Re: Coronavirus
 

We have to live with it now that it's just the sniffles.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Because she follows implicit government policy - one rule for them, one rule for the rest of the country.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Because there was probably cake at the meeting :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just had contact from someone who was at the GDip course I'm attending. They took LFT in the morning - negative, attended the day, felt grotty when home, retook test - positive.


We have a couple of the nasal only tests at home, last order delivered the ones swabbing throat I have huge difficulty with. I take them where I know I'm going to be in less controlled situation meeting others. Like the kid's meeting I attended last Saturday.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There will be no Covid rules for anyone soon.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60319947

It’ll be nice to see an end to all this finger-wagging nonsense.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unless it's wagging at someone you don't like then retrowagging is perfectly OK.

Re: Coronavirus
 

True but some people just won't let go of it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Do you feel the same about drink-driving?

Re: Coronavirus
 

No comparison, actually.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm surprised that motor vehicles haven't (yet) been fitted with sensors that measure your blood alcohol content when your hand(s) is on the steering wheel

They measure almost every other damn thing :(

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's not a comparison, neither is the seatbelt analogy, before you pull that one out too.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And ffs let's leave the brakes out of it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The covid-19 death figures have been a bit odd lately. ONS figures from their website.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Looks like they have been doing a little housekeeping and have some deaths that weren't included in past figures.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why not - it’s a case of personal responsibility and boundaries; surely the driver knows what’s best for themselves and if they feel safe and able to drive safely, and it’s no one else’s business if they are over over the limit?

---------- Post added at 20:48 ---------- Previous post was at 20:45 ----------

Why not? Or are you one of those finger-waggers who goes on about "what about other peoples’ safety"?…

Re: Coronavirus
 

Because it’s stupid, and although we go at each other all the time and we may have opinions of each other, you being stupid is not one of them.

I had a conversation with my son today about Personal Responsibility, because he hadn’t done his home work. …….nobody died, or was likely to die because he didn’t do his “ Grammer Hammer”…. That’s what it is called!

There is nuance, risk, responsibility and much more.

To try and simplify it as you are trying to do, is infantile and incorrect.

Re: Coronavirus
 

:clap::clap:

Re: Coronavirus
 

The figures for the UK have gone bonkers again.

No figures for yesterday (10th Feb), but today's figures for new cases is 220,396 higher than 9th Feb. Even if split between the two days that makes 110,198 per day which is well above the mid-to-high 60,000s it has been recently.

And the 7-day rolling average of death jumped and fell from a plateau which is highly unlikely.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Where are you getting these from, Taf?

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths just shows a steady decrease

Re: Coronavirus
 

He's already said where he's getting them from.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Can you imagine how high the figures would be if everybody submitted details of when they have a winter cold?

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/



---------- Post added at 19:49 ---------- Previous post was at 19:27 ----------

They get their figures from both ONS and https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk to show any data input errors.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sorry if I'm being dense, but I can't see it there, nor on the ONS site. I also searched for your first chart on TinEye, and got no matches.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nobody cares anymore, move along….

Re: Coronavirus
 

I do, and it seems Taf does. If you don't, move along...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nail. on. head.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That. Would. Explain. A. Lot. Of. Your. Posts…

Re: Coronavirus
 

I produce the chart using Open Office, and the figures posted daily on both sites.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh I see.

I think it's probably correct. It's just that the figures are only weekly so they do look very steppy. And the last week is always artificially low because some deaths are reported late.

Compare with this one I've done from the daily data. There really was a sudden rise, then flat, then a drop. I think the steep rise was the period where we had parallel pandemics of Delta and Omicron. Once Omicron became dominant, things stabilised.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Since the beginning of the records, there has been a constant 7-day cycle of results being published by ONS. Different areas have submitted figures at different times, some even lumped together a week's worth of data. Hence the use of a 7-day rolling average became the norm.

