Jump to content

Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover


Manx Bean
 Share

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, piebaps said:

Quite. What sort of selfish moron thinks that while the rest of the IOM is locked down, its OK to travel to buy a fucking dog. I agree with Gladys that the 111 admin appears to be lacking , but the fact that the public is paying for admin for this sort of shite is equally as shocking. 

I travelled across to get a dog.  I didn't want to, nor did I need to, but did so to ensure I stuck by the rules of isolation - I was quite prepared to isolate for 14 days with my partner after she went to pick up the pup on her own, but for that to be allowed I had to go as well.  Absolutely no need for me to do so.  The situation in the video with the couple travelling across a second time is more absurd.

As for the 'selfish moron' aspect - when this was arranged we weren't locked down here.  Plan was to go over, get doggo, isolate at home, and follow the 3 test regime.  And before anyone asks - I took annual leave to cover it.  It's not essential, no, but added no risk to the IOM covid situation.  And as for paying for admin - the cost for the tests came out of my own pocket, so that probably covers it.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wrighty said:

I travelled across to get a dog.  I didn't want to, nor did I need to, but did so to ensure I stuck by the rules of isolation - I was quite prepared to isolate for 14 days with my partner after she went to pick up the pup on her own, but for that to be allowed I had to go as well.  Absolutely no need for me to do so.  The situation in the video with the couple travelling across a second time is more absurd.

As for the 'selfish moron' aspect - when this was arranged we weren't locked down here.  Plan was to go over, get doggo, isolate at home, and follow the 3 test regime.  And before anyone asks - I took annual leave to cover it.  It's not essential, no, but added no risk to the IOM covid situation.  And as for paying for admin - the cost for the tests came out of my own pocket, so that probably covers it.

That's the point, the reason for travel doesn't have to be approved, but you must abide by the rules.  However, we are now subject not only to regulations but other people's assessment of whether we are behaving as they would like even if within the rules. 

Enough now, it's bad enough that we have ill-conceived or ill-executed rules, don't add your own subjective view of the validity of what someone else does when it's entirely within the rules.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TerryFuchwit said:

To be fair it's utter bollocks people are going on day trips to pick up dogs.

I agree the system is a shambles.

If we were at the start of the lockdown I’d be inclined to agree, but the lady had a plan that was fairly risk free. The husband drops/collects her from port, they both isolate and take required tests, so minimum contact required. The government decision lead to the husband travelling on a pointless journey, not to mention the two taxi trips which effectively put the taxi driver at an increased risk, 111 gave out the wrong advice not to mention the wrong landing cert and the recording of the call happened to go missing.........

There are very few dog breeders on island, anyone buying a puppy is going to be spending time at home anyway to allow the puppy to get used to it’s new surrounding, what better opportunity than when the government will still be forcing everyone to stay at home for a week anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when the government has a pandemic and all that to fight, there should have been a civil servant or two allocated to crossing the 't's and dotting the 'i's for the possibility of someone wanting to get a dog over here.

Personally I think there are too many dogs barking and too much dog muck about the place, but I admit I am biased.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Barlow said:

I think when the government has a pandemic and all that to fight, there should have been a civil servant or two allocated to crossing the 't's and dotting the 'i's for the possibility of someone wanting to get a dog over here.

Personally I think there are too many dogs barking and too much dog muck about the place, but I admit I am biased.

So, you are measuring what they did against your own prejudices, so it is subjective.  That's fine, but if your subjective view is not supported by the rules; then  that is all it is, an opinion to which you are, of course, entitled.

What is your view on travelling to collect a cat?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dog ownership is excellent therapy for all sorts of stresses.

It's just a real pity there are so many irresponsible owners. And we all see far too much evidence of that all over the place...

An excellent article on the vital importance of genomics. Well worth reading:

At the end of last year, a crack team of British scientists discovered a new coronavirus strain that would spread across the world. As new variants emerge, can they keep them at bay?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/03/has-everyone-in-kent-gone-to-illegal-rave-on-variant-trail-with-covid-detectives

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worrying thing is that our government thinks that destroying evidence is acceptable, we should just accept their word without question. Letters to Ministers, now taped conversations. There are other previous cases of this kind of thing when it doesn't suit them for a contrary piece of evidence to mysteriously disappear!  

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gladys said:

That's the point, the reason for travel doesn't have to be approved, but you must abide by the rules.  However, we are now subject not only to regulations but other people's assessment of whether we are behaving as they would like even if within the rules. 

Enough now, it's bad enough that we have ill-conceived or ill-executed rules, don't add your own subjective view of the validity of what someone else does when it's entirely within the rules.

Indeed - self righteous moralising appears to be in vogue.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it @wrighty and @Gladys but using some simple logic

Where did our first covid case come from? Travel.

When we locked down in Jan where did the covid come from? Travel.

The source of the current lockdown and Kent variant? Travel.

It therefore screams at me that on a common sense basis, you don't travel unless absolutely necessary. Everyone has a reason for wanting to travel. Mostly these are pretty good reasons too. People are however making difficult sacrifices by choosing not to travel - notwithstanding that they are free to do so.

This woman picking up a dog is IMHO selfish. Josem's tried tweeting about it to garner anto-gov feelings and its backfired on him for this very reason.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Gladys said:

What is your view on travelling to collect a cat?  

Cats are very useful because you can put cat videos on the internet and people laugh at them and that.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, piebaps said:

I get it @wrighty and @Gladys but using some simple logic

Where did our first covid case come from? Travel.

When we locked down in Jan where did the covid come from? Travel.

The source of the current lockdown and Kent variant? Travel.

It therefore screams at me that on a common sense basis, you don't travel unless absolutely necessary. Everyone has a reason for wanting to travel. Mostly these are pretty good reasons too. People are however making difficult sacrifices by choosing not to travel - notwithstanding that they are free to do so.

This woman picking up a dog is IMHO selfish. Josem's tried tweeting about it to garner anto-gov feelings and its backfired on him for this very reason.

It is self-evident that it comes from travel, of course.  But travel isn't banned, is it? 

But knowing that, do you not think both this and the January lockdowns were more likely due to ineffective measures/communication by government, rather than someone collecting a pet and self-isolating. 

But when you start talking about sacrifice and common sense, you introduce a subjective element which goes beyond the regulations, and one person's sacrifice might be another person's inconsequential price to pay. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Cats are very useful because you can put cat videos on the internet and people laugh at them and that.

Yes, the cat and the printer is the best thing on the internet, ever. 

Owning both dogs and cats (more appropriate to say providing lodgings for the latter), personally I wouldn't go off island to acquire one at any time;  there are plenty in need of homes here.  But that is not to say I don't agree with their choice, because that is exactly what it is providing it is within the rules. 

You could extrapolate the argument that only essential travel is permitted and cut the number of sailings down to a couple a week to bring in only essential supplies such as staple foods and medicines, and truly essential health workers.  That would reduce the number of potentials for introducing covid.  But that would be too high a price surely? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...