect. You’ve literally proven my point.

Just to recap, I already understood the rule about who I can meet from other households so you don’t need to educate me. Glad that you’ve found out though and hopefully this will have cleared it up for Paul too.

[RingoMcCartney]

So you think 33% of Express readers hate Boris Johnson?

No. Perhaps they genuinely dont understand what "stay alert" and use your common sense means. I was referring to those from the commentariat, the predominantly metropolitan London bubble class, the left wing media, the noisy minority of UTC messageboard Boris haters who do know what it means. Preferring, instead to be in a combined state of faux outrage and "never going to be good enough for me"

[boatshed bill]

I just wish people would be more honest.

Instead of pretending they don't understand what "stay alert " and use your common sense means. Why cant they just admit they hate Boris Johnson and what ever he does will never ever be good enough?

Hate?
Come on, why would anyone hate someone who, by pure innocent accident, is overseeing the killing of 400+ UK citizens a day?

[Rileybobs]

No. Perhaps they genuinely dont understand what "stay alert" and use your common sense means. I was referring to those from the commentariat, the predominantly metropolitan London bubble class, the left wing media, the noisy minority of UTC messageboard Boris haters who do know what it means. Preferring, instead to be in a combined state of faux outrage and "never going to be good enough for me"

And what about the people defending the government, such as PaulWaine and KateR, who have demonstrated that they don’t understand the message?

[martin_p]

No. Perhaps they genuinely dont understand what "stay alert" and use your common sense means. I was referring to those from the commentariat, the predominantly metropolitan London bubble class, the left wing media, the noisy minority of UTC messageboard Boris haters who do know what it means. Preferring, instead to be in a combined state of faux outrage and "never going to be good enough for me"

So if you think that 33% don’t understand you’d agree that the messaging has been poor then.

[Jakubclaret]

You’ve demonstrated numerous times above that you didn’t understand the rules regarding meeting people from other households. You’ve just copied the government text which proves that the original communication in the PM’s address, and subsequent communication from Raab was both incorrect. You’ve literally proven my point.

Just to recap, I already understood the rule about who I can meet from other households so you don’t need to educate me. Glad that you’ve found out though and hopefully this will have cleared it up for Paul too.

It's never really been a issue who you meet or don't meet providing you keep the 2m distance, nothings really changed apart from you can travel to exercise & you can resume work if it's safe to do so, the drama is some peoples inability to think independently & exercise any common sense, harks back to roughly over a fortnight ago 25/4/20 which was a Saturday I think & pretty much exactly the same thing which was predicted as happened further on, about becoming over reliant on advice & instructions, frankly put getting spoon fed, all the information is available to act upon using common sense.

[Rileybobs]

It's never really been a issue who you meet or don't meet providing you keep the 2m distance

Oh dear.

[RingoMcCartney]

So if you think that 33% don’t understand you’d agree that the messaging has been poor then.

No. I'd say thatPerhaps 33% genuinely dont understand what "stay alert" and use your common sense means. I was referring to those from the commentariat, the predominantly metropolitan London bubble class, the left wing media, the noisy minority of UTC messageboard Boris haters who do know what it means. Preferring, instead to be in a combined state of faux outrage and "never going to be good enough for me"

[Jakubclaret]

Oh dear.

It's had to be that way, yes you are right it was a rule literally because some people are just unable to use any common, it's a rule some people would have ignored to be replaced with common sense. It's a sorry state of affairs when you need to be so precise with people, it's similar to headmaster scolding a naughty pupil time after time.

[RingoMcCartney]

And what about the people defending the government, such as PaulWaine and KateR, who have demonstrated that they don’t understand the message?

What specifically, shows "they dont understand the message" do you believe?

[KateR]

You’ve demonstrated numerous times above that you didn’t understand the rules regarding meeting people from other households. You’ve just copied the government text which proves that the original communication in the PM’s address, and subsequent communication from Raab was both incorrect. You’ve literally proven my point.

Just to recap, I already understood the rule about who I can meet from other households so you don’t need to educate me. Glad that you’ve found out though and hopefully this will have cleared it up for Paul too.

just to recap, you have a real problem understanding what people tell you in what they regard is the point, to try and emphasize your point you introduced fines/policing, which is fine. To that end I copied the Gov. text so you would know because you keep saying it is not clear.

