P&O Cruisers - What are things like where YOU are?

[grapau27]

1 hour ago, Selbourne said:

What would you do? (honest answers only).....

 

Like many people, we live in a fairly rural area but have learned today that our local authority is tier 3, no doubt due to the fact that some of our county (20 miles away) borders a city with high infection rates. We are right on the county line and could quite literally throw a stone into our neighbouring county, which is tier 2. Some of the local pubs that we enjoy lunches in are in our ‘neighbouring county’ and these will be open again from next week. I know what the law states but, in all honesty, would you go to them?

We are now in Tier 3 as is most of NE England but if there was a tier 2 area next to us like you we still wouldn't break the pub/restaurant rules.

Graham.

[P&O SUE]

5 hours ago, Josy1953 said:

Today is the day of bad news for us, my friend rang me this morning to tell me that her lovely mum who was the nicest person I have ever met died during the night, she was with her at the hospital, (not Covid related).  My niece just rang to say that when she went to have her bloods done and picc line flushed yesterday she had a swab test done and it has come back positive so her chemo is delayed for 2weeks while she isolates.

So sorry to hear this Josy.

[Snow Hill]

3 hours ago, Eglesbrech said:

Up here no on the basis that the travel restrictions are in law (not just the levels) and it is a criminal offence to move out of your council area to one which has an different level. It’s not just a fine, it is a crime.

 

As I said in a previous post I can’t go to my favourite cheese shop as it is in a different (higher) level than here.

 

What is the situation down there? A lunch is surely not worth a criminal record if it is the same.

 

I miss a decent meal out too so we have started to buy some nice indulgences on line or as take away from local restaurants. 
 

I’m a woose and a rule follower so in all honestly, I wound not do it.

 

 

Afraid the idiot in No 10 didn’t make it illegal, just you shouldn’t do it.

 

Our friends in France are forbidden to travel outside of their region and exercise can only be done within 1km from home, I think it’s a €135 fine if you break travel rule.

 

They follow with interest what’s happening here and although not perfect they think Macron’s handling of the crisis is far better than Johnson’s.

[Ardennais]

My response is also a firm no. Disappointing question really. Why have rules in the first place? 

[wowzz]

4 hours ago, Ardennais said:

My response is also a firm no. Disappointing question really. Why have rules in the first place? 

Well, it's a question that is being asked by many people, including numerous Conservative MPs, because of the iniquitous and arbitrary way that the boundaries have been drawn, taking no cognisance of local circumstances. 

In a democratic country, we should question the policies of our rulers when they are manifestly unjust, which is exactly what Selbourne has done.

It is the sort of question we should all be asking, and it is disappointing that you feel otherwise.

[Angel57]

12 hours ago, Selbourne said:

What would you do? (honest answers only).....

 

Like many people, we live in a fairly rural area but have learned today that our local authority is tier 3, no doubt due to the fact that some of our county (20 miles away) borders a city with high infection rates. We are right on the county line and could quite literally throw a stone into our neighbouring county, which is tier 2. Some of the local pubs that we enjoy lunches in are in our ‘neighbouring county’ and these will be open again from next week. I know what the law states but, in all honesty, would you go to them?

Personally, I wouldn’t go as if everyone disobeys the rules then the virus gets even more out of control.

Basically it is up to your own conscience......

[Harry Peterson]

3 hours ago, wowzz said:

Well, it's a question that is being asked by many people, including numerous Conservative MPs, because of the iniquitous and arbitrary way that the boundaries have been drawn, taking no cognisance of local circumstances. 

In a democratic country, we should question the policies of our rulers when they are manifestly unjust, which is exactly what Selbourne has done.

It is the sort of question we should all be asking, and it is disappointing that you feel otherwise.

It's a reasonable enough question to ask, but the answer should be clear. If the law requires you to act in a particular way, that's what you do. Particularly if it's a matter of public health.

 

But when you have a situation in which the government is attempting to introduce legislation to break international law but argues that's OK because it's only "in a specific and limited way" it's no surprise that people will argue the same way. And that's what's clearly happening now under lockdown - which in turn is why more restrictions are being brought in.

 

Arguing about local circumstances is all well and good, but viruses tend not to respect local authority boundaries, and the new rules take into account factors the public (and Conservative MPs) tend to ignore - for example, the situation in local hospitals and the rate of infection in the at risk over 60 group.

