Wolfie

Bristol 0-1 Derby

Ebosele frgs

My homemade chicken liver pate & breads, followed by roast turkey and beef. 

My dauphinois potatoes are legendary in my family. Also roasties and all the rest of the trimmings including loads of pigs in blankets

24 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Im pretty sure this is what the South African medical scientists said also. As you were then, let’s get in with our lives. I hope I hear masks off and PCR testing/isolation after travel scrapped by tomorrow 

 

Bloody hope that’s the case but not sure how they can know yet. Doesn’t it take 3-4 weeks for hospitalisation to follow infection?

Good news all the same

6 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

If you think that everyone should be stopped from living their lives, unless they pay for the privilege then I can't help you.

A tad over-dramatic. I'm fairly sure holidays aren't free. If people are willing to pay for the priviledge of a holiday in a pandemic.......

12 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

If the Government are forcing people to take mandatory tests, for no logical reason, then it really should be them that pick up the tab.

Would you have the same outlook if the Government insisted that you had to pay £70 or £80 to go to the pub or to a football ground? Because I would hazard a guess that you've got as much chance of caching Covid in them settings as you have in Lapland.

If you can't see why we're being cautious in trying to identify and limit the influx of a new variant which may (but probably not) be more dangerous, then I can't help you.

The rule IMO has to be universal at the moment because not all countries genetically test the virus as much as we do, so we really don't know how widespread it is. Plus people will find ways to get around the rules and enter the UK via a third country.

2 hours ago, TexasRam said:

I know, god forbid someone wants them and their family to enjoy themselves who are probably vaccinated against the thing they need to be tested for and going to a place with probably less cases than most places in the world. 

I’m not stopping anyone going on holiday. My post was about who pays for the tests. 

2 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

I don’t get it!

Im on holiday in January. Kids surprise trip to lap land. We’re all very excited (they don’t know about it yet, but they will be excited). 

Im having to come back off holiday a couple of days early, cos I have a course with the army starting. 

but now I’ve got to take a PCR test as soon as I get back, and can’t go to my course til I get a negative result. 

meanwhile, my entire family will also have to do this, significantly adding to the cost of the holiday that we hadn’t planned.

anyway, that’s the moan over, in the words of Billy Davies, ‘it is what it is’.

My question is this: Why don’t I just get a normal NHS PCR test? I’ve had to get them recently when my son had symptoms, it’s dead quick and easy to book, and results came back early the next morning. I don’t get why I would need to book with a private company and pay through the nose?

Maybe this is just me but I’d rather those who choose to go on holiday at the moment pay for their tests, than let the nhs pay for them.

Derby 1-0 QPR

Lawrence frgs

24 minutes ago, Archied said:

There won’t be any stress or unpleasantness with any staff , jeez it not them making the rules and they are being put in a horrible position, if the situation arises then it’s up to the police to enforce these so called laws and take me to court , I don’t want to stick fingers up at the rules I want to openly challenge what going on

"ask to be dealt with by a manager , ask them to facilitate being able to purchase what I NEED without me entering the shop , if not I will stay in the shop mask less as far away from people as possible and politely request the manager calls police to remove and arrest me"

Well that sounds like it would cause unpleasantness with the staff. You might as well glue yourself to something ?

Anyway, like I said, it won't happen.

23 minutes ago, Archied said:

Honest question,, would you not see me very differently if I was saying I’m going to pretend I’m exempt ? I know I would see myself differently, would I be in some small way justifying people treat my wife the way some have ? Would I be doing a real disservice to people who actually are exempt and making they’re lives more difficult and unpleasant?
if I really believed that this theatre of masks was actually making any real significant real world difference then I would be wearing one , mandated or not ,

as I say masks are just a part of the whole that has been visited on people over these last two years , less dehumanising than some of the stuff but still wrong in my opinion 

In all honesty, it's a situation that's very unlikey to arise, isn't it?. Last I heard, retail staff were told not to challenge anyone.

But no, I see saying you're exempt is partly just taking the path of least resistance for the outcome you want - avoiding the stress and unpleasantness both from your side and the staff. Also it's sticking a finger or two up at the rules - which would probably appeal to you as well.

On balance I believe that masks probably do have a positive effect. You don't and that's your prerogative. I would choose to wear a mask if mandated again but I've never challenged anyone for not wearing one and never would. None of my business what exemptions people may or may not have.