Let me tell you what is clear to me and as I told you I don't believe will involve fines and it is clear for me, I can drive and I can meet for example my mother, we stay apart, at the same time my husband meets my father further away, I call my husband and say lets' swap, I go to see my father, he goes to see my mother. The next day repeat with my husbands parents, for me that is clear, it's not against the law, it's not against the Gov. requirement laid out again for clarity below and means I can meet my parents.

Perhaps you should be asking people for in terms of clarity, what does meet mean, if I see a neighbor while exercising in the park and stop say hello, how are things, ohh great and move on in two/three minutes, then low and behold I meet another neighbor, dangerous fine territory here. Can I stop and repeat from 30/60 minutes ago or do I have to say not, I've meet someone from the different household already, so I now must by law, move on ignoring second neighbor except for maybe a quick wave as I sail past.

If I came with this kind of hypothesis on any other subject, I think we both know what your response would be, unfortunately it's now Tuesday and you've proved conclusively you are a sheep bah.

From Wednesday in England, two people from different households can meet in outdoor settings, such as parks, as long as they stay more than two metres (six feet) apart. I am also adding this for further clarity to help you in this very tough decision making that has suddenly arisen "The government has said it will impose higher fines for people who break social distancing rules".

I'm sure you will try harder to prove to everyone how you are right but for me I am done with these puerile attempts from you and Martin on this subject, look forward to discussing something else with you in the not to distant future.

[martin_p]

No. I'd say thatPerhaps 33% genuinely dont understand what "stay alert" and use your common sense means. I was referring to those from the commentariat, the predominantly metropolitan London bubble class, the left wing media, the noisy minority of UTC messageboard Boris haters who do know what it means. Preferring, instead to be in a combined state of faux outrage and "never going to be good enough for me"

So why do you think 33% perhaps don’t understand if it’s not down to the messaging?

[Rileybobs]

What specifically, shows "they dont understand the message" do you believe?

They both thought that the current rules allowed for someone to meet two members of another household. Which they don’t. I can understand why they thought that though because Dominic Raab said that they could. They illustrated my point perfectly that the messaging on that particular point hasn’t been clear as they were defending the governments communication whilst proving that they didn’t understand it.

[ksrclaret]

No. I'd say thatPerhaps 33% genuinely dont understand what "stay alert" and use your common sense means. I was referring to those from the commentariat, the predominantly metropolitan London bubble class, the left wing media, the noisy minority of UTC messageboard Boris haters who do know what it means. Preferring, instead to be in a combined state of faux outrage and "never going to be good enough for me"

I'm amazed there are so many people in this metropolitan London bubble class to form the predominance of people pretending not to understand.

There must be Ivory Towers popping up all over London.

[martin_p]

I'm sure you will try harder to prove to everyone how you are right but for me I am done with these puerile attempts from you and Martin on this subject, look forward to discussing something else with you in the not to distant future.

Or to summarise, I a bit embarrassed now that I’ve demonstrated I didn’t understand the guidance pretty much invalidating my argument that the guidance was clear, is I’m off!

[RingoMcCartney]

Hate?
Come on, why would anyone hate someone who, by pure innocent accident, is overseeing the
killing of 400+ UK citizens a day?

If you're going to use irrational and hysterical clap trap like that, well......

I dont want to this any further. Other than this.

Give me your best estimate in a single number.

Given Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn would have been being advised by the very same Chief medical officer and medical experts. At this stage , how many "killings" would he have "overseen" ?

[RingoMcCartney]

They both thought that the current rules allowed for someone to meet two members of another household. Which they don’t. I can understand why they thought that though because Dominic Raab said that they could. They illustrated my point perfectly that the messaging on that particular point hasn’t been clear as they were defending the governments communication whilst proving that they didn’t understand it.

Are you saying it hasn't already been possible for someone to go from one household and go into another?

[RingoMcCartney]

I'm amazed there are so many people in this metropolitan London bubble class to form the predominance of people pretending not to understand.

There must be Ivory Towers popping up all over London.

Show us the rat Teach!

[Rileybobs]

just to recap, you have a real problem understanding what people tell you in what they regard is the point, to try and emphasize your point you introduced fines/policing, which is fine. To that end I copied the Gov. text so you would know because you keep saying it is not clear.