 

In short - OK to question, but certainly not OK to break the law, even if it suits the government to do so.

[terrierjohn]

4 hours ago, wowzz said:

Well, it's a question that is being asked by many people, including numerous Conservative MPs, because of the iniquitous and arbitrary way that the boundaries have been drawn, taking no cognisance of local circumstances. 

In a democratic country, we should question the policies of our rulers when they are manifestly unjust, which is exactly what Selbourne has done.

It is the sort of question we should all be asking, and it is disappointing that you feel otherwise.

But as I said in my response to Selbourne, the boundary has to be somewhere, and it is inevitable that someone will feel aggrieved.

[Selbourne]

9 hours ago, Ardennais said:

My response is also a firm no. Disappointing question really. Why have rules in the first place? 

You miss the point. I didn’t say I was going to do it. There will be many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people up and down the country faced with the same conundrum. Live on the boundary of a tier 3 location, but the places that they use to eat out, shop, or even work in tier 2. Will they all be as compliant as the Cruise Critic community? I suspect not. Take working, for example. If you live in a tier 3 location but work in your nearest town or city, which is tier 2, you are quite at liberty, if you cannot work from home, to travel to work in the tier 2 area. At lunchtime, the eateries around where you work will be open. Do you not use them because of where you live, when your workmates will? The same with shopping. If your nearest town centre, where you usually shop, is in tier 2, when you are there do you not use the eateries that are open? I asked the question out of curiosity to illustrate the flaws in the system. It all sounds OK in theory, but when you consider it in practice, when you live on the edge of a tier 3 area but the places you use to eat, shop and work are in tier 2, I can understand why a lot of people would ask the same question of themselves. Although I expected everyone on here to say that they wouldn’t do it, as they wouldn’t want to break the rules (for very valid reasons) when you see the practicality it’s less clear cut!

Edited November 27, 2020 by Selbourne

[wowzz]

49 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

But as I said in my response to Selbourne, the boundary has to be somewhere, and it is inevitable that someone will feel aggrieved.

The problem is that the tier system is based on too large a geographic area. The whole of Lancashire is in tier  3, but places like the Trough of Bowland are basically clear of the virus. The same applies to South Holland in Lincolnshire. 

If you are going to have draconian rules, the rules have to be seen to be drafted on logical, scientific advice, not based on the increasingly questionable "facts" currently used by the likes of Whitty.

[Selbourne]

16 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

 

Duplicated post

Edited November 27, 2020 by Selbourne

[wowzz]

7 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

There will be many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people up and down the country faced with the same conundrum. Live on the boundary of a tier 3 location, but the places that they use to eat out, shop, or even work in tier 2. Will they all be as compliant as the Cruise Critic community? I suspect not. Take working, for example. If you live in a tier 3 location but work in your nearest town or city, which is tier 2, you are quite at liberty, if you cannot work from home, to travel to work in the tier 2 area

Which is absolutely correct, and why I thought it was disingenuous for anyone to suggest that yours was a disappointing question. 

In the example you quite, I would certainly continue to travel into a tier 2 area to continue carrying out my day to day life, rather than drive 30 or 40 miles deeper into a tier 3 level to shop. If I am living so close to a tier 2 area that I can literally walk to it, I see no way that any reasonable individual couid be critical of my decision. 

[terrierjohn]

25 minutes ago, wowzz said:

The problem is that the tier system is based on too large a geographic area. The whole of Lancashire is in tier  3, but places like the Trough of Bowland are basically clear of the virus. The same applies to South Holland in Lincolnshire. 

If you are going to have draconian rules, the rules have to be seen to be drafted on logical, scientific advice, not based on the increasingly questionable "facts" currently used by the likes of Whitty.

On a lighter note the Mail this morning has Kirklees in both W Yorkshire and Liverpool, so do I get a choice of tier 2 or 3?

[Esprit]

I live in Tier 3 which is half a mile from the Tier 2 boundary. I drive to work two miles from home and my office is in Tier 2.

 

I will continue to buy my work lunch from the nearby supermarket in Tier 2 and may well have a pub lunch next Friday.  

