Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Goodbye And Good Riddance Hancock
Answers
It would have been better for the country for this to have been an immediate sacking rather than a forced resignation. I'm glad he has gone. Not because of the affair but because of the sheer hypocrisy of the man. His obvious contempt for the public and Prof. Ferguson makes it clear that he can't be trusted and should never again hold a position with any degree of...
18:10 Sat 26th Jun 2021
Now your looking for a way out, but eh oh that's you in a nutshell. You've stated that your not bothered about him playing away, but now bringing it into play, funny that a lot of your posts on here is damming him for it. You don't no what way to jump now :0) Anyhow I'm not on about his mucky slobbering and you know that, and no I don't think anyone outside government knew, but just adds to his disgracefulness.
//I guess if they’d been conducting an affair for some time, which they had, social distancing wasn’t an issue for them…//
Depends when it began. If it began during a period when household mixing was illegal then it should not have. If it began at a place of work it should not have. SD may not have been an issue for them. It wasn't for many people, but they were told to comply. Illicit lovers (or even legitimate lovers) do not become a “household” because they have a snog behind the filing cabinets. There have been tales of couples being kept apart by these rules. Professor “Lockdown” Ferguson fell foul of them when his lover paid him a visit last year. These two people were living in different households. They each had children who attended schools and spouses who no doubt get out and about to partake in their own activities. It is not pedantry or hysteria to criticise their actions. The “mixing” they indulged in was precisely the mixing which Mr Hancock has been thumping on about for a year that he said was so important to avoid. They were his rules and he broke them whilst “instructing” everybody else to comply. He was wrong on every level.
//Wouldn't they have been in a bubble anyway for work?//
We’ve already done that, pixie. “Bubbles” do not apply in the workplace. They are referred to in the legislation as “linked households” and that’s precisely what they’re for – households. And even if they did apply in workplaces they would certainly not extend to the sort of embrace depicted.
Depends when it began. If it began during a period when household mixing was illegal then it should not have. If it began at a place of work it should not have. SD may not have been an issue for them. It wasn't for many people, but they were told to comply. Illicit lovers (or even legitimate lovers) do not become a “household” because they have a snog behind the filing cabinets. There have been tales of couples being kept apart by these rules. Professor “Lockdown” Ferguson fell foul of them when his lover paid him a visit last year. These two people were living in different households. They each had children who attended schools and spouses who no doubt get out and about to partake in their own activities. It is not pedantry or hysteria to criticise their actions. The “mixing” they indulged in was precisely the mixing which Mr Hancock has been thumping on about for a year that he said was so important to avoid. They were his rules and he broke them whilst “instructing” everybody else to comply. He was wrong on every level.
//Wouldn't they have been in a bubble anyway for work?//
We’ve already done that, pixie. “Bubbles” do not apply in the workplace. They are referred to in the legislation as “linked households” and that’s precisely what they’re for – households. And even if they did apply in workplaces they would certainly not extend to the sort of embrace depicted.
//I was certainly within breathing distance of work colleagues and clients.//
Well you should not have been, pixie, unless it was unavoidable (say if you were a dentist or a barber).
//That wasn't illegal- and frankly wouldn't have been any more dangerous if I had kissed them.//
Your employers have a duty of care to provide you and their customers with a safe environment (under HASAW legislation). Part of that duty at the moment involves compliance with the Covid guidance. So whilst you did not break the law, they almost certainly did by allowing a situation where you and others were close. They should also have impressed upon you their duties and your responsibility to help them fulfil them. If you look at the guidance I posted earlier you will also see that where close proximity is unavoidable, social distancing measures should be maintained. It is quite obvious that if legislation and guidance is to be in force to keep people from different households being close to one another it is obvious that it cannot permit a situation where those people are allowed to kiss.
Mr Hancock's situation goes beyond being work related. There is no reason why he and Mrs Tress should kiss for work purposes. They were people from different households mixing indoors and before 17th May that was illegal by itself. I agree that it is ridiculous that two people cannot kiss but that's what Mr Hancock's legislation forbade. He knew it full well because he'd been thumping the tub for a year telling people about it.
Well you should not have been, pixie, unless it was unavoidable (say if you were a dentist or a barber).
//That wasn't illegal- and frankly wouldn't have been any more dangerous if I had kissed them.//
Your employers have a duty of care to provide you and their customers with a safe environment (under HASAW legislation). Part of that duty at the moment involves compliance with the Covid guidance. So whilst you did not break the law, they almost certainly did by allowing a situation where you and others were close. They should also have impressed upon you their duties and your responsibility to help them fulfil them. If you look at the guidance I posted earlier you will also see that where close proximity is unavoidable, social distancing measures should be maintained. It is quite obvious that if legislation and guidance is to be in force to keep people from different households being close to one another it is obvious that it cannot permit a situation where those people are allowed to kiss.
Mr Hancock's situation goes beyond being work related. There is no reason why he and Mrs Tress should kiss for work purposes. They were people from different households mixing indoors and before 17th May that was illegal by itself. I agree that it is ridiculous that two people cannot kiss but that's what Mr Hancock's legislation forbade. He knew it full well because he'd been thumping the tub for a year telling people about it.
I don't have employers, nj. Our duty of care was regular tests and isolating plus the NHS one, if any were positive. There was no way of avoiding it. But- the danger is from positive people, even wearing masks. There is no danger from those who don't have it. Are you sure that these two weren't regularly tested? Many other professions were.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank28 mins ago
ChatterBank30 mins ago
Strands #269 “Come Fly With...
Quizzes & Puzzles31 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles41 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.