Weston Super Saint

Just so I'm clear. In your increasingly desperate and unlikely scenario to prove some point, I've had an accident whilst out on my bike, this accident was so severe that I end up in an ICU bed. It just so happens that this was the very last bed in the hospital - but quite possibly the entire NHS - thus taking away a bed from a covid patient. The impact is still not on the NHS. The doctors and nurses will still go to work, the hospitals will still have the same number of beds and resources (I would of course be taking up a very small percentage of those resources). But the actual IMPACT would be felt by the Covid patient who would be left outside the hospital to fend for themselves.

Nope. Advised, yes. Banned, no. Whilst non-essential shops can offer click and collect, you can't even use the 'without good reason' mantra either!

I could get run over walking to the shops to get my essential shopping. Should we ban that as well? It's all about risk really. In the last five or so years I've ridden over 20,000 miles. I haven't even come close to being hit by a car. I'm happy to accept that the risk is very low. There is still plenty of capacity in my area, so any (unlikely) trip to ICU by me won't be denying someone with covid a bed. That's before we consider the Nightingale hospital in the area currently completely empty. So no, there won't be any additional impact on the NHS.

What happened to the sun

That's bollocks. If I hadn't bothered to exercise as much as I do I would doubtless have ended up in ICU as a covid patient. It's also bollocks because as I already pointed out the impact on the NHS would be the same whether there was a virus circulating or not. Nice try aintclever. 1/10 for effort though.

What a ridiculous statement to make. The impact to the NHS would be the same if a car hit me no matter what virus was circulating. I'll give you one guess why I headed out to the 'levels' where the traffic is lighter. Feel free to spell it out to me, if I'm really that stupid, let me know about the risk I've posed to other people during my exercise today - no doubt you'll dodge providing the information, prefering to hurl insults instead. A clear sign that your arguments have fizzled out.

UK - 2.95mil cases, 79.8k deaths France - 2.74mil cases, 67.0k deaths Spain - 2.05mil cases, 51.8k deaths Italy - 2.23mil cases, 77.9k deaths Germany - 1.90mil cases, 40k deaths Sweden - 489k cases, 9.4k deaths https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-GB&mid=%2Fm%2F0d0vqn&gl=GB&ceid=GB%3Aen Pretty much as you'd expect I guess. Countries that have larger land mass and therefore populations more spread out, have lower infections and death rates. Countries with populations packed into smaller areas have the opposite. * no adjustments are made for the multitude of different ways that the different countries report 'Covid' deaths.

OK, Professor Covid, tell me how I could have infected other people (even if I had the virus and no symptoms) during the 30 seconds of interactions (in total across about 30 people) during my exercise? I'm not sure you've really grasped the absolute basics of how virus are passed from person to person.

Two and a half hours on the bike this morning. Yep, I left my local area (assuming your definition of 'local' is the 'neigbourhood') - went out to the Somerset Levels, proper farming country. No doubt Egg will call me a selfish cunt but apart from the hundreds of cars that passed me (where were they all going?), I waved at about six other cyclists and passed maybe 20 pedestrians and one horse rider. Add up all those 'interactions' and I probably spent 30 seconds in that 2 and a half hours within 2 metres of other human beings. I'd say the risk - even if I had symptoms, which I don't - to other people could be described as 'negligible' at best. In the meantime, the benefits to my physical (even with sore knees) and mental health, far, far outweigh any potential risks to other people.