Then the infection figures from LFTs that were found to be false positives by PCR tests were deleted, but not historically, but from that day's figures. So, over 3 days the results could be 4,4,4, but a test from day#1 found to be a false positive on day #3 would mean the records would show 4,4,3.

I'm a bit wary about the dropping of many of the measures against infection, as the sudden rise and fall of cases due to omicron, is POSSIBLY sat upon a steady number of new delta cases.

Only time will tell.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The surveillance reports from UKHSA suggest not, I think it was said yesterday that Omicron had basically wiped out Delta.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's been said since early January.

"Omicron wipes Delta off map in many parts of England as health chiefs warn half of Europe will get infected"

https://www.nationalworld.com/news/u...fected-3524278

Re: Coronavirus
 

Given its milder, thats a good thing, right ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, probably why they're going to end the covid act early.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I entered the "adjusted" ONS daily figures, and found that the "adjustments" are a relatively new thing, weeks, not months.

There were still 4 dates when figures weren't released though (2 for xmas, and 2 fairly recently).

Re: Coronavirus
 

BREAKING: Queen Elizabeth II has tested positive for COVID-19 and is experiencing light cold-like symptoms, Buckingham Palace has announced.

https://news.sky.com/story/queen-tes...-says-12538848

Re: Coronavirus
 

The lengths Charlie will go to to try to get his bum on that throne …

Re: Coronavirus
 

25,696 new infections today.


Whilst that's still a not inconsiderable amount, it's come down an awful lot in the last week or two.


Certainly at the height around Christmas, it's possible that 10 times that amount was getting the virus every day, but either didn't test/report or just dismissed it as a cold and carried on.


Some comments on here about omicron from a couple of months back have clearly not aged well.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is a personal favourite of mine:

Needless to say when 3-4 weeks came around he was nowhere to be seen, and while he’s posted in this thread a couple of times since he clearly doesn’t want to engage with or acknowledge his own rashness.

Re: Coronavirus
 

wonder how high the figures will go once the isolation of the infected is ended

Re: Coronavirus
 

I imagine the infection rate will go up significantly, however we have all the data we need now to be confident that as long as we’re dealing with omicron we’re not going to see the health services overwhelmed by it. For that to change we would have to see the emergence of a variant that is both significantly more infectious than omicron, so it could out-compete it much as omicron out-competed delta, and then also significantly more virulent.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Legal restrictions compelling those testing positive to self-isolate for X days or on a negative test, you mean?


Well, first off, it will probably be replaced with a strong suggestion that those with symptoms continue to test - until such time as they have wound down the 2bn a month taxpayers are currently spending on the mass testing, that is - and also, that those who then test positive, do at least isolate, that employers support those who are isolating, and that people do try and stay home if they're feeling ill. Other viruses and illnesses which are contagious don't have a legal compulsion to self-isolate after all.


It's not as if we're going to be changing from living like hermits to everyone coughing all over the place overnight.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Inmates, wtf, we gone back to the early eighties where catching another different virus meant you were locked up till you died

---------- Post added at 17:48 ---------- Previous post was at 17:46 ----------

If I catch it I'm staying at home and I expect anyone I work with to do the same

Re: Coronavirus
 

I agree, and would suspect most would.


The only change is that people would then be expected to use their common sense and do it, as opposed to being legally compelled to.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This pandemic including this thread has shown time and time again there are plenty of people no prepared to do the reasonable thing. Maybe they have not isolated all along or maybe with the relaxation the coughing all over might well be the case

---------- Post added at 17:56 ---------- Previous post was at 17:55 ----------

common sense hahaha that is a laugh

Re: Coronavirus
 

I suspect now that more companies are set up for working from home those can that do so will do so when coming down with any virus. Helps stop it from spreading and is just nicer while you recover.

Re: Coronavirus
 

People who are ill generally do, and always have.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What if you're not ill but infected?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Go to your work, could be infected with a cold.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Do we need to know? If we knew the daily figures for flu there would be alarm and despondency most winters.

