Can You Be Fined For Emptying A Swimming...
Civil0 min ago
Bj Is Now Saying Only Snitch..
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by piggynose. 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.
and here's what he ACTUALLY said.
“I have never much been in favour of sneak culture, myself," Mr Johnson told The Sun.
“What people should do in the first instance is obviously if they are concerned is raise it with their friends and neighbours.
“But I think what is reasonable for anyone to do is if they think there is a serious threat to public health as a result of their neighbour's activities – if there is some huge kind of Animal House party taking place, as I am sure, hot tubs and so forth, and there is a serious threat to public health then it's reasonable for the authorities to know.”
“I have never much been in favour of sneak culture, myself," Mr Johnson told The Sun.
“What people should do in the first instance is obviously if they are concerned is raise it with their friends and neighbours.
“But I think what is reasonable for anyone to do is if they think there is a serious threat to public health as a result of their neighbour's activities – if there is some huge kind of Animal House party taking place, as I am sure, hot tubs and so forth, and there is a serious threat to public health then it's reasonable for the authorities to know.”
> if there is some huge kind of Animal House party taking place, as I am sure, hot tubs and so forth, and there is a serious threat to public health
AND there is a serious threat to public health? So it's only if there's a *serious* threat to public health that the authorities should be called, not simply more than six people getting together which isn't that serious. I see. That is so clear ... not (I'm sure BJ loves a "not" joke).
AND there is a serious threat to public health? So it's only if there's a *serious* threat to public health that the authorities should be called, not simply more than six people getting together which isn't that serious. I see. That is so clear ... not (I'm sure BJ loves a "not" joke).
Did Priti Patel say "I would personally snitch but I would advise others not to"?
No she did not, in so far as it's possibly to decipher anything she says.
The implication tho is obvious.
One of her neighbours was not impressed
"I'd tell her to do one" she commented.
All this does is create division among people, although for now it does seem to have united most people against the mixed messages coming from the cabinet.
No she did not, in so far as it's possibly to decipher anything she says.
The implication tho is obvious.
One of her neighbours was not impressed
"I'd tell her to do one" she commented.
All this does is create division among people, although for now it does seem to have united most people against the mixed messages coming from the cabinet.
Quoting your quote:
“I think anybody would want to take responsibility and ensure we’re not spreading this awful disease and therefore if I saw gatherings or more than six people clearly I would report that.”
I agree there’s a subtle shift of pronoun midway though which is why I said “decipher” but I think it’s pretty clear where she’s coming from.
Did she really say people should be “conscientious to one another”? What on earth does that mean?
“I think anybody would want to take responsibility and ensure we’re not spreading this awful disease and therefore if I saw gatherings or more than six people clearly I would report that.”
I agree there’s a subtle shift of pronoun midway though which is why I said “decipher” but I think it’s pretty clear where she’s coming from.
Did she really say people should be “conscientious to one another”? What on earth does that mean?
///ymb//The whole 'rule of six' is flawed anyway.//
In what way?///
How long have you got, Danny?
So arbitrary is it that the authorities across the four UK nations cannot even come close to agreeing a common strategy on the issue. Look at this page from the BBC which explains the rules (which were said to "make it simple" for people to understand):
https:/
You will see a diagram with the four nations across the top and three features of the rules down the side. If it were simple there would be just three identical entries, one for each of the three features common to each of the four countries. In fact there are eleven different ones (out of a maximum possible of twelve) and a couple of footnotes. An absolute farce.
So, to the English "rule of six" then: I can invite five people into my house for a beer. Chuck them out and then invite five more in for coffee and biscuits. Chuck them out and invite five more in for sandwiches whilst we watch "Match of the Day." Then I could chuck them out....(I'm sure you get the point).
Then I can go to the pub and have a drink with five mates. Leave there, meet Mrs NJ and two other couples and the six of us can go for a curry. On the way home we can call in at our neighbours and have a coffee with them and their two children.
In fact it is worse than flawed. It is a pointless restriction that serves no identifiable purpose other than to make life unpleasant for people who want to meet in larger groups. Other than it it's just about perfect.
In what way?///
How long have you got, Danny?
So arbitrary is it that the authorities across the four UK nations cannot even come close to agreeing a common strategy on the issue. Look at this page from the BBC which explains the rules (which were said to "make it simple" for people to understand):
https:/
You will see a diagram with the four nations across the top and three features of the rules down the side. If it were simple there would be just three identical entries, one for each of the three features common to each of the four countries. In fact there are eleven different ones (out of a maximum possible of twelve) and a couple of footnotes. An absolute farce.
So, to the English "rule of six" then: I can invite five people into my house for a beer. Chuck them out and then invite five more in for coffee and biscuits. Chuck them out and invite five more in for sandwiches whilst we watch "Match of the Day." Then I could chuck them out....(I'm sure you get the point).
Then I can go to the pub and have a drink with five mates. Leave there, meet Mrs NJ and two other couples and the six of us can go for a curry. On the way home we can call in at our neighbours and have a coffee with them and their two children.
In fact it is worse than flawed. It is a pointless restriction that serves no identifiable purpose other than to make life unpleasant for people who want to meet in larger groups. Other than it it's just about perfect.
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.