Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Youngstu

  • Rank
    Senior Member, Raffle Sponsor 2015

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Funny that, as it seems that you're more paranoid about whoever it is trying to control our every move and needing to fight against it, but from what you've said it sounds like you've been following most of the rules or guidance that we've been set to live by even though you don't agree with them.
  2. Maybe I'm open to different possibilities and willing to give some benefit of the doubt. For me it seems that you're very happy to say they/ you are idiots for doing this that or the other because it didn't turn out as bad as it might've been. When there was no compulsion to close/ isolate etc there was also no compensation available for those whose businesses couldn't operate but due to no customers but weren't forced to shut. If those with health conditions were able to receive compensation during forced shielding, what about those on the borderline of eligibility. It would end up like universal credit/ sickness benefit issues but potentially with more fatal consequences.
  3. The older ( more vulnerable?) Relatives chose to come and visit us and regarding the R rate it is a factor of the number of people infected so the R rate can be high with low numbers. But I agree with you in that respect as it doesn't really seem that there was a particular point at which they decided to reduce restrictions, the scientists don't seem to have agreed with them.
  4. So is it a bad thing that the public responded and obeyed in this instance as without that it could've been worse? We still appear to have been the worst in Europe despite having a head start on preparations with Italy, France and Spain ahead of us, but we maybe should've responded faster. What should they have done? Yes the Nightingale Hospitals didn't get much if any use, but what if it had been worse and we didn't have the additional space? A bit like life really, would you rather regret doing something that seemed like the right thing at the time, or regret not bothering trying when you thought it might be a good idea. In March when this all started over here the Virus had only been in existence/detected for 3 months, what had happened in China and the far East wasn't entirely clear and it appeared that there was a massive problem in Italy, then Spain and France. Should they just have ignored it and told us not to worry. I don't think the Government have done a good job in any way, but it seems like for completely different reasons from you. What do you think they should have done between March and now?
  5. Similar situation here too, it's not been possible to work for me, don't live so rural so have seen people out and about but saw family today for the first time since March as we wouldn't have wanted to put them at risk. I don't personally feel that the lockdown was ludicrous and had it been imposed sooner maybe we'd have been out of it much sooner too, but hey ho at least some got to Cheltenham, footie etc before being shut at home. Do we really know the severity and long term effects of those that have been infected? do we really know what's going to happen in the next year? The time is probably time to open up but is it the right way to do it? Why wasn't the NHS overwhelmed like Italy's was, and if we hadn't locked down when we did maybe it would have been (with or without the big nightingale emergency hospitals). The mathematical models may well have got it wrong, but that's what they are, models and they can very massively by what gets put into them and nobody really knew that much about the disease, how the public would respond or how easily it would have transmitted. Should we expect a cure or medicine for new diseases? we have the technology and scientific expertise so why shouldn't we. And yes I do remember the mad cow disease problems but as I was overseas for much of it and probably not particularly interested in it at the time I don't have any recollections of the specifics of the involvements of scientists in the debacle. But if that's evidence of reasons not to trust scientists, I'd rather trust the scientists to learn from their mistakes than politicians and armchair experts.
  6. I'm not sitting at home expecting the virus to get me, but as with most people (yourself included it seems) am continuing to take reasonable precautions to try and avoid getting infecting or infecting others. I wouldn't trust the current or previous government one bit and I most certainly haven't voted for them or at any point felt that they have the best interest of the majority of the country at heart in any way at all. How exactly is it "soft and conditioned" to put some faith in the medical discoveries and systems that have (alongside other aspects of development) allowed the population to reach an unsustainable level? By that statement I take it that you've been out and about trying your best to catch Covid just to prove that you're tough enough to deal with this "flu" and don't bother to have yourself or your family vaccinated against any other diseases that may or may not cause significant harm. It's a very valid point about the fuss being made about this when so many around the world die of preventable diseases and that's exactly the reason why it has scared people, because anyone , rich or poor could be susceptible to it (but you're much more at risk if you have underlying health issues or are from specific ethnic groups). So can we try again : Can you explain the purpose of this "propaganda" that you talk of and explain who is really generating it? Did the government and media want to cause a recession, or to cause huge numbers of job losses, or a mental health crisis, or to highlight the failings of the NHS in the state it's been left in, or to deprive children of education and social opportunities, or to increase distrust in the ruling government, or potentially crash the housing market or to get the population calling for improvements in the NHS funding or calling for a universal income.
  7. Can you explain the purpose of this "propaganda" that you talk of and explain who is really generating it? Did the government and media want to cause a recession, or to cause huge numbers of job losses, or a mental health crisis, or to highlight the failings of the NHS in the state it's been left in, or to deprive children of education and social opportunities, or to increase distrust in the ruling government, or potentially crash the housing market or to get the population calling for improvements in the NHS funding or calling for a universal income. I'm just curious what has caused you to come to this conclusion when there have probably been more than 60000 excess deaths here and this virus is continuing to cause increasing problems around the world, particularly in countries that failed to increase anti transmission precautions early on.
