FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Virus

Mandatory testing if you cannot work from home.

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Although cases of Covid are falling there still are areas where its rising.

The majority of these apparently are where people cannot work from home such as factories and building sites, supermarkets etc.

Should it be mandatory for companies to test workers regularly at the companies expense and supply the results to Government so that if there are breaches then the company is responsible?

A lot of companies are bending the rules or turning a blond eye. If the onus was on them perhaps the lockdown could be over sooner.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By * Plus ECouple
over a year ago

The South


"Although cases of Covid are falling there still are areas where its rising.

The majority of these apparently are where people cannot work from home such as factories and building sites, supermarkets etc.

Should it be mandatory for companies to test workers regularly at the companies expense and supply the results to Government so that if there are breaches then the company is responsible?

A lot of companies are bending the rules or turning a blond eye. If the onus was on them perhaps the lockdown could be over sooner."

The alternative being close all factories, building sites and supermarkets, yes?

E

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *allySlinkyWoman
over a year ago

Leeds

How would we know if Covid was caught at work or out of hours ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By * Plus ECouple
over a year ago

The South


"How would we know if Covid was caught at work or out of hours ?"

You wouldn't. That's why ideas like the OP aren't practical.

Apart from us all starving to death because supermarkets are closed of course.

E

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Maybe surveillance (testing/ watching for health and safety compliance) should be increased where cases are increasing, but this should be at minimal or no cost to employers and employees.

The only cost should be where people/ companies are in breach of relevant laws.

Testing is obviously not mandatory, so we'd need to make sure that people are willing to test - for example, by ensuring they're no worse off financially for having to self isolate.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackandtheunicornCouple
over a year ago

liverpool

No theres no point. Cases are low enough now and with the vaccine will only get lower.

It's just a waste of resources.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Cheap fast tests are a benefit to organisations and individuals. If they were introduced in a targeted way, for areas of concern, it would be a good short term response.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Cheap fast tests are a benefit to organisations and individuals. If they were introduced in a targeted way, for areas of concern, it would be a good short term response. "

Michael Mina is in favour of such a thing - he's argued extensively.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"How would we know if Covid was caught at work or out of hours ?"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *azkinsWoman
over a year ago

leeds

I'm tested 3 times a week. No test no work.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Although cases of Covid are falling there still are areas where its rising.

The majority of these apparently are where people cannot work from home such as factories and building sites, supermarkets etc.

Should it be mandatory for companies to test workers regularly at the companies expense and supply the results to Government so that if there are breaches then the company is responsible?

A lot of companies are bending the rules or turning a blond eye. If the onus was on them perhaps the lockdown could be over sooner."

Good point... I know of companies who are telling people to work even if they've been contacted by Track and Trace.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *allySlinkyWoman
over a year ago

Leeds

"If there are breaches then the company is responsible". The company should be responsible for not allowing someone who tests positive to go into work but how can a company be "held responsible" for someone testing positive who might have caught it off-site ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I’d 100% turn down every single test. I’m on a 11 hour a week contract and can only afford to live through over time. Any time off isolating would mean my bills will not be paid, so I’ll avoid every type of test going.

The reality is covid is never going away. High risk has been vaccinated, time to reopen society. Case numbers should be irrelevant, only hospitalisations. These should be plummeting now that the vast majority of the cause has been vaccinated. Let those who are paranoid live at home if they can afford to, but I can’t and shouldn’t be forced to suffer because of their fear.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


""If there are breaches then the company is responsible". The company should be responsible for not allowing someone who tests positive to go into work but how can a company be "held responsible" for someone testing positive who might have caught it off-site ?"

In cases of breaches where companies are held responsible - I mean breaches over which the company has control.

Like "your workmate tested positive, but we're not going to tell you" or "social distancing and PPE, yeah we're not paying for that shit, back to work".

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I’d 100% turn down every single test. I’m on a 11 hour a week contract and can only afford to live through over time. Any time off isolating would mean my bills will not be paid, so I’ll avoid every type of test going.

The reality is covid is never going away. High risk has been vaccinated, time to reopen society. Case numbers should be irrelevant, only hospitalisations. These should be plummeting now that the vast majority of the cause has been vaccinated. Let those who are paranoid live at home if they can afford to, but I can’t and shouldn’t be forced to suffer because of their fear."

So if you catch covid you will go into work and potentially infect other people?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"I’d 100% turn down every single test. I’m on a 11 hour a week contract and can only afford to live through over time. Any time off isolating would mean my bills will not be paid, so I’ll avoid every type of test going.

The reality is covid is never going away. High risk has been vaccinated, time to reopen society. Case numbers should be irrelevant, only hospitalisations. These should be plummeting now that the vast majority of the cause has been vaccinated. Let those who are paranoid live at home if they can afford to, but I can’t and shouldn’t be forced to suffer because of their fear."

You should be compensated if you need to isolate.

Vaccination is two doses under every vaccine used in the UK, and then the effect takes 2-3 weeks to take hold, so if you mean facts, science and medicine by paranoia and fear, then... Yeah sorry you're still gonna have to wait. Sorry about the facts and stuff

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""If there are breaches then the company is responsible". The company should be responsible for not allowing someone who tests positive to go into work but how can a company be "held responsible" for someone testing positive who might have caught it off-site ?

In cases of breaches where companies are held responsible - I mean breaches over which the company has control.

Like "your workmate tested positive, but we're not going to tell you" or "social distancing and PPE, yeah we're not paying for that shit, back to work"."

At my work there were 11 people off with covid in January. There was no official word of who they were, only rumours. They said Track and Trace would contact people if they were at risk.

I am totally disgusted with the management. I know of other situations where the company is actively doing their own track and trace and contacting people directly.

Only good thing is people have to wear masks at work all the time now apart from when eating.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oroRick1027Man
over a year ago

Middlesbrough

We don't have testing where I work, (warehouse) but we are all temperature checked on entry. If high, checked again 10 minutes later. If still high, checked again 10 minutes later. If still high sent home and told to get tested.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


""If there are breaches then the company is responsible". The company should be responsible for not allowing someone who tests positive to go into work but how can a company be "held responsible" for someone testing positive who might have caught it off-site ?

In cases of breaches where companies are held responsible - I mean breaches over which the company has control.

Like "your workmate tested positive, but we're not going to tell you" or "social distancing and PPE, yeah we're not paying for that shit, back to work".

At my work there were 11 people off with covid in January. There was no official word of who they were, only rumours. They said Track and Trace would contact people if they were at risk.

I am totally disgusted with the management. I know of other situations where the company is actively doing their own track and trace and contacting people directly.

Only good thing is people have to wear masks at work all the time now apart from when eating."

Yes. What I'm saying is that companies should be made to do the right thing, not employee X went to an illegal rave therefore company Y should be held liable.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It’s been three months since the most at risk started isolation. So we’re well into them being a safe group. On top of that covid is risk free for at least 1/3 of all people and minor inconvenience for a large proportion.

And the chances are I’ll never know if I have covid, so yes I will carry on. My company would compensate me for my contract, but due to covid I no longer have a full time contract. So really boris only has himself to blame for people in my situation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"It’s been three months since the most at risk started isolation. So we’re well into them being a safe group. On top of that covid is risk free for at least 1/3 of all people and minor inconvenience for a large proportion.

And the chances are I’ll never know if I have covid, so yes I will carry on. My company would compensate me for my contract, but due to covid I no longer have a full time contract. So really boris only has himself to blame for people in my situation. "

Isolation is incomplete, vaccination isn't done.

Boris should find a way to help people isolate if they have Covid to prevent the kind of situation you're talking about.

That doesn't change the fact that partially and unvaccinated populations remain at risk (because there's no way to put them all in a bubble where they cannot be in contact with the outside world).

So we wait.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hrista BellendWoman
over a year ago

surrounded by twinkly lights

I expect many companies will go down the testing route, but when we start mixing again its going to spike anyway. Its just getting to the balance of a acceptable rolling daily positive number and low hospital admissions and deaths

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"I expect many companies will go down the testing route, but when we start mixing again its going to spike anyway. Its just getting to the balance of a acceptable rolling daily positive number and low hospital admissions and deaths "

Yes. There'll be a point where we accept background risk. But we're a long way off that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

People are always at risk, from all sorts. Gonna ban sex because there’s risk of hiv and other diseases from that?

How about banning sunbathing, there’s risk of dying from that.

We’re at a point now where the unvaccinated are low enough risk to justify opening the world and not enforcing more complicated, expensive and prohibitive measures on already struggling buisnesses.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"People are always at risk, from all sorts. Gonna ban sex because there’s risk of hiv and other diseases from that?

How about banning sunbathing, there’s risk of dying from that.

We’re at a point now where the unvaccinated are low enough risk to justify opening the world and not enforcing more complicated, expensive and prohibitive measures on already struggling buisnesses."

I'm glad you think so.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackandtheunicornCouple
over a year ago

liverpool


"I’d 100% turn down every single test. I’m on a 11 hour a week contract and can only afford to live through over time. Any time off isolating would mean my bills will not be paid, so I’ll avoid every type of test going.

