|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #299
no it doesnt rule out night fishing , it just means if you are there after 9pm you cnnot travel before 6am the next day, so night fishing is ok
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #326
Then we agree.
My point us that such an approach should be for all Green countries (which should probably include France-based on the science of course ).
All other countries that dont meet the criteria should be red.
By having an amber category it allows an unclear middle category.
The current travel rules /laws are simply wrong IMO. And they have not been voted upon democratically. They have been conjured up by an inept Government based on a political agenda rather than what should be done.
If a sensible travel approach /policy was adopted and applied we wouldn't have the incidents of indian virus we do have and we could all go fishing in France without restrictions othwr than a bit if testing. If not now, very soon.
If we had endforced a strict travel ban and then gradually opened up to Green countries (based on the science) in the long run the UK would have been better off.
Our vaccination program was world leading its the lack of control at the borders that is awful, combined with a vague and leaky travel policy. We all know not everyone is self isolateting for 10 days! Whatever the rules say.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #323
"Following your argument to its logical conclusion we should be free to travel to ANY country based on individual risk analysis! India, Brazil, south africa, you ok with that?"
Of course not, that's ridiculous. We are discussing trips to France for fishing under current circumstances not world wide free travel. Supply free PCR tests and job done. We can't keep bunkering in forever that's ridiculous and economically unsustainable. We need to move on and going out with a free clear PCR test and coming back with one followed by the minimum isolation time and retest. Safe and sensible whilst supporting essential economies. P.s i have no arguement, it's an opinion
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #324
Which is why it (France) should be Green.
Our chaotic and confused travel policy is why we have the highest incidents of India variant outside of India in the world.
And why Germany have banned us. France may well follow suit.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #322
But, but, but
14:58 - France is no longer a risk zone, according to Germany
This news should delight all frontier workers. From Sunday May 23 at midnight, France will no longer be considered by Germany as a coronavirus risk zone. If France will still remain a "high incidence zone", the announcement of the German authorities also leads to the lifting of mandatory PCR tests to cross the border, which had been in effect since March 28, 2021.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #320
My point is simply this.
Upon a proper risk analysis all countries should be either
1. You can travel
2. You cant.
Upon such an analysis France is likely to be green and we could all go. None of this debate would be necessary.
Leaving it to "the individual" is not an option when you are dealing with a contagious disease. Why should an individual get to decide the acceptable risk that may affect society as a whole?
And if you think people are seriously observing the self isolation... How do you think the indian variants got here then?
Actually my argument supports freedom. The last thing i want to see is us all being forced back into lockdown here and our freedoms curtailed because some people considered it was acceptable to take a risk for us all and travel to a place that perhaps they should not have. I am NOT suggesting France is such a Place, but it may be.
They may be right, it may be ok, and i fully support that line of thinking in usual circumstances when they are dealing with their OWN health and safety. But these are not usual circumstances are they?, its not open for an individual to take risks and to decide on matters that affect society as a whole. How do you think Covid got here? Travel, thats how. Only takes 1 person!
Following your argument to its logical conclusion we should be free to travel to ANY country based on individual risk analysis! India, Brazil, south africa, you ok with that?
A good analogy is speed limits on roads. Why do you think they are there? On your argument they should be removed and it left to the individual to make his own choice. So if i hit you or your family doing 120mph, thats my choice? That ok with you?
The record shows that countries that have been the most effective at controlling COVID are those that had clear and strict order policies and were clear and straightforward with their population. Look at Australia by way of example.
Enough said. Not going to argue anymore
I
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #319
Germany have announced brits are banned from entering from tomorrow night... How long before France follows suit!? Hope not as I'm due out on 19th June
|
|
| | | BRB | | Posts: 1385 |  | |
|
In reply to Post #318
Depends what sort of society you want to live in Jim. I don't want to see the things you refer to legislated, I prefer to manage my own risks.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #319
And people still think Boris is brilliant!