The point is, hospital admissions continue to decline and the NHS is coping. So why obsess about the figures?

It’s pretty well over in this country, thanks to Boris.

---------- Post added at 20:13 ---------- Previous post was at 20:11 ----------

Same with flu.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That statement is so dense my screen is warping around it…

Re: Coronavirus
 

Flu can kill 25,000 in the U.K. during the winter, Hugh.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you're not ill, you go to work, just like you always have, obviously.

---------- Post added at 01:03 ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 ----------

If your not ill, you're not likely to be "infected" with anything, and have no reason to think otherwise.


If you're going to worry about what you might have, you'll end up in a very deep hole, with lots of tin foil. :dig:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wasn't that the case in the past with drink driving and seatbelts?

---------- Post added at 13:10 ---------- Previous post was at 13:01 ----------

The real problem here is that the science element of the Government decision making has been deprecated. I have seen no statement by Whitty et al, underwriting the current changes.

What is more obscure is the knowledge and awareness on the current immunity curve. It would be good to clearly educate people how long their last booster might last to provide confidence in the decision making.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oops!
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...g-row-12547921

Indeed. From Sky again:

Re: Coronavirus
 

no

---------- Post added at 13:36 ---------- Previous post was at 13:34 ----------

because nobody is interested in what they have to say anymore

Re: Coronavirus
 

Drink driving and not wearing a seatbelt are against the law. So no. Such comparisons really aren't worth repeating.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Over 1,700 medical professionals seem to be.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Of course they do, they're medical professionals :D

They also like to give people warnings about smoking, drinking, 5 a day, red meat, exercise, chocolate, coffee, drugs, sunbathing etc etc . . . do we (as in the general public) really take notice?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sajid Javid unveils roll out of 4th Covid jab for over-75s and vulnerable adults across UK

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...HS-news-update

Re: Coronavirus
 

Probably not. But then, that is our decision, we know the risks and if we don't live healthily then we will have the effects of this. No-one's stopping you drinking a bottle of vodka a night but if you do it more than not you will probably end up with a ruined liver and who knows what else.


I have a lot of time for Whitty and Vallance and the other scientists and what they think. But it is only one aspect of the response. Scientifically speaking, the best way to stop the virus spreading is still for everyone to stay at home. Yesterday's figure was just under 30k a day which is still a fairly significant amount, it was high for within the Delta outbreak, but looks low since we had much higher at the end of Dec/beginning of Jan, but then, we've had access to more testing than before since then. But everyone has had the offer of a vaccine, and aside for those with good reason not to take it, everyone either has or knows the risks of not doing it. They are never perfect and won't stop you getting covid or spreading it necessarily but they will usually prevent more severe outcomes. The general vaccinated population shouldn't be held back because of people not wanting a vaccine because someone on facebook said it has a 5g in it. But the scientists may well be aware of economic, social, etc effects of continuing restrictions but not necessarily have their focus on it nor be best placed to advise (yes I know CW has a PGDip in economics) because that job is primarily for cabinet to decide.

Re: Coronavirus
 

My point was that they both were not against the law at one point and so only required only people to use their "common sense".

---------- Post added at 18:03 ---------- Previous post was at 17:57 ----------

So, are you saying that Covid no longer represents a serious risk to the vulnerable e.g. immunocompromised, etc. ? If not, then surely mandating that an infectious person remain isolated is the only sensible & moral choice to make.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

The question is more that if a person contracts covid what is the likelihood of serious illness (for example requiring hospital, ventilator or ICU treatment) or death, and how does this compare to other viruses including cold viruses, flu, norovirus etc if contracted. Also which viruses also mandate legal isolation for a time period or a testing condition and the proportion of their infections progressing to such a state.


Nobody is suggesting people with covid or any other virus should go round everywhere coughing over people and making everyone else ill. They are just removing the legal requirement for a positive test result (which doesn't even define that a person is infectious) to isolate.