The reality is covid is never going away. High risk has been vaccinated, time to reopen society. Case numbers should be irrelevant, only hospitalisations. These should be plummeting now that the vast majority of the cause has been vaccinated. Let those who are paranoid live at home if they can afford to, but I can’t and shouldn’t be forced to suffer because of their fear."

Absolutely this. The madness should have ended already.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *pmsldCouple
over a year ago

kettering


"Although cases of Covid are falling there still are areas where its rising.

The majority of these apparently are where people cannot work from home such as factories and building sites, supermarkets etc.

Should it be mandatory for companies to test workers regularly at the companies expense and supply the results to Government so that if there are breaches then the company is responsible?

A lot of companies are bending the rules or turning a blond eye. If the onus was on them perhaps the lockdown could be over sooner."

At the companies expense ? Enjoy paying more for your shopping.. the problem will continue with or without tests. the virus is spread by customers aswell as the staff (in my opinion the customers are where your more likly to pick it up from) You only have to stand and watch the general public to see that there are plenty that still avoid following basic hygiene and guidance on a daily basis. And as someone else pointed out many lose out if told to isolate so many wont. My company will pay basic contract hours for isolation but many people use overtime to earn a livable income which obviously they wont get paid if they dont work. so where is the incentive to isolate? This is true for many businesses not just supermarket workers. the greater good doesnt feed their children.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ack with a bangCouple
over a year ago

Hastings


"It’s been three months since the most at risk started isolation. So we’re well into them being a safe group. On top of that covid is risk free for at least 1/3 of all people and minor inconvenience for a large proportion.

And the chances are I’ll never know if I have covid, so yes I will carry on. My company would compensate me for my contract, but due to covid I no longer have a full time contract. So really boris only has himself to blame for people in my situation.

Isolation is incomplete, vaccination isn't done.

Boris should find a way to help people isolate if they have Covid to prevent the kind of situation you're talking about.

That doesn't change the fact that partially and unvaccinated populations remain at risk (because there's no way to put them all in a bubble where they cannot be in contact with the outside world).

So we wait."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bsinthe_boyMan
over a year ago

Luton

It's not a matter of finding out whether you caught covid at work, it's more about preventing people going into work and spreading it further.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittleMissCaliWoman
over a year ago

all loved up


"It’s been three months since the most at risk started isolation. So we’re well into them being a safe group. On top of that covid is risk free for at least 1/3 of all people and minor inconvenience for a large proportion.

And the chances are I’ll never know if I have covid, so yes I will carry on. My company would compensate me for my contract, but due to covid I no longer have a full time contract. So really boris only has himself to blame for people in my situation. "
wow... how selfish do you want to be. Get tested and If you need to stay at home do so.

Cant blame anyone for that attitude. Sorry but as the mother of someone who is shielding I find that shocking.

I'm tested 3 to 4 times a week currently depending on work. I wouldn't dream of carrying on if I was found to be positive.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lex46TV/TS
over a year ago

Near Wells

Why should businesses pay for their staff to be tested?

The NHS are after a 12.5% pay rise, they should be offering any testing. A lot of businesses are and will struggle to survive this pandemic. A lot of them have spent pounds to be Covid safe, they don't need any extra expense or compliance.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan
over a year ago

Hastings

I wish I had to lie on a NHS site and yes I was possative I just new don't know how just new. Nut it should befell staff at least once a week

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anatthetopMan
over a year ago

Kent

You wanting to pay your bills should not increase the probability of a break down of the NHS neither. There are and there will be hundreds of thousands if not millions that will need the NHS for other life saving treatments. If it's overwhelmed, these people will die too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"Cheap fast tests are a benefit to organisations and individuals. If they were introduced in a targeted way, for areas of concern, it would be a good short term response. "

Businesses are able to get suppliers of free tests now. Nobody will know as clearly what the status is in a business unless they test. Information is power - the power to improve things for the greater good.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *litterbabeWoman
over a year ago

hiding from cock pics.

Why would it be a good idea to test school children at least twice a week but the same idea be not relevant for workplaces?

(Honest question)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Having worked all on building sites all the way through this pandemic I would say I'm really impressed by the way they have all handled the rules even when they were unclear or changing and have seen severel people banned from site for not adhearing to them worst been sites in london with lots of foreign workers who turn up 5 in a car and don't follow the rules in the slightest. I'm sure if something like this was introduced aslong as it's financially viable to do they would do it if it isn't viable sites would shut,

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"Why would it be a good idea to test school children at least twice a week but the same idea be not relevant for workplaces?

(Honest question)"

Great question. I suspect its because school kids are a soft defenceless target.

Lets not forget the uni students have been once again absent from any discussion at all.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ustBoWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in Co. Down

[Removed by poster at 07/03/21 10:09:18]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *pursChick aka ShortieWoman
over a year ago

On a mooch


"Why would it be a good idea to test school children at least twice a week but the same idea be not relevant for workplaces?

(Honest question)

Great question. I suspect its because school kids are a soft defenceless target.

Lets not forget the uni students have been once again absent from any discussion at all.

"

Uni students aren’t absent from the discussion, if they are attending face to face education then they are to do the tests to

Guidance for parents and carers, students and university students, teachers and educational setting leaders

In England:

- twice-weekly testing for pupils and staff, for their households, and for their support and childcare bubbles

- all pupils return to schools on 8 March

- university students on practical courses who need to access specialist facilities and equipment can return to in-person teaching from 8 March

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *allySlinkyWoman
over a year ago

Leeds


"

Lets not forget the uni students have been once again absent from any discussion at all.

"

"An announcement about University students will be made at the end of April" Shocking how they have been treated

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *allySlinkyWoman
over a year ago

Leeds

If uni students aren't doing a practìcal course they will be isolated at home for over four months. They were sent home mid December

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hubaysiWoman
over a year ago

Leeds


"I’d 100% turn down every single test. I’m on a 11 hour a week contract and can only afford to live through over time. Any time off isolating would mean my bills will not be paid, so I’ll avoid every type of test going.

The reality is covid is never going away. High risk has been vaccinated, time to reopen society. Case numbers should be irrelevant, only hospitalisations. These should be plummeting now that the vast majority of the cause has been vaccinated. Let those who are paranoid live at home if they can afford to, but I can’t and shouldn’t be forced to suffer because of their fear."

What a selfish arrogant attitude you have. Truly shocking!!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town

These threads do intrigue me.. Last time we had infections at 6k per day was end of Sept... And remember how the public mood was then...?

Panic, close everything down govt are shit for letting it get out of control and not doing anything... And so on..

The time before that... (actually it was half that number) was April last year.. Remember the public mood then...? (ditto above).

Now we have a years more knowledge. We know about long covid a bit more now... And we also know that the higher the community rates of infection... The higher the chance of a new variant that does not respond to the vaccine....

But the public mood? now we need to open up and ignore.... Its not easy that's for sure but beating up on school kids while the adults crack on is unfair at best.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abs..Woman
over a year ago

..


"

Lets not forget the uni students have been once again absent from any discussion at all.

"An announcement about University students will be made at the end of April" Shocking how they have been treated"

I totally agree. They are paying for accommodation that they are legally required to pay for in their contracts but can’t legally go to. It’s awful and very wrong.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *allySlinkyWoman
over a year ago

Leeds


"

They are paying for accommodation that they are legally required to pay for in their contracts but can’t legally go to. It’s awful and very wrong. "

I agree. Scandalous

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *den-Valley-coupleCouple
over a year ago

Cumbria


"Although cases of Covid are falling there still are areas where its rising.

The majority of these apparently are where people cannot work from home such as factories and building sites, supermarkets etc.

Should it be mandatory for companies to test workers regularly at the companies expense and supply the results to Government so that if there are breaches then the company is responsible?

A lot of companies are bending the rules or turning a blond eye. If the onus was on them perhaps the lockdown could be over sooner."

Already in place at my place of work..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""If there are breaches then the company is responsible". The company should be responsible for not allowing someone who tests positive to go into work but how can a company be "held responsible" for someone testing positive who might have caught it off-site ?"

Agreed, but companies should be held accountable for breaches of H&S control measures that help to facilitate the spread of the virus.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"Why would it be a good idea to test school children at least twice a week but the same idea be not relevant for workplaces?

(Honest question)

Great question. I suspect its because school kids are a soft defenceless target.

Lets not forget the uni students have been once again absent from any discussion at all.