Are we getting to the real reason for your enthusiasm on this subject?
The opinion you disagreed with (post 315) is basically right. We live in a democracy where freedom of speech and movement reign supreme i'm afraid only bound by the confines of the law. Unfortunately for your argument, as you've meticulously laid out in your last post, is that it isn't illegal to travel to an amber country as many have done so far without opposition. We then only have your moral compass to deal with which isn't really the place for a fishing forum. If people observe all of the covid protocols and travel to and from a lake without stopping unopposed then there is little risk. Like it or lump it, and you are more than entitled to your opinion, people will travel in numbers and no amount of political satire from your good self is going to stop them i'm afraid.
Floodgates open.........................................
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #318
Precisely
The intention of this amber category is political.
It would be unpopular to say you definitely cant go, but...
In the event it all goes pete tong, they (UK Govt) will say we told you shouldn't go.
Thus removing any liability on them.
That's not leadership, that's s not decisive:its a fudge focused on retaining popularity without the risk of future liability.
And people still think Boris is brilliant! 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #317
I think the pertinent word here is the 'should' which really is a nonsense and leaves the choice to the traveler. In life you should not drink to excess, should not eat to much red meat, should not break the speed limit, etc, etc. By leaving the choice open the Government is just washing its hands of any future issues coming out of amber travel.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #315
Well thats your interpretation. Mine is different: Amber countries you should not go for leisure purposes.
It is far from "perfectly clear". Which was the intention of it.
The fact you and others think its clear is worrisome
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #312
Jim,
I agree with you.
As i said i wasn't having a go at lake owners. And lets be honest (and i am not massaging your ego here (it doesn't need it!) ) you are one of the better ones.
I dont blame anglers or lake owners at all.
My point is that the amber category is frankly b*ll**ks?
Surely it would be better if it was just old plain red or green?
Imagine how much easier it would be for you as an owner if france was green (which if there were just 2 categories I suspect it would be).
This amber and the Governments response to the questions (anybody seen the 2 car crash interviews yesterday with ministers over the amber category?) are like something out of the old TV seies "Yes minister". (people of a certain age will remember that!) :
Minister: "I dont know what to so about travel come May 17th"
Humphry: "Well minister a good old fashioned confusing fudge should remove any possible future liability for us".
Minister: "What do you suggest?"
Humphry: "We will have a category where we initially tell people that they can legally go but with restrictions, then after everyone thinks thay can go, we tell them that they really shouldn't, but its up to them. We wont say yes or no, we will say its" individual responsibility "whilst confusingly saying you shouldn't really do it"
Minister: "Brilliant..."
Humphry: "Yes minister, and if it all goes wrong and we have another wave of covid we can remove any blame on us by saying" we told you not to go" without actually telling people not to go. I'll draw up the rules now minister! "
Its straight from that series, seriously!
|
|
| | | BRB | | Posts: 1385 | | |
|
In reply to Post #313
It all seems fairly clear to me, you can legally travel to an amber country and the rules are set for what you need to do on your return. That may not suit some and others may simply not like it but it is what it is.
I appreciate Boris has given some advisories but that is all they are at the moment.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #313
Had the promise of cheap PCR tests been implemented then it would possibly make a trip viable. A test on the way out, free one in France and 2 booked for day 2 and day 8 is currently over £300. If you then decide to take the private test on day 5 (Thursday for most) then that makes 4 tests paid for. If the tests were free or a minimal admin fee then the 4 tests would be financially viable and 2 weeks holiday would give you a week in France and a week's DIY  . I isolated after a 2 week trip last September and stayed in for the whole 10 days and am sure the guidance was that others in your household didn't need to? Can't/won't be doing that again but have 2 weeks booked off around my trip already so if the cost of the PCR test comes down then i will seriously consider going as like others have said i travel alone and do the trip on one tank in the van.
|
|
Venues (Foreign)