P M Threatened With Libel Suit.......
News0 min ago
Anyone Finding Tier 4 Different To Tier 3?
79 Answers
We aren't, perhaps that's because we haven't been going out to shops etc and mixing with others, Christmas Day was an exception , the furthest I was in tier 3 was to the hairdressers and to have my nails done somewhere else , and even that was just twice at the HD and once getting a manicure, neither of which I'll be doing again in the foreseeable
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bobbisox1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The rule of 6 is illogical! In Tier 4, children under 5 don't count so I could meet my son and his 2 young children and walk round the park. From the gov.uk website:
"You can only meet one person from another household in some outdoor public places (children under 5 do not count as part of this limit of two people)"
However, the rule of 6 in Tier 3 says that young children count towards the total of 6. Clearly barmy.
"You can only meet one person from another household in some outdoor public places (children under 5 do not count as part of this limit of two people)"
However, the rule of 6 in Tier 3 says that young children count towards the total of 6. Clearly barmy.
Inconsistent? Yes, diddlydo. Barmy- no, barmy is nitpicking rather than seeing the spirit of the rules and doing whats right to minimize your risks. So what would you prefer each tiers rule to be- both count children under 5 or both dont? My guess is they didnt want to change the tier 3 rule but decided to be more flexable for tier 4 to make it more like scotland.
//My guess is they didnt want to change the tier 3 rule but decided to be more flexable for tier 4 to make it more like scotland.//
It's not nit-picking. It's barmy. Tier 4 is supposed to be more strict than Tier 3. So an area gets promoted to T4 and people there learn that they can meet more friends outside than they can when they were in Tier 3. How are they supposed to do "whats right to minimize [their] risks." when they read that sort of nonsense?
"So what would you prefer each tiers rule to be- both count children under 5 or both dont?"
They should either both be the same or the T4 restrictions should be more severe than the T3 ones, not the other way round. You keep defending this "back-of-a-fag-packet" approach to severely restricting people's fundamental liberties on the basis that the population should engage with the spirit of the law. So what is the spirit of the law in this instance? This particular restriction is less severe in the higher Tier than it is in the lower. It's barmy. It is the result of hasty and inconsiderate drafting. Since it's been decided that each administration can draft its own, the English regulations have nothing to do with the Scottish ones and there is no reason for them to align. They don't align in any other respect (except by chance and when an attempt was made to align the ridiculous and abandoned Christmas relaxations).
This is criminal legislation we're talking about here, restrictions which carry criminal sanctions. They are not rules governing the election of committee members of a social club. The public is entitled to know that they have been drafted thoughtfully and with some logic. They should not have to consider the spirit they represent when examining the details. This particular anomaly is barmy, plain and simple, and it is not nit-picking to point it out.
It's not nit-picking. It's barmy. Tier 4 is supposed to be more strict than Tier 3. So an area gets promoted to T4 and people there learn that they can meet more friends outside than they can when they were in Tier 3. How are they supposed to do "whats right to minimize [their] risks." when they read that sort of nonsense?
"So what would you prefer each tiers rule to be- both count children under 5 or both dont?"
They should either both be the same or the T4 restrictions should be more severe than the T3 ones, not the other way round. You keep defending this "back-of-a-fag-packet" approach to severely restricting people's fundamental liberties on the basis that the population should engage with the spirit of the law. So what is the spirit of the law in this instance? This particular restriction is less severe in the higher Tier than it is in the lower. It's barmy. It is the result of hasty and inconsiderate drafting. Since it's been decided that each administration can draft its own, the English regulations have nothing to do with the Scottish ones and there is no reason for them to align. They don't align in any other respect (except by chance and when an attempt was made to align the ridiculous and abandoned Christmas relaxations).
This is criminal legislation we're talking about here, restrictions which carry criminal sanctions. They are not rules governing the election of committee members of a social club. The public is entitled to know that they have been drafted thoughtfully and with some logic. They should not have to consider the spirit they represent when examining the details. This particular anomaly is barmy, plain and simple, and it is not nit-picking to point it out.
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.