Uni students aren’t absent from the discussion, if they are attending face to face education then they are to do the tests to

Guidance for parents and carers, students and university students, teachers and educational setting leaders

In England:

- twice-weekly testing for pupils and staff, for their households, and for their support and childcare bubbles

- all pupils return to schools on 8 March

- university students on practical courses who need to access specialist facilities and equipment can return to in-person teaching from 8 March"

That's interesting... Can you send me a link for that? My daughters 2nd year and is certainly not returning to in person lectures tomorrow. She has gone a year without being permitted inside a uni building. They have not heard squat from the uni. (as of yesterday)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *omerset tvTV/TS
over a year ago

Weston-super-Mare

You cannot make somebody take a test its against your human rights even Govt cant do that. I get tested at work regulary but it is voluntary

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"You cannot make somebody take a test its against your human rights even Govt cant do that. I get tested at work regulary but it is voluntary "

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

I can't find a citation for it, my Google skills are failing me. But I was led down the rabbit hole of looking by remembering a criminal case - someone was prosecuted for stealing their blood sample from the police (and it was notable because normally you can't steal part of your own body, but this was an exception).

I am reasonably sure that there are both criminal and public health measures which would limit the right to consent to testing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *pursChick aka ShortieWoman
over a year ago

On a mooch


"You cannot make somebody take a test its against your human rights even Govt cant do that. I get tested at work regulary but it is voluntary "

It is the same for schools and parents, it’s voluntary and your consent or the child’s consent for testing can be withdrawn at anytime

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ocbigMan
over a year ago

Birmingham


"People are always at risk, from all sorts. Gonna ban sex because there’s risk of hiv and other diseases from that?

How about banning sunbathing, there’s risk of dying from that.

We’re at a point now where the unvaccinated are low enough risk to justify opening the world and not enforcing more complicated, expensive and prohibitive measures on already struggling buisnesses."

Not quite the same thing unless your company has a very relaxed attitude to ‘relationships ‘ between work colleagues & you can’t pass on skin cancer by being next to someone who has been sunbathing.

Statistically you may be correct that you are low risk of a poor outcome, but you don’t know that & you certainly don’t know potential outcomes for those you may infect. I don’t envy your position and I obviously don’t know you or your life.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"People are always at risk, from all sorts. Gonna ban sex because there’s risk of hiv and other diseases from that?

How about banning sunbathing, there’s risk of dying from that.

We’re at a point now where the unvaccinated are low enough risk to justify opening the world and not enforcing more complicated, expensive and prohibitive measures on already struggling buisnesses.

Not quite the same thing unless your company has a very relaxed attitude to ‘relationships ‘ between work colleagues & you can’t pass on skin cancer by being next to someone who has been sunbathing.

Statistically you may be correct that you are low risk of a poor outcome, but you don’t know that & you certainly don’t know potential outcomes for those you may infect. I don’t envy your position and I obviously don’t know you or your life."

People really don't get the whole "respiratory" and "communicable disease" thing, it seems

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The company i work for has bent the rules all the way through this.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reyyaMan
over a year ago

North Yorkshire


"Although cases of Covid are falling there still are areas where its rising.

The majority of these apparently are where people cannot work from home such as factories and building sites, supermarkets etc.

Should it be mandatory for companies to test workers regularly at the companies expense and supply the results to Government so that if there are breaches then the company is responsible?

A lot of companies are bending the rules or turning a blond eye. If the onus was on them perhaps the lockdown could be over sooner."

How in hell's name can a company or organisation be held responsible for somebody contracting the Covid-19 virus?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adame 2SwordsWoman
over a year ago

Victoria, London

Thought they were, its called HEALTH and safety. They could in theory be prosecuted by HSE.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Thought they were, its called HEALTH and safety. They could in theory be prosecuted by HSE. "

It's a bit like saying "how can we stop people from getting food poisoning? It's not like companies can make their employees wash their hands or the cooking equipment"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ocbigMan
over a year ago

Birmingham

Does this not fall into ‘taking reasonable steps’ type precautions?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Does this not fall into ‘taking reasonable steps’ type precautions?"

You'd think

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I’d 100% turn down every single test. I’m on a 11 hour a week contract and can only afford to live through over time. Any time off isolating would mean my bills will not be paid, so I’ll avoid every type of test going.

The reality is covid is never going away. High risk has been vaccinated, time to reopen society. Case numbers should be irrelevant, only hospitalisations. These should be plummeting now that the vast majority of the cause has been vaccinated. Let those who are paranoid live at home if they can afford to, but I can’t and shouldn’t be forced to suffer because of their fear.

What a selfish arrogant attitude you have. Truly shocking!!!! "

Is this person really selfish? Although he uses his own predicament as an example this is an issue that actually does not only affect him but millions more on 0hr contracts etc. His argument is just one more point for the great majority who's need for normality is moving ever closer to trumping the minorities need to stay isolated. To state that he is arrogant with no justification or counter argument is just blatant bad mouthing and against the rules of the forum. To think you have the right to do this because you believe that you are on the moral high ground is surely the epitome of arrogance! Therefore some would say that your post is actually the truly shocking one!

We await your considered counter argument with interest!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *losernow69Man
over a year ago

Melksham


"You cannot make somebody take a test its against your human rights even Govt cant do that. I get tested at work regulary but it is voluntary

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

I can't find a citation for it, my Google skills are failing me. But I was led down the rabbit hole of looking by remembering a criminal case - someone was prosecuted for stealing their blood sample from the police (and it was notable because normally you can't steal part of your own body, but this was an exception).

I am reasonably sure that there are both criminal and public health measures which would limit the right to consent to testing."

Wrong, you can refuse a test at any time, nothing has changed.

Its still covered under the 2010 Human Rights Act (think it is section 4) and the Nuremberg Code.

Children can not be refused an education if they do not want to have a test or wear a mask and that is in the governments guidelines.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"You cannot make somebody take a test its against your human rights even Govt cant do that. I get tested at work regulary but it is voluntary

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

I can't find a citation for it, my Google skills are failing me. But I was led down the rabbit hole of looking by remembering a criminal case - someone was prosecuted for stealing their blood sample from the police (and it was notable because normally you can't steal part of your own body, but this was an exception).

I am reasonably sure that there are both criminal and public health measures which would limit the right to consent to testing.

Wrong, you can refuse a test at any time, nothing has changed.

Its still covered under the 2010 Human Rights Act (think it is section 4) and the Nuremberg Code.

Children can not be refused an education if they do not want to have a test or wear a mask and that is in the governments guidelines."

Interesting, I know that people can be compelled to provide samples for, say, testing regarding drink driving.

I looked into it further, and it turns out that failing to consent to the test is the offence

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *losernow69Man
over a year ago

Melksham


"People are always at risk, from all sorts. Gonna ban sex because there’s risk of hiv and other diseases from that?

How about banning sunbathing, there’s risk of dying from that.

We’re at a point now where the unvaccinated are low enough risk to justify opening the world and not enforcing more complicated, expensive and prohibitive measures on already struggling buisnesses.

Not quite the same thing unless your company has a very relaxed attitude to ‘relationships ‘ between work colleagues & you can’t pass on skin cancer by being next to someone who has been sunbathing.

Statistically you may be correct that you are low risk of a poor outcome, but you don’t know that & you certainly don’t know potential outcomes for those you may infect. I don’t envy your position and I obviously don’t know you or your life.

People really don't get the whole "respiratory" and "communicable disease" thing, it seems "

If there have been 140,000 deaths from covid, and that is doubtful, its 0.2% of the population.

To any sensible person the steps taken are a completely over the top, unless there is an ulterior motive to put your country £2Trillion in debt to the banks.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *losernow69Man
over a year ago

Melksham


"You cannot make somebody take a test its against your human rights even Govt cant do that. I get tested at work regulary but it is voluntary

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

I can't find a citation for it, my Google skills are failing me. But I was led down the rabbit hole of looking by remembering a criminal case - someone was prosecuted for stealing their blood sample from the police (and it was notable because normally you can't steal part of your own body, but this was an exception).

I am reasonably sure that there are both criminal and public health measures which would limit the right to consent to testing.

Wrong, you can refuse a test at any time, nothing has changed.

Its still covered under the 2010 Human Rights Act (think it is section 4) and the Nuremberg Code.

Children can not be refused an education if they do not want to have a test or wear a mask and that is in the governments guidelines.

Interesting, I know that people can be compelled to provide samples for, say, testing regarding drink driving.

I looked into it further, and it turns out that failing to consent to the test is the offence "

Bullshit!

I know people who are still working and will not take the test.

A friend was in hospital and he would not.

You can not force someone to have an invasive medical procedure.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *losernow69Man
over a year ago

Melksham


"You cannot make somebody take a test its against your human rights even Govt cant do that. I get tested at work regulary but it is voluntary

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

I can't find a citation for it, my Google skills are failing me. But I was led down the rabbit hole of looking by remembering a criminal case - someone was prosecuted for stealing their blood sample from the police (and it was notable because normally you can't steal part of your own body, but this was an exception).

I am reasonably sure that there are both criminal and public health measures which would limit the right to consent to testing.

Wrong, you can refuse a test at any time, nothing has changed.

Its still covered under the 2010 Human Rights Act (think it is section 4) and the Nuremberg Code.

Children can not be refused an education if they do not want to have a test or wear a mask and that is in the governments guidelines.

Interesting, I know that people can be compelled to provide samples for, say, testing regarding drink driving.