Freedom from legal restriction should always be the case. If a legal restriction is applied, then it should be justified as to why it is necessary. These restrictions were temporary as we had no idea what the new virus was capable of and how we would manage it, the virus is now largely managed by not only the vaccines but also multiple options with antivirals which means that we are not only in a state where there is high immunity already but a much higher chance that people who do get ill will be treated. So does this justify having further restrictions? Why are legal restrictions necessary at this stage?

Re: Coronavirus
 

You have not addressed the central point: if Covid still represents a serious danger to the vulnerable, surely there should be degree of mitigation, enforced in law, in the same way, that people are protected from drunk drivers.

You say "Nobody is suggesting people with covid or any other virus should go round everywhere coughing over people and making everyone else ill". Well, this guy is:

Re: Coronavirus
 

OK so, there are other points which need addressing first:
- does Covid still represent a serious danger? Have they been vaccinated? What are the effects of anti virals?
- how does this compare with the danger of them catching another virus such as cold, flu, noro, measles, ebola, etc from someone else?
- are the measures in place for covid proportionate to the risk to them, with the preventions and treatments on offer, and to other viruses of similar risk to them?
- are there any other measures you could put in place?


What happened to these people before covid anyway?


As for that guy, he's saying should they if they're not ill and test positive? So that test could be a false positive. Presence of a virus' RNA in a sample taken to run a PCR or LFT on doesn't make that person infectious to others does it?

Re: Coronavirus
 

But they are not comparable, so there was no point made

---------- Post added at 19:12 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

No it isn’t.

---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------

Nope, it’s a pretty warped world between your ears!

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you’re going to make an argument from morality then you have a duty to be much more thorough than you have been here. Asking whether covid presents a serious ongoing risk is a valid starting point but if that’s all you’re asking then you aren’t going to arrive at a morally defensible conclusion. Covid isn’t the only risk to immunocompromised individuals and it must be evaluated alongside those other risks, which offer some valuable context. Our long-term response to it must be calculated with due regard to the way we have historically mitigated those other risks.

For example, I was at university with an immunocompromised person (due to medication) and when they were in the middle of a course of those drugs they requested that the rest of us be especially careful about coming too close if we had so much as a sniffle. This was how those responsible for this person’s medical care proposed the risk be managed ‘in the wild’ - a generous dose of personal responsibility on this person’s part, augmented with a polite request for additional caution from those they spent the most time with.

Covid is going to become endemic, just like flu and the common cold, and it will continue to pose an abnormal risk to certain individuals, while most of us shake it off. We have never considered it immoral that there are no laws forcing people to self isolate with these viruses, though as a society we do frown on those who sneeze all over others and, for the most part, encourage personal responsibility (though I think some advertising around cold and flu remedies has bordered on irresponsible in the past).

Using the law to shortcut anyone’s personal responsibility and especially to curtail their freedom should be an exceptional response to extreme circumstances, yet I worry what we’re seeing here is a far too eager slide towards using legislation to enforce everyday morality. This is not good; as well as infantilising people it also creates an authoritarian streak in government that once established, may not easily be removed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Total rubbish

Re: Coronavirus
 

I understand what you're saying, but if I agreed with you, then we'd both be wrong.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

You raise some good points. Some are predicated on information not being fully available so any choice would be made on a basis of perceived risk. Your example of your University colleague is an interesting one however you knew he was immunocompromised and so could act accordingly. When people go out, they have no ability to discern risk.

The point I am making is that it not yet clear, beyond reasonable doubt, that the vulnerable are not disproportionately at risk. The number of people with Covid are still large in number and so the chances of encountering an infected person, when they have no obligation to isolate, is significant.

I feel the parallel with drink driving is a good one. Some people would argue that they can perfectly drive after 2 pints and so the law is curtailing their "freedom" but society disagrees. The balance of probabilities has been weighed against the driver who wishes to drink. In the same way, until we have clear data on the real world risks to the vulnerable, we should err on the side of caution.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Which bit?

