Cable Forum - Starmer’s chronicles

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Starmer’s chronicles (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33712992)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36190695)

Up to 30 people could attend funerals at this point in the lockdown. You could also visit relatives in care homes as long as there were COVID measures in place.

could you cross from tier3 to tier 4 to do this or was it still against the law

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36190697)

could you cross from tier3 to tier 4 to do this or was it still against the law

I think so but the laws were never that clear. You weren't allowed to travel between tiers generally without a reasonable excuse. If you did you were subject to the rules of either the tier you moved from or the tier you were in, whichever was higher.

But funerals and care homes had the same rules for all tiers so you would have been able to travel between them as it was a reasonable excuse and permitted whichever tier you were in.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36190695)

Up to 30 people could attend funerals at this point in the lockdown. You could also visit relatives in care homes as long as there were COVID measures in place.

Any care homes had to have "substantial screens, visiting pods, and window visits.".
Regardless, you couldn't travel from a Tier 3 area(Eg Brighton) to a Tier 4 area(Eg London).

Link

Quote:

People should not enter or leave Tier 4 areas, and Tier 4 residents must not stay overnight away from home. Where people cannot work from home, they should still travel to work, for example in the construction and manufacturing sectors.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36190701)

Any care homes had to have "substantial screens, visiting pods, and window visits.".
Regardless, you couldn't travel from a Tier 3 area(Eg Brighton) to a Tier 4 area(Eg London).

Link

exactly
even mediocre lawyers with a nasal problem had to abide by the LAW

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36190701)

Any care homes had to have "substantial screens, visiting pods, and window visits.".
Regardless, you couldn't travel from a Tier 3 area(Eg Brighton) to a Tier 4 area(Eg London).

Link

There were exemptions to this: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1611/made

One of them is funerals:

Quote:

(10) Exception 7 is that it is reasonably necessary for P to leave or be outside P’s home—

(a)to attend a funeral,

(b)to attend a commemorative event celebrating the life of a person who has died, or

(c)to visit a burial ground or garden of remembrance, to pay respects to a member of P’s household, a family member or friend.

care homes:

Quote:

to visit a person (“V”) receiving treatment in a hospital or staying in a hospice or care home, or to accompany V to a medical appointment and P is—

(i)a member of V’s household,

(ii)a close family member of V, or

(iii)a friend of V.

and work:

Quote:

(5) Exception 2 is that it is reasonably necessary for P to leave or be outside P’s home—

(a)for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for P to work, or to provide those services, from home;

There are other exemptions there but these are only the ones called out explicitly as beyond that a 'reasonable excuse' was left up to the police I guess to interpret.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36190704)

There were exemptions to this: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1611/made

One of them is funerals:

care homes:

and work:

There are other exemptions there but these are only the ones called out explicitly as beyond that a 'reasonable excuse' was left up to the police I guess to interpret.

Travelling into or out of a Tier 4 area was still banned for those purposes. It was the "Stay at Home" bit that had the exemptions within a Tier 4 area.

Quote:

In Tier 4 the ‘Stay At Home’ message will be put in law. As previously, there will be exemptions - including travelling for work or education, for childcare purposes, and for exercise.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

The exemption was between tiers but you would have to adhere to the rules of whichever was the strongest tier:

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-b1777473.html

Quote:

Rules if you live in tier 3

Tier 3 residents are not supposed to leave their area unless necessary, although they are allowed to travel through other tiers on the way to another destination, such as for international travel.

The examples of when travelling into another tier is permissible include: for work; for education; to access voluntary, charitable or youth services; because of caring responsibilities; for moving home; to visit your support bubble; for a medical appointment or treatment.

When tier 3 residents visit a lower tier, they should continue to follow the rules in tier 3 and must not stay with anyone they do not live with elsewhere in the UK or visit their home (unless they share a support bubble).

In addition, the government said: “If you live in a Tier 3 area and are going to a wedding, funeral, or linked commemorative event in a Tier 4 area, the event must follow the Tier 4 gathering limit. You must not attend a wedding reception in a Tier 3 or Tier 4 area.”

Rules if you live in tier 4

Tier 4 is in a category of its own.

Residents are told they should stay at home and not leave their tier 4 area except for a list of legally permitted reasons.

These are: travel to work where you cannot work from home; travel to education and for caring responsibilities; visit (including staying overnight with) those in your support bubble - or your childcare bubble for childcare; attend hospital, GP and other medical appointments or visits; where you have had an accident or are concerned about your health.

The government said that additional guidance will be set out in regulations.

---------- Post added at 10:18 ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 ----------

Starmer seems to be speed running attempting to lose the next election: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...chagos-islands

£18bn to give up islands we already own? I don't think this deal at all.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36190709)

Starmer seems to be speed running attempting to lose the next election: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...chagos-islands

£18bn to give up islands we already own? I don't think this deal at all.

Looks like a £9bn pa lease which the UK wants to stay fixed but the Mauritians want to rise with inflation.

Are there comparable deals to benchmark this one to?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Where a country gives up land they already own and pays billions to do so? Doubt it.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36190714)

Where a country gives up land they already own and pays billions to do so? Doubt it.

Some would say that would be like rejoining the EU ;)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36190714)

Where a country gives up land they already own and pays billions to do so? Doubt it.

See countries that have just lost a war.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Ok but we haven't lost a war to Mauritius.

I want to understand the reasoning behind it from their perspective after all the talks started under the Tories so even they had some cause to think it needed to be done.

Was it because the UN said so? Well, who cares? It wasn't binding and nothing from the UN is ever that binding because what are they going to do about it? All I can think is that they're worried China will somehow take over, but there is already a US base there.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

I have heard it's because it is what international human rights lawyers that are obsessed with decolonisation think is a good outcome.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

"Many people say…"

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

It's something to do with the legality of the base, which is why the Tories started it as well, but what could that be? UN says it's not legal? So what? Good luck trying to invade it and take it back.