I looked into it further, and it turns out that failing to consent to the test is the offence "

Also can you quote the act passed by parliament and which section?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"You cannot make somebody take a test its against your human rights even Govt cant do that. I get tested at work regulary but it is voluntary

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

I can't find a citation for it, my Google skills are failing me. But I was led down the rabbit hole of looking by remembering a criminal case - someone was prosecuted for stealing their blood sample from the police (and it was notable because normally you can't steal part of your own body, but this was an exception).

I am reasonably sure that there are both criminal and public health measures which would limit the right to consent to testing.

Wrong, you can refuse a test at any time, nothing has changed.

Its still covered under the 2010 Human Rights Act (think it is section 4) and the Nuremberg Code.

Children can not be refused an education if they do not want to have a test or wear a mask and that is in the governments guidelines.

Interesting, I know that people can be compelled to provide samples for, say, testing regarding drink driving.

I looked into it further, and it turns out that failing to consent to the test is the offence

Also can you quote the act passed by parliament and which section?"

Section 7A Road Traffic Act 1988 - Blood taking without consent

Yup, it's about impaired driving not Covid.

But precedent for testing without consent exists.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittleMissCaliWoman
over a year ago

all loved up

I've just started a new job. If we dont have a test once a week and the LFT before our shift we can not work.

Also been told that we must have the vaccine if we want to be employed ( I've already had the first dose so obviously happy to have it)

Whether they can make you or not. Well it's a condition of the contract

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *losernow69Man
over a year ago

Melksham


"You cannot make somebody take a test its against your human rights even Govt cant do that. I get tested at work regulary but it is voluntary

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

I can't find a citation for it, my Google skills are failing me. But I was led down the rabbit hole of looking by remembering a criminal case - someone was prosecuted for stealing their blood sample from the police (and it was notable because normally you can't steal part of your own body, but this was an exception).

I am reasonably sure that there are both criminal and public health measures which would limit the right to consent to testing.

Wrong, you can refuse a test at any time, nothing has changed.

Its still covered under the 2010 Human Rights Act (think it is section 4) and the Nuremberg Code.

Children can not be refused an education if they do not want to have a test or wear a mask and that is in the governments guidelines.

Interesting, I know that people can be compelled to provide samples for, say, testing regarding drink driving.

I looked into it further, and it turns out that failing to consent to the test is the offence

Also can you quote the act passed by parliament and which section?

Section 7A Road Traffic Act 1988 - Blood taking without consent

Yup, it's about impaired driving not Covid.

But precedent for testing without consent exists."

This covers a very specific set of conditions when the suspect is incapable of giving consent, and the sample has to be taken by a medical practitioner.

that is not the work place or kids at school. Any parents who are concerned about this have a look at democracy declaration.

The person whose post I have jumped onto performs like she is part of one of the government sponsored BIT organisations, so do be aware.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *losernow69Man
over a year ago

Melksham


"I've just started a new job. If we dont have a test once a week and the LFT before our shift we can not work.

Also been told that we must have the vaccine if we want to be employed ( I've already had the first dose so obviously happy to have it)

Whether they can make you or not. Well it's a condition of the contract"

It is an illegal clause, but sadly would take time and money to fight.

I do understand how difficult it is to fight these things and it is easier to comply.

But I would be worried that a company who has so little regard for the people it employees will treat you further down the line.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"You cannot make somebody take a test its against your human rights even Govt cant do that. I get tested at work regulary but it is voluntary

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

I can't find a citation for it, my Google skills are failing me. But I was led down the rabbit hole of looking by remembering a criminal case - someone was prosecuted for stealing their blood sample from the police (and it was notable because normally you can't steal part of your own body, but this was an exception).

I am reasonably sure that there are both criminal and public health measures which would limit the right to consent to testing.

Wrong, you can refuse a test at any time, nothing has changed.

Its still covered under the 2010 Human Rights Act (think it is section 4) and the Nuremberg Code.

Children can not be refused an education if they do not want to have a test or wear a mask and that is in the governments guidelines.

Interesting, I know that people can be compelled to provide samples for, say, testing regarding drink driving.

I looked into it further, and it turns out that failing to consent to the test is the offence

Also can you quote the act passed by parliament and which section?

Section 7A Road Traffic Act 1988 - Blood taking without consent

Yup, it's about impaired driving not Covid.

But precedent for testing without consent exists.

This covers a very specific set of conditions when the suspect is incapable of giving consent, and the sample has to be taken by a medical practitioner.

that is not the work place or kids at school. Any parents who are concerned about this have a look at democracy declaration.

The person whose post I have jumped onto performs like she is part of one of the government sponsored BIT organisations, so do be aware."

Looking at the CPS charging procedure, it's not an issue of capacity to give consent. Blood may be drawn *regardless* of consent.

Your idea that testing may never happen without consent is false - precedent exists.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittleMissCaliWoman
over a year ago

all loved up


"I've just started a new job. If we dont have a test once a week and the LFT before our shift we can not work.

Also been told that we must have the vaccine if we want to be employed ( I've already had the first dose so obviously happy to have it)

Whether they can make you or not. Well it's a condition of the contract

It is an illegal clause, but sadly would take time and money to fight.

I do understand how difficult it is to fight these things and it is easier to comply.

But I would be worried that a company who has so little regard for the people it employees will treat you further down the line."
actually it makes me feel better about working for them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"I've just started a new job. If we dont have a test once a week and the LFT before our shift we can not work.

Also been told that we must have the vaccine if we want to be employed ( I've already had the first dose so obviously happy to have it)

Whether they can make you or not. Well it's a condition of the contract

It is an illegal clause, but sadly would take time and money to fight.

I do understand how difficult it is to fight these things and it is easier to comply.

But I would be worried that a company who has so little regard for the people it employees will treat you further down the line."

I've been reading various commentaries on the issue, and the consensus seems to be shifting to the idea that mandating testing as a condition of employment is permissible in new contracts and mandating vaccination may be permissible.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *losernow69Man
over a year ago

Melksham


"You cannot make somebody take a test its against your human rights even Govt cant do that. I get tested at work regulary but it is voluntary

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

I can't find a citation for it, my Google skills are failing me. But I was led down the rabbit hole of looking by remembering a criminal case - someone was prosecuted for stealing their blood sample from the police (and it was notable because normally you can't steal part of your own body, but this was an exception).

I am reasonably sure that there are both criminal and public health measures which would limit the right to consent to testing.

Wrong, you can refuse a test at any time, nothing has changed.

Its still covered under the 2010 Human Rights Act (think it is section 4) and the Nuremberg Code.

Children can not be refused an education if they do not want to have a test or wear a mask and that is in the governments guidelines.

Interesting, I know that people can be compelled to provide samples for, say, testing regarding drink driving.

I looked into it further, and it turns out that failing to consent to the test is the offence

Also can you quote the act passed by parliament and which section?

Section 7A Road Traffic Act 1988 - Blood taking without consent

Yup, it's about impaired driving not Covid.

But precedent for testing without consent exists.

This covers a very specific set of conditions when the suspect is incapable of giving consent, and the sample has to be taken by a medical practitioner.

that is not the work place or kids at school. Any parents who are concerned about this have a look at democracy declaration.

The person whose post I have jumped onto performs like she is part of one of the government sponsored BIT organisations, so do be aware.

Looking at the CPS charging procedure, it's not an issue of capacity to give consent. Blood may be drawn *regardless* of consent.

Your idea that testing may never happen without consent is false - precedent exists."

I did not say it would never happen, but as the law stands, they cannot.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"You cannot make somebody take a test its against your human rights even Govt cant do that. I get tested at work regulary but it is voluntary

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

I can't find a citation for it, my Google skills are failing me. But I was led down the rabbit hole of looking by remembering a criminal case - someone was prosecuted for stealing their blood sample from the police (and it was notable because normally you can't steal part of your own body, but this was an exception).

I am reasonably sure that there are both criminal and public health measures which would limit the right to consent to testing.

Wrong, you can refuse a test at any time, nothing has changed.

Its still covered under the 2010 Human Rights Act (think it is section 4) and the Nuremberg Code.

Children can not be refused an education if they do not want to have a test or wear a mask and that is in the governments guidelines.

Interesting, I know that people can be compelled to provide samples for, say, testing regarding drink driving.

I looked into it further, and it turns out that failing to consent to the test is the offence

Also can you quote the act passed by parliament and which section?

Section 7A Road Traffic Act 1988 - Blood taking without consent

Yup, it's about impaired driving not Covid.

But precedent for testing without consent exists.

This covers a very specific set of conditions when the suspect is incapable of giving consent, and the sample has to be taken by a medical practitioner.

that is not the work place or kids at school. Any parents who are concerned about this have a look at democracy declaration.

The person whose post I have jumped onto performs like she is part of one of the government sponsored BIT organisations, so do be aware.

Looking at the CPS charging procedure, it's not an issue of capacity to give consent. Blood may be drawn *regardless* of consent.