Re: Coronavirus
 

You ask questions so clearly there are no obvious answers. You throw various diseases in the air but they are just deflection to be fair. I am not sure Ebola is on the rampage and I am confident that the cold is not as deadly as Covid is to the vulnerable.

The bottom line is that the people who are shouting for "freedom" are the ones who, typically, are not potentially at risk and do not have loved ones who are. It really does come down to "not my problem, mate". Maybe a reflection on who we are as a society?

Re: Coronavirus
 

They almost certainly are. How many are there? And how should we curtail the freedoms of the overwhelming majority to accommodate this tiny minority.

wouldn’t the immunosuppressed be at risk of encountering someone with the flu? Or any other infectious disease. Also there is no obligation to test yourself so if you don’t know you have it there is no obligation to isolate anyway.


. You think wrong

. It doesn’t work that way. I’m 6’4” and weigh 17 st I could/can have 2 pints and not be over the limit, others of different size and shape may not be

If I decide to drink my freedoms are not curtailed by not being allowed to drive.

---------- Post added at 21:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:01 ----------

A really bad one for the immunosuppressed could lead to a chest infection and pneumonia. But as long as you’re “confident”

Re: Coronavirus
 

By not being allowed to do something, your freedom to do it is obviously being curtailed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Absolutely they are and quite right too.

Ok, funnily enough, it turns out my wife has a immunoconflicted condition. It turns out that she is vulnerable to bacterial infection that can kill her. This bacteria is carried by every 1 in 1 million persons in the U.K. there are 67 people in the U.K. that can kill my wife just by touching her or breathing on her but we don’t know who or where they are.

I demand for the safety of my wife that the entire population of the U.K. wear masks and surgical gloves - all ages. If you do not know if you carry this bacteria or not you should isolate to be sure. Otherwise you’re saying “ not my problem mate” you selfish society.

Or perhaps my wife should be super very careful, her safety is her responsibility, not someone’s she has never met, and not the states. Why should her personal medical circumstances impinge on another’s persons life?

---------- Post added at 21:19 ---------- Previous post was at 21:16 ----------

Not when there are alternatives. I can get a bus, taxi, have someone else drive.

My freedom to drink and travel to the place I want to drink has not been taken away.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You might be able to afford a taxi or have a willing friend or partner to drive you. Others may not be so fortunate and would have their freedoms compromised.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So your answers to the questions? Or does that conflict with your view we should sit in hermetically sealed bubbles until the end of time just because viruses?

---------- Post added at 21:41 ---------- Previous post was at 21:41 ----------

Tom Lawrence is looking for this post :P

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you can afford to finance the running of a car you can afford a taxi or bus. Indeed these are the modes of transport for those that cannot afford to run a car.

The comparison doesn’t fly, no matter how much you may want it to.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Snowflakes don't think like that though...

Re: Coronavirus
 

"the vulnerable" are always at risk, and always have been, hence the name, covid is just one more virus on the list.

To quote a recent post "Total rubbish". ;)
The number of cases in the UK (in the last 7 days) is 309,260, the population is about 67 million, so roughly 0.46%.
Many of those are of course unlikely to be out and about while ill, but even if you said 50% of them are, thats about 0.23% (about 1 in 430).
The vulnerable will already be taking precautions (as they always have) so the chances of them "encountering an infected person" are really quite small, not significant.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Boris Johnson made a point that in Germany it's far less common to go into work if you're ill with a virus and maybe we need to think like that. I think that's a good way to go. Prior to COVID I think not only did people go into work with cold or flu symptoms but it was almost viewed as an amicable trait to get into work when ill. Obviously now a lot more people can work from home so it's easier to do.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well , the number of deaths has now reduced to below that of a normal winter. It’s time to stop obsessing about Covid.