  8. So who's paying that 150k and were you all being paid for quarantining? It does sound like a massive waste of money and I assume it's considered to be very important by whoever is paying. So, if you hadn't all been quarantined and tested then worked in close proximity and someone had brought a special gift for everyone how would that have gone down with all the lads and those fitting the bill, and the HSE or whoever? I'll agree with you about Farage, he is consistent: consistently divisive, consistently getting himself publicity...
  9. But from what I've seen we don't actually seem to know when he returned from his boot licking trip to Texas. It may be hypocritical to criticise a divisive politician whilst not criticising protesting members of the public but you wouldn't expect any more. I'd imagine that Farage would be critical of the BLM protestors for not following social distancing and putting the health of the country at risk whilst supporting the defenders of statues and the great british public crowding onto already full beaches as it supports his cause. It's the way it is and someone like Farage will always be a target for criticism (like most politicians and public figures).
  10. And if Farage is stupid enough to get himself spotted in another country with a major Covid issue, then fail to follow the required quarantine on his return home so he could have his favourite pub based photo opportunity he can't exactly be surprised to have been "grassed up" by political opponents amongst many others. And deny having broken the rules when the available evidence shows that he did. If he didn't fair enough, but if he did, testing or not he should have the same consequences as anyone else (fine, slap on the wrist or whatever that may be).
  11. How many years of motorbike and car accidents gave us those necessary statistics to make the decision to put helmets and seatbelts into law (I'd bet there were a fair few objections to this change at the time too, did they get through on the first attempts even with the evidence for their importance?!) We have 6 months of this virus now, loads of deaths and much worse in some countries than others (the UK is doing particularly badly in this respect and we haven't mandated the use of masks in shops etc where others have). It seems that there is a lot of advice from the scientists, doctors, medical advisers, virologists etc over here and in other countries that wearing masks in places where social distancing is difficult to maintain is a very good idea and will go some way to reducing the further spread of Covid 19. By wearing masks more, maybe the restrictions can be eased further as risks are further reduced! I don't necessarily agree with maintaining the lockdown as it does have a really negative effect on many in our society, but opening up travel, pubs, restaurants etc all on one day does seem like a bit of risky strategy. The british public don't generally do a good job of following the common sense that's expected from them. With a wet and windy "Super Saturday" is this going to make it better or worse. Not too fond of following the rules, especially when plucked out of thin air by this current bunch of incompetents and as they change their minds every 25 seconds you can't expect the instructions to remain from one week to the next.
  12. Masks in shops, in England we don't currently have to but if we do then so be it, the government's done a fine job of cocking it all up so far, so a few sticking plasters are a bit late but wouldn't go amiss really to try and reduce further spread now we're 24 hours away from Boris's free for all, good luck reopening. How did you feel about being forced to wear a seatbelt or motorbike helmet, was that also a removal of your freedoms and rights? What about if they decided cyclists had to wear helmets. Lots choose to anyway after seeing what can happen if you don't, to protect themselves and/or save others from having to pick up the pieces after a crash. At least we can live in hope that compulsory mask wearing is likely to be a temporary measure to help people to protect themselves and others. Helmets and seatbelts don't save everyone from the effect of a crash but go some way towards it. If you look at it like masks really, or safety glasses, or ear defenders, or chainsaw gloves, or airbags, or age restrictions on selling knives) fireworks/ alcohol or .....
  13. Sometimes it does seem that the Governments want to take more control, but not convinced this is one of them. Maybe they should have said to wear masks in shops the whole time, but they didn't and with the lack of PPE at the early stages that's possibly understandably. For the last few months we've been told not to go to shops unnecessarily and to maintain a 2m social distance at all times, wearing a mask at this point probably wouldn't achieve much more and the shops were much more empty. Now with shops getting busier and people doing less social distancing maybe this is the right time to enforce mask wearing in shops and other enclosed public spaces. The virus hasn't actually gone away (see USA) but with people travelling widely there is again more opportunity to spread it about.
  14. Looks like I missed something in my message so you got yourself a bit confused, I'll give you an example to help you understand. Racism was once acceptable in general but some people including the victims and others objected to it, but many, including those in power didn't "give a toss" about the thoughts, feelings or sensitivities of the victims or the others that felt it was wrong. Over time petitions, demonstrations, reports etc raised awareness and increased the support for victims of racism and made that behaviour generally unacceptable and eventually laws were made protecting people from that behaviour. If it wasn't for the ongoing persistence of these "sensitive" types those practices would still be widely acceptable and the victims would be suffering from much greater levels of blatant racism in society. This applies to sexism, homophobia, disability discrimination etc and unfortunately none of them have gone away, they're just less blatant than they were in the past. Is being old or from a certain demographic an acceptable excuse for being racist or sexist or homophobic?


Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.