Let me tell you what is clear to me and as I told you I don't believe will involve fines and it is clear for me, I can drive and I can meet for example my mother, we stay apart, at the same time my husband meets my father further away, I call my husband and say lets' swap, I go to see my father, he goes to see my mother. The next day repeat with my husbands parents, for me that is clear, it's not against the law, it's not against the Gov. requirement laid out again for clarity below and means I can meet my parents.

Perhaps you should be asking people for in terms of clarity, what does meet mean, if I see a neighbor while exercising in the park and stop say hello, how are things, ohh great and move on in two/three minutes, then low and behold I meet another neighbor, dangerous fine territory here. Can I stop and repeat from 30/60 minutes ago or do I have to say not, I've meet someone from the different household already, so I now must by law, move on ignoring second neighbor except for maybe a quick wave as I sail past.

If I came with this kind of hypothesis on any other subject, I think we both know what your response would be, unfortunately it's now Tuesday and you've proved conclusively you are a sheep bah.

From Wednesday in England, two people from different households can meet in outdoor settings, such as parks, as long as they stay more than two metres (six feet) apart. I am also adding this for further clarity to help you in this very tough decision making that has suddenly arisen "The government has said it will impose higher fines for people who break social distancing rules".

I'm sure you will try harder to prove to everyone how you are right but for me I am done with these puerile attempts from you and Martin on this subject, look forward to discussing something else with you in the not to distant future.

I brought fines into the equation because some posters said just use your common sense. Well if I used my common sense I may think it is ok to meet my parents at a park whilst socially distancing. But I would be incorrect and could be fined for doing so.

I haven’t anywhere said that the government’s current stance isn’t clear. I said that the original address by Johnson, subsequent press briefing and then the later interview from Raab all communicate a different message. It’s a fact, I don’t know how anyone can defend how that message was communicated with any credibility.

The rest of your post is waffle. The point I have made and you’ve failed to address is that you misunderstood the latest government guidance with regards to meeting people from other households. I don’t have to prove any further that I’m right, the evidence is there in black and white above. By doing so you have proven that the communication wasn’t clear. Copying and pasting said guidance is totally irrelevant.

Nice of you to resort to type by calling me a sheep though. You seem to have this victim complex that you’re being attacked by other posters, yet you’re always the one to lower the tone.

[ksrclaret]

Show us the rat Teach!

Have you got time? Normally you're late for 'work' at this point aren't you?

[RingoMcCartney]

So why do you think 33% perhaps don’t understand if it’s not down to the messaging?

Dont know, you'd best ask them Marty.

[KateR]

They both thought that the current rules allowed for someone to meet two members of another household. Which they don’t. I can understand why they thought that though because Dominic Raab said that they could. They illustrated my point perfectly that the messaging on that particular point hasn’t been clear as they were defending the governments communication whilst proving that they didn’t understand it.

we don't think that, we both know you can but just NOT AT THE SAME TIME. I'm trying to shout because obviously it's not getting through to you what has been said and what is clear in terms of meeting nor has it been made clear to you why you will get a fine but hopefully you will understand by tomorrow, if not, my advice, don't go out.

You're clearly unable to think for yourself and need a detailed manual to do the simplest of things, I'm breaking my own rule but I admit I couldn't resist, you sucked me in to your nonsense.

[AndrewJB]

Certainly a problem that has arisen due to Johnson’s muddled ramble is that some in my neighbourhood are reaching different conclusions to their work management on what the appropriate levels of safety are. A person who requested a change in hours so as not to have to travel on trains when it’s busy was told it couldn’t happen. I’ve heard stories of people having to bring in their own hand sanitiser, and a place of light industry where no changes were made at all.

As for the government itself, opening up right now while we still have a high death total, we should expect that they can test and trace, for when new cases are discovered - but I don’t think they’re ready even for such an elementary response such as this

[martin_p]

Dont know, you'd best ask them Marty.

Well if someone doesn’t understand something I’ve said I’ve either said it badly or they’re not intelligent enough to understand it, there aren’t any other options (invariably it’s because I’ve expressed it badly). So are 33% of Express readers not intelligent enough to understand or was the messaging bad?

[Rileybobs]

Are you saying it hasn't already been possible for someone to go from one household and go into another?

No, you know I didn’t say that.

Until now, we’ve not been allowed to meet family members or friends from other households.

Now, we’re allowed to meet one family member from another household at a time in a public place.

