On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:03:14 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.

Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not
-
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method
of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have
no
time for it.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...s-chances-catc
hing-coronavirus-first-major/

Halving it from a 3% change of catching it in IIRC 15 mins down to 1.5% is
virtually irrelevant and certainly not worth thousands of businesses going
bust because of this stupid rule. Frankly I'm surprised retailers haven't just
given the goverment the finger and just ignore it since if I owned a business
that was on the verge of going bust if I didn't then whats to lose.

On 02/06/2020 11:35, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:03:14 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...s-chances-catc
hing-coronavirus-first-major/

Halving it from a 3% change of catching it in IIRC 15 mins down to 1.5% is
virtually irrelevant and certainly not worth thousands of businesses going
bust because of this stupid rule. Frankly I'm surprised retailers haven't just
given the goverment the finger and just ignore it since if I owned a business
that was on the verge of going bust if I didn't then whats to lose.

I haven't read the study[1] to see exactly how long one must remain 2 m
away to have a 3% chance of infection, but I imagine that those risks
add up quickly in a public-facing profession or social activity.

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext;
hidden from those who funded it by Elsevier parasites

In article , writes
Frankly I'm surprised retailers haven't just
given the goverment the finger and just ignore it since if I owned a business
that was on the verge of going bust if I didn't then whats to lose.

All your money. Not the company's - yours. All officers of the business
are subject to an unlimited fine.

--
Clive D.W. Feather

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 17:08:27 +0100
"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
In article , writes
Frankly I'm surprised retailers haven't just
given the goverment the finger and just ignore it since if I owned a business
that was on the verge of going bust if I didn't then whats to lose.

All your money. Not the company's - yours. All officers of the business

If you're a one person trader , eg a small barber , then essentially your
money is the companies.

are subject to an unlimited fine.

I'd still risk it. Unlimited fines are meaningless if you only have a small
amount of savings and debt collectors can't take your house and make you
homeless by law.

wrote in message ...
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 17:08:27 +0100
"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
In article , writes
Frankly I'm surprised retailers haven't just
given the goverment the finger and just ignore it since if I owned a
business
that was on the verge of going bust if I didn't then whats to lose.

All your money. Not the company's - yours. All officers of the business

If you're a one person trader , eg a small barber , then essentially your
money is the companies.

are subject to an unlimited fine.

I'd still risk it. Unlimited fines are meaningless if you only have a
small
amount of savings and debt collectors can't take your house and make you
homeless by law.

but they can (subject to following the correct legal process)

HTH

tim

On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 10:53:11 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message ...
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 17:08:27 +0100
"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
In article , writes
Frankly I'm surprised retailers haven't just
given the goverment the finger and just ignore it since if I owned a
business
that was on the verge of going bust if I didn't then whats to lose.

All your money. Not the company's - yours. All officers of the business

If you're a one person trader , eg a small barber , then essentially your
money is the companies.

are subject to an unlimited fine.

I'd still risk it. Unlimited fines are meaningless if you only have a
small
amount of savings and debt collectors can't take your house and make you
homeless by law.

but they can (subject to following the correct legal process)

I remember a famous case in the UK that was captured on TV when a local
counciller and debt collectors tried to do just that. The homeowner shot him
dead. Was in the 70s or 80s IIRC.

wrote in message ...
On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 10:53:11 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 17:08:27 +0100
"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
In article , writes
Frankly I'm surprised retailers haven't just
given the goverment the finger and just ignore it since if I owned a
business
that was on the verge of going bust if I didn't then whats to lose.

All your money. Not the company's - yours. All officers of the business

If you're a one person trader , eg a small barber , then essentially
your
money is the companies.

are subject to an unlimited fine.

I'd still risk it. Unlimited fines are meaningless if you only have a
small
amount of savings and debt collectors can't take your house and make
you
homeless by law.

but they can (subject to following the correct legal process)

I remember a famous case in the UK that was captured on TV when a local
counciller and debt collectors tried to do just that. The homeowner shot
him
dead. Was in the 70s or 80s IIRC.

bad cases make poor laws

tim

In message , at 11:51:17 on Thu, 4 Jun 2020,
tim... remarked:

bad cases make poor laws

The meme is: *hard* cases make bad law,.
--
Roland Perry

In article , writes
All your money. Not the company's - yours. All officers of the business
are subject to an unlimited fine.

I'd still risk it. Unlimited fines are meaningless if you only have a small
amount of savings and debt collectors can't take your house and make you
homeless by law.

I'm not talking about debt collectors, I'm talking about a court.

I don't know what powers they have to take your money, but I suspect
it's somewhat higher than someone collecting on behalf of your landlord.

--
Clive D.W. Feather

On 05/06/2020 20:22, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
In article , writes
All your money. Not the company's - yours. All officers of the business
are subject to an unlimited fine.

I'd still risk it. Unlimited fines are meaningless if you only have a small
amount of savings and debt collectors can't take your house and make you
homeless by law.

I'm not talking about debt collectors, I'm talking about a court.

I don't know what powers they have to take your money, but I suspect
it's somewhat higher than someone collecting on behalf of your landlord.


You seem never to watch "Can't pay, they'll take it away" which follows
High Court sheriffs enforcing court orders. Note these are often County
Court orders which have been escalated as sheriffs have greater powers
than bailiffs.

They cannot take your house if you are the owner / mortgage holder but
they can take almost everything else worth money. There are limits, no
beds, cookers etc to allow you to live, but computers, TVs, cars are all
fair game.

--
Colin