[Ardennais]

41 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

You miss the point. I didn’t say I was going to do it. There will be many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people up and down the country faced with the same conundrum. Live on the boundary of a tier 3 location, but the places that they use to eat out, shop, or even work in tier 2. Will they all be as compliant as the Cruise Critic community? I suspect not. Take working, for example. If you live in a tier 3 location but work in your nearest town or city, which is tier 2, you are quite at liberty, if you cannot work from home, to travel to work in the tier 2 area. At lunchtime, the eateries around where you work will be open. Do you not use them because of where you live, when your workmates will? The same with shopping. If your nearest town centre, where you usually shop, is in tier 2, when you are there do you not use the eateries that are open? I asked the question out of curiosity to illustrate the flaws in the system. It all sounds OK in theory, but when you consider it in practice, when you live on the edge of a tier 3 area but the places you use to eat, shop and work are in tier 2, I can understand why a lot of people would ask the same question of themselves. Although I expected everyone on here to say that they wouldn’t do it, as they wouldn’t want to break the rules (for very valid reasons) when you see the practicality it’s less clear cut!

No, I don’t. Your initial post didn’t mention anything about travelling to work or even essential shopping. You just referred to ‘pubs that we enjoy lunches in’ and my firm No was in response to the idea of breaking rules just to enjoy lunch in a neighbouring area which I still think was a disappointing question from a sensible person. 
 

[kalos]

13 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

You miss the point. I didn’t say I was going to do it. There will be many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people up and down the country faced with the same conundrum. Live on the boundary of a tier 3 location, but the places that they use to eat out, shop, or even work in tier 2. Will they all be as compliant as the Cruise Critic community? I suspect not. Take working, for example. If you live in a tier 3 location but work in your nearest town or city, which is tier 2, you are quite at liberty, if you cannot work from home, to travel to work in the tier 2 area. At lunchtime, the eateries around where you work will be open. Do you not use them because of where you live, when your workmates will? I asked the question out of curiosity to illustrate the flaws in the system and although I expected everyone on here to say that they wouldn’t do it, I have less faith in human nature overall!

 

I agree with you it throws up more questions that have vague rules or answers .

Reading through some of the rules.. Traveling to an airport   ..

The transport secretary, Grant Shapp's  has said tier 3 residents would be able to go abroad.

 He said holidays would be allowed abroad – “if you're going straight to an airport”.

Wonderful !  Now how does that work lets say for someone traveling from Glasgow to 

Manchester Airport as a lot of our friends north of the border do?

It sounds like he is saying no comfort breaks en route .

Looking at the new boundaries I suppose some people living in Southampton could 

be tempted to jump on a Red Funnel over to the" Island of near normality" and have a few 

beers in peace ,if there is no checks in place .

Like you say we are all in agreement about what we would do and you are spot on with your 

assessment of human nature. A lot will do what suits their needs and not for the good of all .

[Selbourne]

4 minutes ago, Ardennais said:

No, I don’t. Your initial post didn’t mention anything about travelling to work or even essential shopping. You just referred to ‘pubs that we enjoy lunches in’ and my firm No was in response to the idea of breaking rules just to enjoy lunch in a neighbouring area which I still think was a disappointing question from a sensible person. 
 

Again, you miss the point. I deliberately used that as an example,  knowing that it would get that response. But the theory and practice are very different. Firstly, just to correct something, ALL shops are going to be open, including non-essential, even in tier 3. The town that we use for shopping is in tier 2. We are quite at liberty to go there. The same town has pubs that will be open. When we are there, are we not to go in them for lunch because we live in tier 3? So, under that logic, we can use the shops but not the pub next door for lunch. Does the law support that view? I can find nothing to confirm or deny. 

[purplesea]

Read this about people travelling into our area.

 

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/rules-people-tier-2-3-4739230

 

 

 

 

[Selbourne]

22 minutes ago, Esprit said:

I live in Tier 3 which is half a mile from the Tier 2 boundary. I drive to work two miles from home and my office is in Tier 2.

 

I will continue to buy my work lunch from the nearby supermarket in Tier 2 and may well have a pub lunch next Friday.  

That’s exactly my point. We are quite literally 100 yards from tier 2 and only use the towns, pubs etc that are in tier 2, as they are far closer to us than those in tier 3. Are we allowed to continue to use the shops but not the pubs next door?

[wowzz]

4 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

Again, you miss the point. I deliberately used that as an example,  knowing that it would get that response. But the theory and practice are very different. Firstly, just to correct something, ALL shops are going to be open, including non-essential, even in tier 3. The town that we use for shopping is in tier 2. We are quite at liberty to go there. The same town has pubs that will be open. When we are there, are we not to go in them for lunch because we live in tier 3? So, under that logic, we can use the shops but not the pub next door for lunch. Does the law support that view? I can find nothing to confirm or deny. 

