Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes please I think we would like to know all about it. Saying "I didn't foresee any problems so I didn't bother to…" As I say I didn't bother to look when I cross the road because I didn't think I would be run over
    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
    • Hang on. don't panic!   You sent the snotty letter which has told the fleecers to put up or shut up.  So far they've haven't taken you to court.  This might change, but so far you're in the driving seat.  You don't have to deal with them any more.  It's up to them if they have the gonads to start court action or not.   Regarding DCBL, they are not representing their client in the normal way that a solicitor represents a client, because the sums of money involved are too low for that.  They are just chucked a few quid to send a couple of "threatening" letters.  There is no point in dealing with them.   If you want the original PCN send a SAR to UKPCM only.  For the SAR letter simply click on "SAR".   However, the SAR has nothing to do with the 30 days, you've already dealt with that with the snotty letter.  You need to read lots of similar threads and familiarise yourself with the legal process.  CAG is a superb free library.    
    • Hi again, so I will send a SAR to UKPC because I don't remember seeing the  NTK.  Then should I let DCBL know otherwise they will probably issue the court papers but they might hold off if i tell them about the SAR?   what do you think?  I need to do it this weekend or it will be beyond the 30 days.  Otherwise to let it run will definitely lead to a court case perhaps??   Can I get a copy of a SAR letter on here? thanks
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Mutating Corona Virus


Recommended Posts

On 31/07/2021 at 11:48, hightail said:

Apparently around 23% of those in hospital 'with' Covid are not there 'for' Covid but for other reasons.  I'd like to think this is one reason why the numbers of hospitalised cases among the vaccinated can seem high.  Does strike me as a ridiculous way of reporting the figures when they're trying to overcome vaccine hesitancy.  Feeds anti vaxxers arguments.  

 

Wont they twist anything to their own ends? As we see repeatedly. Brexit put the liars in charge, and they dont just lie about Brexit.

 

Although it does seem clear (sic) that the way Johnson 'the liars' 'official' stats and isle (sic) bashing careering from anything to anything has long fed the 'say what you want, not what it is' narrative. Total lack of consistency, clarity or even common sense it seems.

 

I still dont understand why the Johnsonite 'covid' issue with specifically France but not other seemingly 'worse' countries, unless it is just politics - as it probably is.

 

 

 

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Johnson said yesterday that the UK has vaccinated more people than any country in Europe. I can't find the exact quote atm but I don't think this is true.

 

In terms of people fully vaccinated, Germany has 51, 241,053 but a lower percentage of the whole population. The UK has fully vaxxed 46,872,411 people.

   

 

If you look at percentage of the population vaxxed, the UK is behind Gibraltar, Malta, Isle of Man, Iceland and Denmark. This article has a link that's up to date as of today.

https://www.sortiraparis.com/news/coronavirus/articles/240384-vaccine-in-the-world-as-of-datadatestodayfrlatest-the-percentage-of-people-vacci/lang/en

 

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 01/08/2021 at 11:17, unclebulgaria67 said:

Could you imagine the reaction in the UK if the same strict enforcement actions had been taken.

A frighteningly high proportion of the population have shown they're happy to have every aspect of their lives controlled and want the same for others.  Plenty wanted even more draconian measures with military enforcement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

and vast sums spent on 'nightingale hospitals', which weren't used in any real way

 

BN and TJ, wasn't a lot of the problem that there weren't enough staff to run the NHS and the Nightingales?

 

On a separate note, President Macron has a video on Tik Tok trying to appeal to younger French people to have the vaccine and answer questions about what's worrying them about being vaxxed. He's wearing a black t-shirt instead of his normal suit. It remains to be seen whether he appealed to French youth enough...

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean johnson 'the incompetent liar' + handcock (that name says it all) threw up some very expensive tents with no idea, let alone any plan, how they were going to staff, manage or even implement them HB?

 

:-/

 

@hightail

I don't think its an issue with people wanting their lives micro-managed, especially by proven incompetents, but they do want a sensible, supportable set of rules and mechanisms ... none of which has ever really shown much more than a nose outside the lockdowns ... breached by spads and ministers repeatedly (C

 

Like Lockdowns with spads breaching them and ministers then supporting the spad telling the population that the rules they had lived by were 'opinions/suggestions' and breaching them was being a damn fine person who is an example to us all - more than once, even if a recent one caused another quick trolly skid ... once the damage was done.

 

Then think about the 'thousands of pounds in hotel lockdown fees if you go on holiday

The rich dont give a damn - they will country jump (as Johnson snr did) or just pay if they get caught coming back in

- dont forget exemptions for businessmen

That was just a deterrent for normal folk.