34 minutes ago, Archied said:

essential like food , chemists and the like , I will be be polite to staff , ask to be dealt with by a manager , ask them to facilitate being able to purchase what I NEED without me entering the shop , if not I will stay in the shop mask less as far away from people as possible and politely request the manager calls police to remove and arrest me,

 

Wouldn't it be easier just to say you're exempt, if you feel like that?.

I haven't worn a mask for ages. Had a day & night out in Birmingham last Friday. Packed with people in shops & bars, almost nobody wearing masks. Had a great time. Got a sore throat over the weekend so did LFT's yesterday just to be safe - negative.

However, it's not a hill I'm prepared to die on, so as of tomorrow I'll be wearing a mask in shops again. I don't feel it's a big deal and don't feel like my liberties are being eroded.

But that's just me.

I swear sometimes this thread is like an out of body experience. 

Has anyone whose supplier has gone bust got their account balances back?.

When PFP went bump, we were over £800 in credit. Everything says that it's safe & guaranteed by Ofgem but I'd quite like to know how long it will take to get it back.

Wow 4 points from those 2 games folks. 
 

With all the poo going on it’s one hell of an achievement 

1-1

Lawrence frgs

22 minutes ago, QuitYourJibbaJivin said:

So what are you saying? That the risks of taking a vaccine most don’t need, aren’t allowed to be highlighted because people have died of Covid? 

How do you know if you need the vaccine or not?

When they plug you into a ventilator? Nobody is claiming the vaccine (any vaccine or medication) is without risk

I think the crisps thing might be cos when I was a kid, the only crisps I was aware of were Walkers or Golden Wonder, who did have the blue salt & vinegar. I think people might be conflating these, as you rarely see Golden Wonder any more. 
 

On the simulation thing, that would mean there is a creator (god) after all. Bugger. 

We can call it the "Scapegoat of the week" forum?

5 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

We got part way through the process of applying to do respite foster care  (via the council) before Covid and the thing that struck me was that the Council were competing with private companies to find foster carers. But that set up is stupid - because if the Council don't have enough Foster Carers, they have to "sub-contract" the care to the private companies. Which involves paying over-the-odds to the Private  comapnies - which in turn means that the private companies can pay more to the Foster carers. Which means it's more lucrative for foster carers to go with the private companies, which leaves the Council with a lack of foster carers! Then you get on to the little matter of the Private Companies being far less stringent on the acceptance criteria (because their eyes are on the dollar and not the kids wellbeing), so it's yet another system rigged to funnel public taxes into private companies ?

 

Agree with all that but I don't have any evidence for the bit in bold - Mrs Wolfie has never flagged that up as a concern.

What she does report, though, is that there is a greater chance that private foster places break down, due to challenging behaviour (for example) and it's then usually the councils which have to pick up the pieces - and the tab for the expensive care of the troubled individuals.

I know that in Lincolnshire at least, they are currently trying to increase the number of council run children's homes, to bring more of the care in-house and hopefully get a better handle on the costs.

57 minutes ago, sage said:

The way to reduce the numbers, other than generally better economic times, is preventative programmes like SureStart where inexperienced or vulnerable parents are guided in bringing up children. It's one of the biggest political mistakes in the last decade to defund it. Not only is prevention better than the cure, it is usually cheaper.  They way to keep children with struggling families is to support those families not vilify them. 

I have to agree with that. Mrs Wolfie is responsible for finding placements for kids in Lincolnshire and she's currently paying up to £16,000 a week, depending on the needs of the individual.

I tend not to ask her about her work stuff because I find it hard to listen to the stories of abuse and neglect. Just yesterday we were loading up the car at B&M Bargains with treats and little presents for her to box up and distribute to some of the kids her team look after, and who won't get anything at Christmas otherwise. It's heartbreaking.

a) We're getting better at identifying children at risk

b) There are more children at risk

Answer: Probably both.

See, it's easy.

Don't Go (Amazon Prime)

"Devastated by his daughter's death in a terrible accident, Ben becomes convinced that he can bring her back through a recurring dream. But is it just a dream? Or is Ben losing his mind?"

Stephen Dorff & Melissa George are good in this fairly low key drama, which I enjoyed more than I thought I would.

Solid 7/10

Just now, thelovebelow said:

We settle the EFL points debacle and suddenly get a penalty. 

Weird, that. 

Why did Baldock go off?