Just take sensible precautions and stop demanding that those of us that want to get back to normal to stay indoors and hide in a cupboard.

We never behaved like this before and it’s time to get back to where we were. I’ve had enough of being controlled and so have most of us.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That is not my view and never said anything of the sort. I thought I was able to discuss the point rationally with you so we'll leave it there.

---------- Post added at 08:31 ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 ----------

But in Germany, the support is so much better:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMJSCOiW...jpg&name=small

What if you cannot afford to stay at home?

Re: Coronavirus
 

So the system needs to be changed to allow that to become the norm.


They seem to have decided to lapse the legal requirement to self-isolate with a similar lapsing with SSP back to pre-pandemic levels. Ultimately this is probably the right way to do it; temporary legislation forced the change and the actual details are probably somewhere else.


But it should definitely be the case that people shouldn't have to go into work if they are ill with something which could infect others. And this should have always been the case before COVID - the immunocompromised people have to work too and if someone goes in with something which is mild to them then it might make them ill, or if someone else in the office who is healthy lives with an immunocompromised partner, parent, or child, then they could take the illness home. It's common sense to suggest that these people should be working from home if they are well enough and if their job allows them to, and if not, they should be off sick until they are better, and their SSP supports this. There should also be similar measures of support for people on things such as zero hours/flexible contracts or self-employed people who are booked in to work on a less concrete basis and they should also be covered for the jobs they would have done were they not ill. People shouldn't have to make the choice of whether to go into work ill and be able to pay the bills or be off ill and not be able to pay.



Given that a fair amount of firms with office based staff are only likely to be planning a part time / flexible working approach where they work some days at home and some in the office, and with this being created during various periods of restrictions, it's something more employers have the facility to do anyway, and which having set up they're less likely to then change back at least straight away or permanently.


Much as I don't think they work for the general public who are not ill, I can also see that people will take to wearing masks if they have to go out and aren't feeling well, are in a hospital environment, or are on crowded public transport where there is a higher risk of transmitting disease. It would be good if this was continued, for people to be encouraged to wear better masks and not the disposable paper or cheap cloth masks as they have a better effect.



There are clearly a few ways we can do things differently now the pandemic has largely finished here.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's the problem right there.
Many people aren't lucky enough to have an employer that pays full sick pay from day one. They have to rely on SSP and the 3 waiting days . . which nets them a 'wage' of just under £40 for the first week of sickness and a shade under £100 every week after that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Exactly.
That's why the behaviour in Germany is more about hard cash than anything else, as ianch99 has highlighted.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is one change from pre-covid and that is that many companies have now shown that some staff can work from home and do so well. They have also put in the infrastructure to allow this to happen. So unlike pre-covid if you do feel unwell there is a better chance that you can stay at home and continue to work.
This doesn't quite work for other jobs but many of them are outside or not in closed spaces so maybe less chance of infection. Of course if you need to travel to work on public transport...


I still have quite a few cheap Chinese masks so not going to buy others until they've gone and that will last a few months.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A voice of sanity :) Thank you

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, so today's figure will include all the positive tests for today, Saturday and Sunday, expect some people will react to it without thinking of that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Halfwits do though,


The thinking may be sound in major cities but in lesser developed areas it's far easier and cheaper to run an old banger than it is to pay for a taxi every day or to use a public transport.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Taxis are expensive pretty much anywhere.

A taxi trip into Nottingham city would cost me about £15 - £20 (each way).
The bus is about £4 each way, but obviously I have to walk to the bus stop.
(about 15 mins from me, so not great when its raining or icy).
The bus also takes over an hour, a car about 25 mins.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yeah but try parking there...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Here in Wales they are soon to increase due to the blanket 20mph speed limit in towns.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Broadmarsh car park has plenty of space (because no one can find it now .... lol).

---------- Post added at 17:53 ---------- Previous post was at 17:52 ----------

Nottingham has those stupid limits all over the place, but no one sticks to them.