Your idea that testing may never happen without consent is false - precedent exists.

I did not say it would never happen, but as the law stands, they cannot.

"

So the Nuremberg code doesn't apply to suspected d*unk drivers?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *losernow69Man
over a year ago

Melksham


"I've just started a new job. If we dont have a test once a week and the LFT before our shift we can not work.

Also been told that we must have the vaccine if we want to be employed ( I've already had the first dose so obviously happy to have it)

Whether they can make you or not. Well it's a condition of the contract

It is an illegal clause, but sadly would take time and money to fight.

I do understand how difficult it is to fight these things and it is easier to comply.

But I would be worried that a company who has so little regard for the people it employees will treat you further down the line.

I've been reading various commentaries on the issue, and the consensus seems to be shifting to the idea that mandating testing as a condition of employment is permissible in new contracts and mandating vaccination may be permissible. "

At this point it is not law.

Of course the crooks in westminster want it to be law, along with all the other acts of oppression they want to bring in.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"I've just started a new job. If we dont have a test once a week and the LFT before our shift we can not work.

Also been told that we must have the vaccine if we want to be employed ( I've already had the first dose so obviously happy to have it)

Whether they can make you or not. Well it's a condition of the contract

It is an illegal clause, but sadly would take time and money to fight.

I do understand how difficult it is to fight these things and it is easier to comply.

But I would be worried that a company who has so little regard for the people it employees will treat you further down the line.

I've been reading various commentaries on the issue, and the consensus seems to be shifting to the idea that mandating testing as a condition of employment is permissible in new contracts and mandating vaccination may be permissible.

At this point it is not law.

Of course the crooks in westminster want it to be law, along with all the other acts of oppression they want to bring in."

Various law firms up and down the country disagree with your interpretation. (Obviously I can't link due to Fab rules)

It'll obviously be tested at some point, but the relevant experts on the matter believe that it might be permissible or worth testing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *losernow69Man
over a year ago

Melksham


"You cannot make somebody take a test its against your human rights even Govt cant do that. I get tested at work regulary but it is voluntary

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

I can't find a citation for it, my Google skills are failing me. But I was led down the rabbit hole of looking by remembering a criminal case - someone was prosecuted for stealing their blood sample from the police (and it was notable because normally you can't steal part of your own body, but this was an exception).

I am reasonably sure that there are both criminal and public health measures which would limit the right to consent to testing.

Wrong, you can refuse a test at any time, nothing has changed.

Its still covered under the 2010 Human Rights Act (think it is section 4) and the Nuremberg Code.

Children can not be refused an education if they do not want to have a test or wear a mask and that is in the governments guidelines.

Interesting, I know that people can be compelled to provide samples for, say, testing regarding drink driving.

I looked into it further, and it turns out that failing to consent to the test is the offence

Also can you quote the act passed by parliament and which section?

Section 7A Road Traffic Act 1988 - Blood taking without consent

Yup, it's about impaired driving not Covid.

But precedent for testing without consent exists.

This covers a very specific set of conditions when the suspect is incapable of giving consent, and the sample has to be taken by a medical practitioner.

that is not the work place or kids at school. Any parents who are concerned about this have a look at democracy declaration.

The person whose post I have jumped onto performs like she is part of one of the government sponsored BIT organisations, so do be aware.

Looking at the CPS charging procedure, it's not an issue of capacity to give consent. Blood may be drawn *regardless* of consent.

Your idea that testing may never happen without consent is false - precedent exists.

I did not say it would never happen, but as the law stands, they cannot.

So the Nuremberg code doesn't apply to suspected d*unk drivers?

"

I am sure you are from a BIT organisation.

If you are happy for someone who does not want a jab or a test, to have to have one by force, that is a very dark place we are all going to go to.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *losernow69Man
over a year ago

Melksham


"I've just started a new job. If we dont have a test once a week and the LFT before our shift we can not work.

Also been told that we must have the vaccine if we want to be employed ( I've already had the first dose so obviously happy to have it)

Whether they can make you or not. Well it's a condition of the contract

It is an illegal clause, but sadly would take time and money to fight.

I do understand how difficult it is to fight these things and it is easier to comply.

But I would be worried that a company who has so little regard for the people it employees will treat you further down the line.

I've been reading various commentaries on the issue, and the consensus seems to be shifting to the idea that mandating testing as a condition of employment is permissible in new contracts and mandating vaccination may be permissible.

At this point it is not law.

Of course the crooks in westminster want it to be law, along with all the other acts of oppression they want to bring in.

Various law firms up and down the country disagree with your interpretation. (Obviously I can't link due to Fab rules)

It'll obviously be tested at some point, but the relevant experts on the matter believe that it might be permissible or worth testing."

Law firms as always, will be rubbing their hands together.

However, do you not think there will be companies that will start up, or change their policy to only have people working for them who have not had the jab?

I hope we don't get to the point where the country is split, but I would not be surprised.

Why the word civil is used during a conflict between the people of one country I will never now, as they are far from civil and are always some of the most brutal.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"I've just started a new job. If we dont have a test once a week and the LFT before our shift we can not work.

Also been told that we must have the vaccine if we want to be employed ( I've already had the first dose so obviously happy to have it)

Whether they can make you or not. Well it's a condition of the contract

It is an illegal clause, but sadly would take time and money to fight.

I do understand how difficult it is to fight these things and it is easier to comply.

But I would be worried that a company who has so little regard for the people it employees will treat you further down the line.

I've been reading various commentaries on the issue, and the consensus seems to be shifting to the idea that mandating testing as a condition of employment is permissible in new contracts and mandating vaccination may be permissible.

At this point it is not law.

Of course the crooks in westminster want it to be law, along with all the other acts of oppression they want to bring in.

Various law firms up and down the country disagree with your interpretation. (Obviously I can't link due to Fab rules)

It'll obviously be tested at some point, but the relevant experts on the matter believe that it might be permissible or worth testing.

Law firms as always, will be rubbing their hands together.

However, do you not think there will be companies that will start up, or change their policy to only have people working for them who have not had the jab?

I hope we don't get to the point where the country is split, but I would not be surprised.

Why the word civil is used during a conflict between the people of one country I will never now, as they are far from civil and are always some of the most brutal."

Law firms put out information on the law and want to be seen as reliable. They're useful to get a general sense of what the law might be and what problems might arise, when you look at the commentary they provide on their websites.

I do think some companies will try to do that.

I have no idea what civil war has to do with anything.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittleMissCaliWoman
over a year ago

all loved up


"I've just started a new job. If we dont have a test once a week and the LFT before our shift we can not work.

Also been told that we must have the vaccine if we want to be employed ( I've already had the first dose so obviously happy to have it)

Whether they can make you or not. Well it's a condition of the contract

It is an illegal clause, but sadly would take time and money to fight.

I do understand how difficult it is to fight these things and it is easier to comply.

But I would be worried that a company who has so little regard for the people it employees will treat you further down the line.

I've been reading various commentaries on the issue, and the consensus seems to be shifting to the idea that mandating testing as a condition of employment is permissible in new contracts and mandating vaccination may be permissible.

At this point it is not law.

Of course the crooks in westminster want it to be law, along with all the other acts of oppression they want to bring in.

Various law firms up and down the country disagree with your interpretation. (Obviously I can't link due to Fab rules)

It'll obviously be tested at some point, but the relevant experts on the matter believe that it might be permissible or worth testing."
I had no issues at all with it being part of my contract.. as makes total sense. It isn't forcing anyone to have it.. its part of the job description so I knew before I even applied that if accepted I would have to be happy with being tested weekly on a pcr test and before every shift with a LFT.

As I've been doing it off my own back or for a research project for much of the past year.. and I'd already had my vaccine.. what more does It matter. I have nursing friends who have to have various vaccines to work. This is no different. I've had jobs that required me to have an up to date tetanus jab... is there really any difference.

We also all have to wear masks, gloves and aprons. And in some areas full PPE. The tests are just a further part of that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *losernow69Man
over a year ago

Melksham


"I've just started a new job. If we dont have a test once a week and the LFT before our shift we can not work.

Also been told that we must have the vaccine if we want to be employed ( I've already had the first dose so obviously happy to have it)

Whether they can make you or not. Well it's a condition of the contract

It is an illegal clause, but sadly would take time and money to fight.

I do understand how difficult it is to fight these things and it is easier to comply.

But I would be worried that a company who has so little regard for the people it employees will treat you further down the line.

I've been reading various commentaries on the issue, and the consensus seems to be shifting to the idea that mandating testing as a condition of employment is permissible in new contracts and mandating vaccination may be permissible.

At this point it is not law.

Of course the crooks in westminster want it to be law, along with all the other acts of oppression they want to bring in.

Various law firms up and down the country disagree with your interpretation. (Obviously I can't link due to Fab rules)

It'll obviously be tested at some point, but the relevant experts on the matter believe that it might be permissible or worth testing.

Law firms as always, will be rubbing their hands together.

