Reply to: They are gonna lock us up...

[SueEllen]

"I'm going to straight out say that the public should have the same obligations to the government as an employee has to an employer and I don't think that is ******* mental"

You know there are laws that govern an employer and employee relationship? So your analogy doesn't make sense.

[Old Greg]

"I'm going to straight out say that the public should have the same obligations to the government as an employee has to an employer and I don't think that is ******* mental"

I think we're pretty clear who is mental here.

[minestrone]

Because if everyone should make their own decisions, there is no case for the state mandating that someone who is Covid positive but asymptomatic must stay at home, or even that they mustn't turn up to their agency shifts at five different nursing homes over the course of a week.

"I'm going to straight out say that the public should have the same obligations to the government as an employee has to an employer and I don't think that is ******* mental"

[SueEllen]

Because if everyone should make their own decisions, there is no case for the state mandating that someone who is Covid positive but asymptomatic must stay at home, or even that they mustn't turn up to their agency shifts at five different nursing homes over the course of a week.

You mean like this:

[Old Greg]

You know what that answer is.

I think people are able to make their own judgment to be in situations where they are around people they trust to have made similar safe judgments. Discrimination always gets such a negative association.

You use "broader public" like marxists uses lumpenproletariat, I always consider Baroness Thatcher on matters of collectivism...

"There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves"

...and you be wise to consider her views as well.

Because if everyone should make their own decisions, there is no case for the state mandating that someone who is Covid positive but asymptomatic must stay at home, or even that they mustn't turn up to their agency shifts at five different nursing homes over the course of a week.

[minestrone]

Risks to themselves or risks to the broader public?

I think people are able to make their own judgment to be in situations where they are around people they trust to have made similar safe judgments. Discrimination always gets such a negative association.

You use "broader public" like marxists uses lumpenproletariat, I always consider Baroness Thatcher on matters of collectivism...

"There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves"

...and you be wise to consider her views as well.

[SueEllen]

Risks to themselves or risks to the broader public?

You know what that answer is.

[Old Greg]

Yes, i'm not sure anyone has made us aware that people die from this.

People are beginning to make personal judgments about risk and quality of life after 6 months of hardship.

Risks to themselves or risks to the broader public?

[minestrone]

People soon forget this:

Coronavirus: Spanish army finds care home residents '''dead and abandoned''' - BBC News.

Maybe they need to see it on their doorstep.

Yes, i'm not sure anyone has made us aware that people die from this.

People are beginning to make personal judgments about risk and quality of life after 6 months of hardship.

[mjcp]

If your Mistress is at your home then you're very brave, very stupid or you have a very understanding wife.

Or you're the PM....

[Paddy]

If your Mistress is at your home then you're very brave, very stupid or you have a very understanding wife.

Clearly you have no experience in having a mistress and how to keep her.

[Old Greg]

If your Mistress is at your home then you're very brave, very stupid or you have a very understanding wife.

2nd home presumably.

[Zigenare]

If they are doing a late sitting in parliament then I think it's right to ensure refreshments are available, otherwise, I see no reason for MPs to need to be on site of an evening. Don't they have mistresses to go home to?

If your Mistress is at your home then you're very brave, very stupid or you have a very understanding wife.

[ladymuck]

If they are doing a late sitting in parliament then I think it's right to ensure refreshments are available, otherwise, I see no reason for MPs to need to be on site of an evening. Don't they have mistresses to go home to?

[darmstadt]

You could always go for a lock in: (paywall) Parliament’s bars exempt from 10pm coronavirus curfew | News | The Times

Boris Johnson's restrictions for pubs will not apply to bars in parliament.

Despite requiring pubs to close at 10pm, and encouraging drinking establishments to collect data for the track and trace system, the Times reports the same rules will not apply where politicians frequent.

That is because parliament is using a loophole which claims “workplace canteens may remain open where there is no practical alternative for staff at that workplace to obtain food”.

One parliamentary source called it a "massive own goal" as Commons authorities insisted the arrangements are continually under review.

One of those to criticise the news is Good Morning Britain presenter Piers Morgan, who told viewers: “It’s kicking out time for the entire country, apart from MPs…. Is that a joke? It’s one rule for us and one rule for them.”

A spokesperson for the House of Commons confirmed the arrangements, telling the newspaper: "We continue to follow social distancing and cleaning measures as a Covid-secure workplace in order to reduce the transmission of the disease through social distancing signage, one way systems, socially distanced seating arrangements, contactless payments, marshalling and additional cleaning".