 

Incompetence and cronyism end to end

 

 

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Staffing is always an issue thanks to the Pingocracy running the Pingdemic, NHS Wales is virtually shut down due to "You must go home if you hear the Ping"

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a burner phone which I leave on a windowsill where people walk by quite close.  Gets pinged regularly even though it hasn't been out of the house.

Edited by hightail
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't deliberately ignoring it to start with.  Put the app on it to check in to a pub way back in April as we first started opening up.  Brought it home and left it on the windowsill.  Would have taken notice of being pinged at that point.  Had no reason to charge it for a while, then did, then realised what was happening and decided to let it run out of charge again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

but they do want a sensible, supportable set of rules and mechanisms

I have a sensible set of rules and mechanisms. There is nothing to stop me taking whatever precautions I choose.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is its pinging saying a contact, and the person has been nowhere near the actual case. they can be downstairs in the street  other side of a locked front door so no physical contact whatsoever, passing by, and if the app pings they say at T & T like Daleks Isolate isolate isolate.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

WWW.DAILYMAIL.CO.UK

A southwest Sydney couple have been charged with a string of offences after allegedly breaching Covid restrictions by travelling...

 

In Australia they don't mess around with lockdown enforcement.

 

Australia not doing great with vaccine roll out . Best performance within Sydney area has less than 30% of adult population vaccinated

  • I agree 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, brassnecked said:

Thing is its pinging saying a contact, and the person has been nowhere near the actual case. they can be downstairs in the street  other side of a locked front door so no physical contact whatsoever, passing by, and if the app pings they say at T & T like Daleks Isolate isolate isolate.

They say they've made it less 'sensitive'.  You have to wonder how it was set to start with that you could get pinged from passing someone in the street or from one house to another.  It was yet another con job - they knew or they would have made isolation mandatory if it was working properly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically chummie's made money from it.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, hightail said:

I have a sensible set of rules and mechanisms. There is nothing to stop me taking whatever precautions I choose.

 

Absolutely, as do I. I wore a mask long before it was required. I learned from the experiences and advise of the reports from the far east (not been there for years)

 

...but what use is you wearing a mask and maintaining your distance in a supermarket when many other are leaning across you or shunting past you, without a mask, to grab something off a shelf

or worse, that the staff and security guard you pass at a deliberate 'sales' bottleneck in that store aren't wearing masks as hundreds a day pass them?

(Morrisons)

 

Of course many can go to other shops - and I do,  but its not that convenient for everyone, and we all know that people go to multiple shops, and they clearly dont give a crap about others, and they ARE doing it on public transport. I was shocked seeing a bus pass with many not wearing masks.

 

Our local Morrisons seems likely to me to be the potential epicenter of an outbreak, and potential mutation. and if  all Morrisons across the country are doing that?

(Tesco and Aldi are being sensible thankfully)

 

 

I've heard people say cant have your life held to ransom by covid - to which I replied

How is wearing a mask in crowded places full of IMO idiots who seem to be the MOST likely to get the virus 'holding yor life to ransom'. Is going to the shop your life?

or is wearing a mask in a shop empowering your normal life with your friends and family, so that provided they offer you the same courtesy and consideration, you are all protecting each other from those idiots who mean nothing in your real life.

 

 

Edited by tobyjugg2
  • Sad 1

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've sort of made my point TJ that you want others to be made to act as you deem appropriate for as long as you need to feel 100%  safe.  I see it differently because I know they never have.   Those who didn't want to wear a mask never have - they just claimed they were exempt and lord help anyone who dared to ask why.  I regard my safety as my responsibility and judge every situation on its merits.  Others will make their own choices.  They are not responsible for me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, hightail said:

You've sort of made my point TJ that you want others to be made to act as you deem appropriate for as long as you need to feel 100%  safe.  I see it differently because I know they never have.   Those who didn't want to wear a mask never have - they just claimed they were exempt and lord help anyone who dared to ask why.  I regard my safety as my responsibility and judge every situation on its merits.  Others will make their own choices. 

 

They are not responsible for me.

 

But as the main efficacy of masks and distance is that your doing it protects others, and others doing the same protect you ...

THEY are responsible for your safety, just as you are theirs. Controlling and beating this pandemic takes us all being sensible - not some. and there will ALWAYS be some who need it pressed on them.

 

That some have long breached it with impunity is a failure of leadership IMO, and is one of the root causes so many are now.

How ridiculous is it that people with breathing difficulties, hence especially susceptible - are given a pass rather than better help (perhaps better masks)?