However, do you not think there will be companies that will start up, or change their policy to only have people working for them who have not had the jab?

I hope we don't get to the point where the country is split, but I would not be surprised.

Why the word civil is used during a conflict between the people of one country I will never now, as they are far from civil and are always some of the most brutal.

Law firms put out information on the law and want to be seen as reliable. They're useful to get a general sense of what the law might be and what problems might arise, when you look at the commentary they provide on their websites.

I do think some companies will try to do that.

I have no idea what civil war has to do with anything."

If governments start changing peoples lives, pushing people in a direction they do not want to go and forcing medical procedures on their children, don't you think there will be a reaction?

while others are happy to go along with Then you have the other group who seem quite happy for all this to happen and are more than happy to follow the message pumped out by westminster.

That is a divided nation and is a tinder box.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *losernow69Man
over a year ago

Melksham


"I've just started a new job. If we dont have a test once a week and the LFT before our shift we can not work.

Also been told that we must have the vaccine if we want to be employed ( I've already had the first dose so obviously happy to have it)

Whether they can make you or not. Well it's a condition of the contract

It is an illegal clause, but sadly would take time and money to fight.

I do understand how difficult it is to fight these things and it is easier to comply.

But I would be worried that a company who has so little regard for the people it employees will treat you further down the line.

I've been reading various commentaries on the issue, and the consensus seems to be shifting to the idea that mandating testing as a condition of employment is permissible in new contracts and mandating vaccination may be permissible.

At this point it is not law.

Of course the crooks in westminster want it to be law, along with all the other acts of oppression they want to bring in.

Various law firms up and down the country disagree with your interpretation. (Obviously I can't link due to Fab rules)

It'll obviously be tested at some point, but the relevant experts on the matter believe that it might be permissible or worth testing. I had no issues at all with it being part of my contract.. as makes total sense. It isn't forcing anyone to have it.. its part of the job description so I knew before I even applied that if accepted I would have to be happy with being tested weekly on a pcr test and before every shift with a LFT.

As I've been doing it off my own back or for a research project for much of the past year.. and I'd already had my vaccine.. what more does It matter. I have nursing friends who have to have various vaccines to work. This is no different. I've had jobs that required me to have an up to date tetanus jab... is there really any difference.

We also all have to wear masks, gloves and aprons. And in some areas full PPE. The tests are just a further part of that.

"

As long as you are happy, good luck.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"I've just started a new job. If we dont have a test once a week and the LFT before our shift we can not work.

Also been told that we must have the vaccine if we want to be employed ( I've already had the first dose so obviously happy to have it)

Whether they can make you or not. Well it's a condition of the contract

It is an illegal clause, but sadly would take time and money to fight.

I do understand how difficult it is to fight these things and it is easier to comply.

But I would be worried that a company who has so little regard for the people it employees will treat you further down the line.

I've been reading various commentaries on the issue, and the consensus seems to be shifting to the idea that mandating testing as a condition of employment is permissible in new contracts and mandating vaccination may be permissible.

At this point it is not law.

Of course the crooks in westminster want it to be law, along with all the other acts of oppression they want to bring in.

Various law firms up and down the country disagree with your interpretation. (Obviously I can't link due to Fab rules)

It'll obviously be tested at some point, but the relevant experts on the matter believe that it might be permissible or worth testing.

Law firms as always, will be rubbing their hands together.

However, do you not think there will be companies that will start up, or change their policy to only have people working for them who have not had the jab?

I hope we don't get to the point where the country is split, but I would not be surprised.

Why the word civil is used during a conflict between the people of one country I will never now, as they are far from civil and are always some of the most brutal.

Law firms put out information on the law and want to be seen as reliable. They're useful to get a general sense of what the law might be and what problems might arise, when you look at the commentary they provide on their websites.

I do think some companies will try to do that.

I have no idea what civil war has to do with anything.

If governments start changing peoples lives, pushing people in a direction they do not want to go and forcing medical procedures on their children, don't you think there will be a reaction?

while others are happy to go along with Then you have the other group who seem quite happy for all this to happen and are more than happy to follow the message pumped out by westminster.

That is a divided nation and is a tinder box."

I don't think most people will be bothered. I think most reasonable people regard testing and vaccination as a way to get lives back.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *losernow69Man
over a year ago

Melksham


"I've just started a new job. If we dont have a test once a week and the LFT before our shift we can not work.

Also been told that we must have the vaccine if we want to be employed ( I've already had the first dose so obviously happy to have it)

Whether they can make you or not. Well it's a condition of the contract

It is an illegal clause, but sadly would take time and money to fight.

I do understand how difficult it is to fight these things and it is easier to comply.

But I would be worried that a company who has so little regard for the people it employees will treat you further down the line.

I've been reading various commentaries on the issue, and the consensus seems to be shifting to the idea that mandating testing as a condition of employment is permissible in new contracts and mandating vaccination may be permissible.

At this point it is not law.

Of course the crooks in westminster want it to be law, along with all the other acts of oppression they want to bring in.

Various law firms up and down the country disagree with your interpretation. (Obviously I can't link due to Fab rules)

It'll obviously be tested at some point, but the relevant experts on the matter believe that it might be permissible or worth testing.

Law firms as always, will be rubbing their hands together.

However, do you not think there will be companies that will start up, or change their policy to only have people working for them who have not had the jab?

I hope we don't get to the point where the country is split, but I would not be surprised.

Why the word civil is used during a conflict between the people of one country I will never now, as they are far from civil and are always some of the most brutal.

Law firms put out information on the law and want to be seen as reliable. They're useful to get a general sense of what the law might be and what problems might arise, when you look at the commentary they provide on their websites.

I do think some companies will try to do that.

I have no idea what civil war has to do with anything.

If governments start changing peoples lives, pushing people in a direction they do not want to go and forcing medical procedures on their children, don't you think there will be a reaction?

while others are happy to go along with Then you have the other group who seem quite happy for all this to happen and are more than happy to follow the message pumped out by westminster.

That is a divided nation and is a tinder box.

I don't think most people will be bothered. I think most reasonable people regard testing and vaccination as a way to get lives back."

If you think you will ever let us get back to what we had before you are insane, or from a BIT organisation or both!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittleMissCaliWoman
over a year ago

all loved up


"

Hygiene should always be a priority but if you try to live in sterile environment your immune system will not have anything to fight and then if/when you come into contact with something that attacks your immune system it will be in a poor state to fight it.

Tell me, do you use anti bacterial liquids/gels? If so were you using them before March last year? "
I am well aware that you need to be in contact with some things. And yes when travelling on the underground or places I could not wash my hands, I'd used gels prior to this.

I've got a very good understanding of how things are transmitted and how to prevent them as best we can.. due to being the mother of a child with a compromised immune system... so may not have a degree in microbiology but have read an awful lot over the 24 years I've had to protect her for. Hence my understanding of many aspects of how viruses spread as how else can I try to prevent them entering my home.

Its not like I can have a decontamination unit at the front door... I've not gone as far as wiping all the food shopping, or changing clothes when I get in etc. But I've always been hot on not touching touch points if I could help it and regular hand washing.

I nearly lost her at 6 years old to a respiratory viral infection... no way am I risking her catching covid 19

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *pooksMan
over a year ago

stockport


"

Hygiene should always be a priority but if you try to live in sterile environment your immune system will not have anything to fight and then if/when you come into contact with something that attacks your immune system it will be in a poor state to fight it.

Tell me, do you use anti bacterial liquids/gels? If so were you using them before March last year? I am well aware that you need to be in contact with some things. And yes when travelling on the underground or places I could not wash my hands, I'd used gels prior to this.

I've got a very good understanding of how things are transmitted and how to prevent them as best we can.. due to being the mother of a child with a compromised immune system... so may not have a degree in microbiology but have read an awful lot over the 24 years I've had to protect her for. Hence my understanding of many aspects of how viruses spread as how else can I try to prevent them entering my home.

Its not like I can have a decontamination unit at the front door... I've not gone as far as wiping all the food shopping, or changing clothes when I get in etc. But I've always been hot on not touching touch points if I could help it and regular hand washing.

I nearly lost her at 6 years old to a respiratory viral infection... no way am I risking her catching covid 19"

I understand your caution and appreciate what you’re saying but there’s so many other things to consider. Did you say you’ve had the jab?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittleMissCaliWoman
over a year ago

all loved up


"

Hygiene should always be a priority but if you try to live in sterile environment your immune system will not have anything to fight and then if/when you come into contact with something that attacks your immune system it will be in a poor state to fight it.

Tell me, do you use anti bacterial liquids/gels? If so were you using them before March last year? I am well aware that you need to be in contact with some things. And yes when travelling on the underground or places I could not wash my hands, I'd used gels prior to this.

I've got a very good understanding of how things are transmitted and how to prevent them as best we can.. due to being the mother of a child with a compromised immune system... so may not have a degree in microbiology but have read an awful lot over the 24 years I've had to protect her for. Hence my understanding of many aspects of how viruses spread as how else can I try to prevent them entering my home.