I can't find an answer either. My gut feeling is that although you physically reside in a T3 area, you to all intents and purposes "live' in a T2 area, and therefore I would have the pub lunch. 

What people should not do, is drive 50 miles from a T3 area to find a pub.

[Ardennais]

Selbourne - you didn’t mention shopping at all. You  worded your Initial post as if you were considering casually popping over to a tier 2 area just to enjoy lunch as in pre-Covid times! Stuff any rules. 
I agree. It’s not clear cut. There might well be restrictions again on an all-Wales level before Christmas. This is a very very rural area but we’ll have the same restrictions as some of the South Wales valleys like Merthyr where levels have been very high and whatever our personal opinion of that, we will follow the rules. 

[Selbourne]

7 minutes ago, purplesea said:

Read this about people travelling into our area.

 

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/rules-people-tier-2-3-4739230

 

 

 

 

Thanks. That’s interesting. It seems to address the issue that we might call ‘tier tourism’ where people might be tempted to take a trip to, for example, Cornwall from Devon, to escape the restrictions for a day. Our scenario is quite different in that we live on the boundary (so are legally tier 3) but our local shops and pubs that we use regularly are tier 2. Taking the principles quoted in that article, I might interpret it that we can continue to use the shops but not the pubs next door. If that’s the case, my question is how practical is that and will people adhere to it? Theory and practice may be different and nationally we are already seeing a lot of push back when people think that rules don’t make sense - including, I believe, 50 Conservative MP’s (so I’m not the only one asking these questions)!

[Selbourne]

15 minutes ago, Ardennais said:

Selbourne - you didn’t mention shopping at all. You  worded your Initial post as if you were considering casually popping over to a tier 2 area just to enjoy lunch as in pre-Covid times! Stuff any rules. 
I agree. It’s not clear cut. There might well be restrictions again on an all-Wales level before Christmas. This is a very very rural area but we’ll have the same restrictions as some of the South Wales valleys like Merthyr where levels have been very high and whatever our personal opinion of that, we will follow the rules. 

Nonsense. Please re-read my post. I did NOT say that we were considering “casually popping over to a tier 2 area”, nor did I say, or even imply, “stuff any rules”. They are entirely your words and your incorrect interpretation. You are picking a fight in an empty room I’m afraid. I deliberately only used the pub lunch example because I knew that everyone would say ‘no’. Fair enough. I quite expected that, as in that context it would be the right answer. Having had that response, it was then my intention to put the ‘real life’ scenario, that we actually shop and eat out ‘locally’ which happens to be tier 2. Not so clear cut then, is it? I am retired, so don’t work, but used that as yet a further illustration.  I am merely trying to illustrate the challenges of the proposed system which, thankfully, others get. Most people probably live, work, shop and eat out within their ‘home’ county, so it’s all very clear cut. When some or all of those things happen in a different tiered area it becomes very complicated. 

Edited November 27, 2020 by Selbourne

[Eddie99]

Whether the regulations as currently drawn are perfect, useless, or somewhere in between (I expect they are somewhere in between) my contention is that this isn’t some kind of game, where we use our wits and debating skills to get around them.  This really is a matter of life and death - or it is likely to be for some of us, our neighbours, our family, our community.

We should always remember that when considering whether to show how clever we are/stupid HMG is

 

The other side of the coin is the continuation of the economic base of the country.  That is way, way above my pay grade, so I’ll leave others to discuss 

[Dermotsgirl]

In a few weeks time, I’m booked to go on a coach day trip to view the Christmas lights at some gardens in East Sussex. I booked this coach trip at the start of the year, as there was a discount for early booking.

 

Anyway, the gardens are in tier 2, and I live in Medway, which is tier 3.

 

I am hoping that the coach company do the right and decent thing and cancel the tour, as we can’t travel out of tier 3 for non essential, leisure purposes.

 

However, if they don’t cancel, I will cancel, even if I lose the money I paid, because I know it’s the right thing to do and that the rules apply to me - I’m not an exception.

 

This is also why the Cummings thing will never go away. An influential person thought he was an exception to the rules, and Johnson backed him up.  Johnson lost the moral authority to ask us to abide by the rules.

 

I abide by the rules because I want to do my best in the community effort to reduce the spread of the virus - not because Johnson has told me to do it.