 

Wearing a mask and maintaining polite distance in places with lots of strangers interacting seems to me to be a very small inconvenience to protect your loved ones, and being required to do so seems not only reasonable - but necessary in part BECAUSE of those who abuse excuses.

 

and in fact, might get some more people into the habit of showing a little decency and thought for someone other than themselves - although I wouldn't hold my breath ..

 

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

But nobody is stopping you wearing a mask.  Nor are they forcing you into crowded situations which you (and I mean a general 'you') find uncomfortable or deem dangerous.  These are personal choices which people have made from the start, it's just felt as though everyone has complied.  I have my own personal risk/reward criteria which is different from everyone else.  I am confident that whenever I do have prolonged, close contact with others I pose little if any threat.  For example, I have two gym sessions per week with two different PTs which require very close contact as I weight train and need them to spot me.  We don't wear masks.  I flow test before each one because I wouldn't endanger their livelihoods.  Are my workouts essential?  You wouldn't think so but they matter very much to me.  Should I be stopped because others are too nervous to venture out still?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, hightail said:

But nobody is stopping you wearing a mask.  Nor are they forcing you into crowded situations which you (and I mean a general 'you') find uncomfortable or deem dangerous. 

 

Ah then you agree with the recent statement that those who are vulnerable (or sensible) should wait outside supermarkets until they figure out when there are few and especially few maskless in there if they cant - go home? and simply dont go on public transport and walk the 40 miles to work? or buy a car?

 

 

1 hour ago, hightail said:

 

We don't wear masks.  I flow test before each one because I wouldn't endanger their livelihoods.  Are my workouts essential?  You wouldn't think so but they matter very much to me.  Should I be stopped because others are too nervous to venture out still?

 

I dont doubt that, and that is a choice - and in your case a seemingly sensible one

I see my family without masks as we are confident we all consider each others wellbeing  - its one of the main reasons I wear a mask elsewhere. Probably THE main reason.

 

I have no such belief of concern for my wellbeing in the many who will walk in to a supermarket or bus or train maskless, in the middle of a pandemic (and it is the middle),

.. any more than I think people who have been having 'risky' sex should give blood without proper tests

- despite aids and hepatitis arguably being far less of a risk of death or severe illness currently than covid - probably even in Africa.

 

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

Ah then you agree with the recent statement that those who are vulnerable (or sensible) should wait outside supermarkets until they figure out when there are few and especially few maskless in there if they cant - go home? and simply dont go on public transport and walk the 40 miles to work? or buy a car?

The very vulnerable, the immuno-compromised have always been at risk.  Pre Covid they and their families had to adjust lifestyle to protect them rather than restrict everyone else so yes, that was their 'normal' before this pandemic hit and it will continue to be the norm for some unless we eradicate all infectious disease.  The vulnerable won't stop being vulnerable post pandemic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@hightail

Why are you limiting the response to 'very' vulnerable rather than addressing the actual issue that ALL those who wear masks

 

what about the sensible who are following the scientific consensus?

- even states in the USA are re-mandating mask wearing indoors

- as of course is Scotland despite a further relaxation of other restrictions

- even Johnson mutters and mumbles that people should wear a mask indoors despite his removing the restriction for purely political reasons and against genuine scientific opinion

 

Should EVERYONE else be held hostage by those who refute the scientific consensus?

All for the sake of some not wanting to wear a mask in limited circumstances to protect others?

 

Is it a personal choice to put others at risk unnecessary?

Does that also stand if I grab one by the scruff and throw them away from me in self defense - arguably a better stance and potentially less harmful (to me anyway)?

or drive my car at the maskless leaving supermarkets as 'they could get out of the way?

of course it isnt.

 

 

The graphic HB posted previously says it all really

Edited by tobyjugg2

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mask wearing makes total sense in public indoor spaces and on public transport , until most countries have high levels (70%+) vacinated.  And it is risky anyway, as probably about 20% of the UK population will remain unvacinated.

 

I would have thought that UK Government would have received scientific advice about mask wearing being important, due to the possibility of new Covid variants being spread, which may cause hospitalisations even where people have been vacinated. 

 

I can see another Government u-turn in September.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

But the current problem is an airborne virus which is stopped very effectively by masks, isn't it?

i would hope @hightail realises that

 

But its the how the mask 'protects others' mechanism that largely means all need to wear them to protect others,

and without all wearing them, the protection against infection, spread and hence mutation is massively diminished

 

Masks protect everyone ELSE best

Those who dont wear them are risking everyone else MOST  and themselves least

 

 

HB

Wheres that graphic of the 4 mask wearer options

 

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...