Its not like I can have a decontamination unit at the front door... I've not gone as far as wiping all the food shopping, or changing clothes when I get in etc. But I've always been hot on not touching touch points if I could help it and regular hand washing.

I nearly lost her at 6 years old to a respiratory viral infection... no way am I risking her catching covid 19

I understand your caution and appreciate what you’re saying but there’s so many other things to consider. Did you say you’ve had the jab?"

We both have had our first. I get my 2nd in a few weeks thankfully

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittleMissCaliWoman
over a year ago

all loved up


"

Perhaps you should look at who it is that’s disproving these theories and saying they’re false.

Think you’ll find it’s the same people who have a vested interest in selling the cure to the problem. "

This is a dangerous way of thinking. It really is. The amount of people I have to help see through the conspiracy theories to realise that there is a light . I've been on top of this since the start and at the beginning I to be honest thought it would be over and done with in months at most... I was wrong and I educated myself and got myself in a position where I could be part of the solution.

So please if this is what you truly believe I worry for you.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ocbigMan
over a year ago

Birmingham

This is nearly as much fun as the seatbelt thread.

I am no scientist but I have developed a range of simple questions to help me out.

If this virus doesn’t exist, can’t be isolated & isn’t able to live outside the body..then what is killing people?

Corollary...how?

Why would a country (world) put itself trillions in debt to the banks?.

Corollary...where do the banks get that ‘money?’

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *moothdickMan
over a year ago

stoke

Do u still have to get tested if you’ve had the jab? If so, what use is the jab ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"This is nearly as much fun as the seatbelt thread.

I am no scientist but I have developed a range of simple questions to help me out.

If this virus doesn’t exist, can’t be isolated & isn’t able to live outside the body..then what is killing people?

Corollary...how?

Why would a country (world) put itself trillions in debt to the banks?.

Corollary...where do the banks get that ‘money?’"

Terrain theory holds that disease comes from within the body, and what we think of as pathogens are artefacts of disease.

It made sense as an alternative to germ theory when we were figuring this shit out in the nineteenth century.

But, y'know, then science progressed somewhat, and now it's... umm. Fringe and unsupported

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ocbigMan
over a year ago

Birmingham

Thank you...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reyyaMan
over a year ago

North Yorkshire

Completely impractical to the nth degree. It sounds like the sort of thing Mr Johnson would "roll out" one day and cancel the next.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittleMissCaliWoman
over a year ago

all loved up


"Do u still have to get tested if you’ve had the jab? If so, what use is the jab ? "
yes and please do you really honestly need that explaining

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reyyaMan
over a year ago

North Yorkshire


"This is nearly as much fun as the seatbelt thread.

I am no scientist but I have developed a range of simple questions to help me out.

If this virus doesn’t exist, can’t be isolated & isn’t able to live outside the body..then what is killing people?

Corollary...how?

Why would a country (world) put itself trillions in debt to the banks?.

Corollary...where do the banks get that ‘money?’"

Some would say we have been conned. The bank probably has a huge printing machine producing banknotes 24 hours a day. You borrow the "paper" to buy your house or car. You default on your payments. The bank seizes your house and car. Voila! The bank has turned "paper" into tangible assets. What was previously your bricks and mortar home and your car now belong to the bank.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reyyaMan
over a year ago

North Yorkshire

Which the bank proceeds to sell for money. The money the bank loaned you was just an entry on a ledger.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reyyaMan
over a year ago

North Yorkshire

The money did not exist. Just an entry in a ledger and you tied up in red tape.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_couple2020Couple
over a year ago

North West

Anymore conspiracies theories? Get 'em all out of your system, folks! We've not heard about the galactic federation on this one yet - remiss, perhaps?!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Anymore conspiracies theories? Get 'em all out of your system, folks! We've not heard about the galactic federation on this one yet - remiss, perhaps?!"

Corporation of the United States? The secret ongoing presidency of Trump? Transhuman vaccines?

Bingo anyone?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittleMissCaliWoman
over a year ago

all loved up


"Anymore conspiracies theories? Get 'em all out of your system, folks! We've not heard about the galactic federation on this one yet - remiss, perhaps?!"

I was actually looking back at old posts of mine the other day and realised a year ago the conspiracy theories seemed funny and only the odd person spouting them. In fact a site I was on had a prize for the best made up conspiracy theory about the virus. At the time their was an asteroid going to come close to the earth and my suggestion was that maybe it was made up so we wouldn't notice the rich and famous hiding in their bunkers. It feels much less funny now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Anymore conspiracies theories? Get 'em all out of your system, folks! We've not heard about the galactic federation on this one yet - remiss, perhaps?!

I was actually looking back at old posts of mine the other day and realised a year ago the conspiracy theories seemed funny and only the odd person spouting them. In fact a site I was on had a prize for the best made up conspiracy theory about the virus. At the time their was an asteroid going to come close to the earth and my suggestion was that maybe it was made up so we wouldn't notice the rich and famous hiding in their bunkers. It feels much less funny now. "

I've been following conspiracy theories for years.

It's so much less funny now

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_couple2020Couple
over a year ago

North West


"Anymore conspiracies theories? Get 'em all out of your system, folks! We've not heard about the galactic federation on this one yet - remiss, perhaps?!

I was actually looking back at old posts of mine the other day and realised a year ago the conspiracy theories seemed funny and only the odd person spouting them. In fact a site I was on had a prize for the best made up conspiracy theory about the virus. At the time their was an asteroid going to come close to the earth and my suggestion was that maybe it was made up so we wouldn't notice the rich and famous hiding in their bunkers. It feels much less funny now. "

I think the closer they get to home, the more concerning and less amusing they become. They've been close to home for me for many years and came to a head on 25th January. I can't abide them at all

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Anymore conspiracies theories? Get 'em all out of your system, folks! We've not heard about the galactic federation on this one yet - remiss, perhaps?!

I was actually looking back at old posts of mine the other day and realised a year ago the conspiracy theories seemed funny and only the odd person spouting them. In fact a site I was on had a prize for the best made up conspiracy theory about the virus. At the time their was an asteroid going to come close to the earth and my suggestion was that maybe it was made up so we wouldn't notice the rich and famous hiding in their bunkers. It feels much less funny now.

I think the closer they get to home, the more concerning and less amusing they become. They've been close to home for me for many years and came to a head on 25th January. I can't abide them at all "

(Hugs)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittleMissCaliWoman
over a year ago

all loved up


"Anymore conspiracies theories? Get 'em all out of your system, folks! We've not heard about the galactic federation on this one yet - remiss, perhaps?!

I was actually looking back at old posts of mine the other day and realised a year ago the conspiracy theories seemed funny and only the odd person spouting them. In fact a site I was on had a prize for the best made up conspiracy theory about the virus. At the time their was an asteroid going to come close to the earth and my suggestion was that maybe it was made up so we wouldn't notice the rich and famous hiding in their bunkers. It feels much less funny now.

I think the closer they get to home, the more concerning and less amusing they become. They've been close to home for me for many years and came to a head on 25th January. I can't abide them at all "
your posts about this made my little bit of tolerance to those with outlandish thinking disappear.. hugs x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reyyaMan
over a year ago

North Yorkshire


"Do u still have to get tested if you’ve had the jab? If so, what use is the jab ? "

Safeguarding us a big "buzz" word at the moment. The general populace at large going about their daily business and being made aware of the "benefits" of having the jab and the word safeguarding popping up everywhere and being reminded of jabs received as a child to prevent contracting various diseases naturally assumes this jab will prevent contracting the disease. However the pharma companies are expressly excluded from any liability should you contract the disease or any long-term effects. Including succumbing to the disease. So, the safeguarding effect of the jab is nil. You can contract the disease, spread the disease, be a carrier of the disease spreading it without being aware of this fact. You must decide for yourself what are the safeguarding benefits of the jab.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Do u still have to get tested if you’ve had the jab? If so, what use is the jab ?

Safeguarding us a big "buzz" word at the moment. The general populace at large going about their daily business and being made aware of the "benefits" of having the jab and the word safeguarding popping up everywhere and being reminded of jabs received as a child to prevent contracting various diseases naturally assumes this jab will prevent contracting the disease. However the pharma companies are expressly excluded from any liability should you contract the disease or any long-term effects. Including succumbing to the disease. So, the safeguarding effect of the jab is nil. You can contract the disease, spread the disease, be a carrier of the disease spreading it without being aware of this fact. You must decide for yourself what are the safeguarding benefits of the jab. "

I've decided for myself, based on science rather than nonsense.

Bring on the jab. Protect me, protect others

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_couple2020Couple
over a year ago

North West

Safeguarding is not a buzzword. It's our responsibility as citizens to look after not only ourselves, but our neighbours and fellow citizens. That's why isolating where required, getting tests where required and following the rules is important. It's not just about me or you. It's about us all.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Safeguarding is not a buzzword. It's our responsibility as citizens to look after not only ourselves, but our neighbours and fellow citizens. That's why isolating where required, getting tests where required and following the rules is important. It's not just about me or you. It's about us all."