I don't think they could ask Person B to apply in the event of a redundancy situation as it is the role that is redundant. Person B is carrying out Role 1 whereas Person A is carrying out Role 2 (which would be the role that is redundant). They could of course ask if there are any volunteers for redundancy, in which case Person B could be considered.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? It's entirely BECAUSE the rules are so haphazard that people take advantage of them. 'The people' on this thread have been pointing out the inadequacies of the rules since they were first introduced. If they were produced without the need for the local constable to interpret them as they saw fit, then they may have been more effective. I've pointed out previously many of the loopholes that exist and been shouted down by people on this thread claiming that only a 'selfish cunt' would try and circumvent the rules. Those same people have then re-appeared a couple of days later completely dismayed by the number of selfish cunts that exist in our country breaking the rules! I do like your new, tough stance on enforcing the rules now though (although lots of the Coronavirus Act is technically only 'guidance' and not enforceable anyway), but can't help wondering why you didn't have the same thoughts towards those protesting up and down the country during a National Lockdown last summer.

In a country of around 70 million, the UK police managed to kill a measly five people in the same time frame. Still, I guess it's all relative...

Basically every post of Shurlock's then?

I'm sure the families of the 999 people who were shot in 2020 would argue the contrary - and that's just those shot by the police and doesn't include those shot by people 'defending' themselves / their property.

Proportionate force goes out of the window when combined with adrenaline and fear as evidenced by the number of people who have been killed when they shouldn't have been. I guess that's what happens when everyone has the right to bear arms. Compare that to Japan with the polar opposite views on guns.

Isn't that the same as anyone commiting a crime in the US, given that all cops (and a large proportion of the general population) are armed?

What were all the 'armed thugs' below armed with? Bad breath? Shit dress sense? Miserable sense of humor(sic)?

Correct. However, they DO state you are allowed to drive somewhere to take exercise which would suggest 'local' isn't the same as 'neighbourhood'.

How long have they been employed, is it less than 2 years? If so, then there really is nothing they can do. Secondly, whilst Post 1 still exists, Person A is no longer doing that. They accepted the move to Post 2, so it's irrelevant whether or not Post 1 still exists as it is not their 'current' role. Post 2 would be the role that would be being made redundant, which is the one that Person A accepted. Even though there was nothing formally written regarding Person A taking Post 2, the company would merely claim 'custom and practice' and the fact that they have been carrying out the role (which would no longer be needed) for six months. Then (providing they had worked for over 2 years) it would be a redundancy situation and the appropriate consultation would need to be carried out and alternative options within the company (if any) considered.

Personally, I would say yes. However, nothing in HR is ever that black and white so you would need to refer to specific terms in the contract. You also need to consider length of service. If person A has less than 2 years service (at the end of the 6 month secondment) then they don't have a leg to stand on anyway. If its pretty much certain that there will be other work available at the end of the six months, I'd say there shouldn't be an issue. I wouldn't expect that Post 1 would be an option - unless the company is planning on getting rid of person B if they have less than 2 years service (although it's unlikely if the client doesn't want Person A!). The contract would be general terms and conditions anyway so there would be no need for a new one to be issued to Person A - it would also have a clause in there about carrying out any work to be deemed 'suitable' by the company anyway.

How are we getting on, can we declare racism extinct now?

What a lovely warming story! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55560814 Sounds like the police were there waiting for people to arrive so they could fine them. I thought that fines were to be used for people once police had followed the previous three E's : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-52106843

Oh, no he wasn't! There was absolutely no violence involved when soggy was supporting it!

I know it's the Sun, but they claim he was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher, then collapsed at the police station later on.... https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13683669/us-capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknick-dies-riot/

Was the person that was moved a 'permanent' employee or a contractor. If contractor, then tough! If permanent employee then it's more complicated. How much time served in the company? If under two years, then tough. If over two years then there would need to be a consultation. The original role would be deemed to be no longer existing in this case as it has been filled by someone else. As long as a full consultation took place with all alternatives within the company considered - including other locations within a reasonable travelling distance as well as other roles with equal or less status and remuneration - then redundancy could well be a legitimate option. There must have been some sort of consultation previously for the person who was moved to have been moved - presumably the client request was a result of conduct or performance. I'm fairly certain that 'accepting' the move would be a legitimate reason for the employer to 'backfill' the role that was moved from - even if the alternative to accepting the role would have been dismissal on either conduct or performance basis.