Paul and Kate both thought that we could meet two family members from another household in a public place. Kate even thought we could visit a family member at their house.

Paul and Kate misunderstood the rule, ergo the communication was unclear.

[Taffy on the wing]

Just for absolute clarity here, I went out to the shop today for the first time in 3 weeks, my parents passed away, my sister is approx. 1.5 miles away and older than me, haven't seen her since Feb but I will be meeting her, safely on Friday.

That is a direct quote from KateR's last ramble......Then Ringo showed up.

I just don't know WHAT to make of this sentence........it's amazing!

[martin_p]

we don't think that, we both know you can but just NOT AT THE SAME TIME. I'm trying to shout because obviously it's not getting through to you what has been said and what is clear in terms of meeting nor has it been made clear to you why you will get a fine but hopefully you will understand by tomorrow, if not, my advice, don't go out.

You're clearly unable to think for yourself and need a detailed manual to do the simplest of things, I'm breaking my own rule but I admit I couldn't resist, you sucked me in to your nonsense.

Well you didn’t say that, perhaps you should be clearer.

‘ It was a surprise yesterday when the discussion around it's one parent at a time immerged and yes slightly different to my thinking but in reality I don't think a huge issue in terms of clarity and one that got clarified Monday, at least hopefully it is clear enough by Monday evening. Also I would say I don't agree with the seeing one at a time and I would predict people will be tempted not to adhere to that, but they have not adhered on many other things, you can also decide on the penalties to be applied in this and other regards. ’

[RingoMcCartney]

Have you got time? Normally you're late for 'work' at this point aren't you?

Being self employed I start when I want buggerlugs.

KSR Claret, quite possibly the only poster who thought that describing the Chinese Regime as a Brutal murderous tyrannical dictatorship was, get this, "racist"

Unbelievable!

What's the KSR stand for?

Keep Supporting the Regime?

[ksrclaret]

Being self employed I start when I want buggerlugs.

KSR Claret, quite possibly the only poster who thought that describing the Chinese Regime as a Brutal murderous tyrannical dictatorship was, get this, "racist"

Unbelievable!

What's the KSR stand for?

Keep Supporting the Regime?

Crikey, Wrongo, I know you were upset about that post being removed but I thought you'd have gotten over it by now.

But, let's imagine that's all you said in that post, you may recall that the mods removed it. Therefore, I cannot be the only poster who thought it was inappropriate can I?

Hope this helps.

[Rileybobs]

we don't think that, we both know you can but just NOT AT THE SAME TIME. I'm trying to shout because obviously it's not getting through to you what has been said and what is clear in terms of meeting nor has it been made clear to you why you will get a fine but hopefully you will understand by tomorrow, if not, my advice, don't go out.

You're clearly unable to think for yourself and need a detailed manual to do the simplest of things, I'm breaking my own rule but I admit I couldn't resist, you sucked me in to your nonsense.

That’s it - move the goalposts. Very clever. Just admit you misunderstood the message, why is that so difficult? You started using 1+1 and 2+1 type examples - don’t back track now that you’ve read the government text.

And Paul clearly thought that I couldn’t meet my parents but to circumvent the rules they could meet me as they would be meeting one person.

I’m perfectly capable of thinking for myself thanks, it’s such a pathetic and childish response to this whole saga. This isn’t about thinking for ourselves, this is about following a strict set of rules which will help us to save lives and begin a return to normality. Are the British public really supposed to use their common sense to do so? Because I have a funny feeling that not everyone would behave in the same way and the whole thing would be a disaster.

[KateR]

Or to summarise, I a bit embarrassed now that I’ve demonstrated I didn’t understand the guidance pretty much invalidating my argument that the guidance was clear, is I’m off!

the only time I will get embarrassed on anything I post is when certain people put a like on my post.

Unlike you and your friend you can never admit when you might be slightly mistaken or wrong, I have on more than one post. But your inability to understand the Gov. move to this phase is absolutely embarrassing only outdone but your insistence that you might have a valid argument, I feel and I am confident many others feel the same as me when I post this reply to you. Same as you will continue to say RBob and your usual other clique members will agree with you and him, so just stale mate and it ends the same as always.

I hope the two of you can actually look in a mirror when you eventually go out or even better when you come back and think, well that wasn't so difficult or come on and show pictures of your fines because it really really wasn't clear.