To me safeguarding is about a duty of care to our most vulnerable people, which is a much broader responsibility than vaccination.

I see vaccination and suppression of dangerous disease as my civic duty, being community minded. Idgaf how it's worded. We all do our bit to help each other - and in a public health emergency, it does depend on all of us.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ocbigMan
over a year ago

Birmingham


"The money did not exist. Just an entry in a ledger and you tied up in red tape. "

So we can just strike the ledger & the debt disappears then. If you can make something that doesn’t exist disappear..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"The money did not exist. Just an entry in a ledger and you tied up in red tape.

So we can just strike the ledger & the debt disappears then. If you can make something that doesn’t exist disappear.."

I think of money as being a symbol for goods and services swapping. Even if there's no physical currency, it still exists.

I do know jiggery pokery can happen at a governmental level, but that doesn't make it conspiracy stuff (it just means that Swing don't extend to economics )

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've not seen any news / evidence to support the original claim. I work in a factory with 2000+ staff and we have strict ppe and distancing rules in place.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ocbigMan
over a year ago

Birmingham


"The money did not exist. Just an entry in a ledger and you tied up in red tape.

So we can just strike the ledger & the debt disappears then. If you can make something that doesn’t exist disappear..

I think of money as being a symbol for goods and services swapping. Even if there's no physical currency, it still exists.

I do know jiggery pokery can happen at a governmental level, but that doesn't make it conspiracy stuff (it just means that Swing don't extend to economics )"

But oddly no answer from the OP....‘twas ever thus..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"The money did not exist. Just an entry in a ledger and you tied up in red tape.

So we can just strike the ledger & the debt disappears then. If you can make something that doesn’t exist disappear..

I think of money as being a symbol for goods and services swapping. Even if there's no physical currency, it still exists.

I do know jiggery pokery can happen at a governmental level, but that doesn't make it conspiracy stuff (it just means that Swing don't extend to economics )

But oddly no answer from the OP....‘twas ever thus.."

Funny that.

People seem to want debate... but we bring robust argument and they retreat.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I’m sorry but what companies are ‘bending the rules’ exactly?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ottoncandy42Woman
over a year ago

Northampton

The government has offered all companies free testing for all staff on site. If the company doesn’t take it up then they are asking for trouble.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *BWarksCouple
over a year ago

warwick


"Although cases of Covid are falling there still are areas where its rising.

The majority of these apparently are where people cannot work from home such as factories and building sites, supermarkets etc.

Should it be mandatory for companies to test workers regularly at the companies expense and supply the results to Government so that if there are breaches then the company is responsible?

A lot of companies are bending the rules or turning a blond eye. If the onus was on them perhaps the lockdown could be over sooner."

No need for the testing, we’ll never be rid of the virus but most will be vaccinated and the hospitals will cope ..... back to normal now

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I’m sorry but what companies are ‘bending the rules’ exactly?"

The one I work for i can assure you.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *losernow69Man
over a year ago

Melksham


"

Perhaps you should look at who it is that’s disproving these theories and saying they’re false.

Think you’ll find it’s the same people who have a vested interest in selling the cure to the problem.

This is a dangerous way of thinking. It really is. The amount of people I have to help see through the conspiracy theories to realise that there is a light . I've been on top of this since the start and at the beginning I to be honest thought it would be over and done with in months at most... I was wrong and I educated myself and got myself in a position where I could be part of the solution.

So please if this is what you truly believe I worry for you. "

Always follow the money

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *losernow69Man
over a year ago

Melksham


"The government has offered all companies free testing for all staff on site. If the company doesn’t take it up then they are asking for trouble. "

Why are they asking for trouble?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan
over a year ago

Hastings


"Although cases of Covid are falling there still are areas where its rising.

The majority of these apparently are where people cannot work from home such as factories and building sites, supermarkets etc.

Should it be mandatory for companies to test workers regularly at the companies expense and supply the results to Government so that if there are breaches then the company is responsible?

A lot of companies are bending the rules or turning a blond eye. If the onus was on them perhaps the lockdown could be over sooner.

No need for the testing, we’ll never be rid of the virus but most will be vaccinated and the hospitals will cope ..... back to normal now "

So when do you think all over 16 will be tested with both jabs I'm 53 not been offerd first as yet and if a winter booster is needed could be some time befor we get to every one

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan
over a year ago

Hastings


"I’m sorry but what companies are ‘bending the rules’ exactly?"

Could not even tell you what the rules are work in manufacturing we have just carried on just have to where a mask. Not a big company about 30 of us in the building

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *herryblossom_BJWoman
over a year ago

Oxfordshire/Hampshire

nope my boyfriend and i work away from home and get tested weekly

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Although cases of Covid are falling there still are areas where its rising.

The majority of these apparently are where people cannot work from home such as factories and building sites, supermarkets etc.

Should it be mandatory for companies to test workers regularly at the companies expense and supply the results to Government so that if there are breaches then the company is responsible?

A lot of companies are bending the rules or turning a blond eye. If the onus was on them perhaps the lockdown could be over sooner.

No need for the testing, we’ll never be rid of the virus but most will be vaccinated and the hospitals will cope ..... back to normal now

So when do you think all over 16 will be tested with both jabs I'm 53 not been offerd first as yet and if a winter booster is needed could be some time befor we get to every one "

They were offering early 60s in my area last week.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan
over a year ago

Hastings

I was asked if I wanted to take 7 days holiday of my 17 days isolating after a posativ test as the company can only get 10 days back from the government.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_couple2020Couple
over a year ago

North West

Anyone age 56 and over can book through the NHS website or 16-64 with a qualifying health condition: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/08/when-will-i-be-offered-coronavirus-vaccine-uk-covid

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan
over a year ago

Hastings


"Although cases of Covid are falling there still are areas where its rising.

The majority of these apparently are where people cannot work from home such as factories and building sites, supermarkets etc.

Should it be mandatory for companies to test workers regularly at the companies expense and supply the results to Government so that if there are breaches then the company is responsible?

A lot of companies are bending the rules or turning a blond eye. If the onus was on them perhaps the lockdown could be over sooner.

No need for the testing, we’ll never be rid of the virus but most will be vaccinated and the hospitals will cope ..... back to normal now

So when do you think all over 16 will be tested with both jabs I'm 53 not been offerd first as yet and if a winter booster is needed could be some time befor we get to every one

They were offering early 60s in my area last week."

So when do you think everyone will have had both jabs 2022 some time

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Although cases of Covid are falling there still are areas where its rising.

The majority of these apparently are where people cannot work from home such as factories and building sites, supermarkets etc.

Should it be mandatory for companies to test workers regularly at the companies expense and supply the results to Government so that if there are breaches then the company is responsible?

A lot of companies are bending the rules or turning a blond eye. If the onus was on them perhaps the lockdown could be over sooner.

No need for the testing, we’ll never be rid of the virus but most will be vaccinated and the hospitals will cope ..... back to normal now

So when do you think all over 16 will be tested with both jabs I'm 53 not been offerd first as yet and if a winter booster is needed could be some time befor we get to every one

They were offering early 60s in my area last week.

So when do you think everyone will have had both jabs 2022 some time "

October, most likely.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan
over a year ago

Hastings


"Although cases of Covid are falling there still are areas where its rising.

The majority of these apparently are where people cannot work from home such as factories and building sites, supermarkets etc.

Should it be mandatory for companies to test workers regularly at the companies expense and supply the results to Government so that if there are breaches then the company is responsible?

A lot of companies are bending the rules or turning a blond eye. If the onus was on them perhaps the lockdown could be over sooner.

No need for the testing, we’ll never be rid of the virus but most will be vaccinated and the hospitals will cope ..... back to normal now

So when do you think all over 16 will be tested with both jabs I'm 53 not been offerd first as yet and if a winter booster is needed could be some time befor we get to every one

They were offering early 60s in my area last week.

So when do you think everyone will have had both jabs 2022 some time

October, most likely."

What do all over 16 years with both jabs.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Although cases of Covid are falling there still are areas where its rising.

The majority of these apparently are where people cannot work from home such as factories and building sites, supermarkets etc.

Should it be mandatory for companies to test workers regularly at the companies expense and supply the results to Government so that if there are breaches then the company is responsible?

A lot of companies are bending the rules or turning a blond eye. If the onus was on them perhaps the lockdown could be over sooner.

No need for the testing, we’ll never be rid of the virus but most will be vaccinated and the hospitals will cope ..... back to normal now

So when do you think all over 16 will be tested with both jabs I'm 53 not been offerd first as yet and if a winter booster is needed could be some time befor we get to every one

They were offering early 60s in my area last week.

So when do you think everyone will have had both jabs 2022 some time

October, most likely.

What do all over 16 years with both jabs."

Yes. That's the prediction

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan
over a year ago

Hastings


"Although cases of Covid are falling there still are areas where its rising.

The majority of these apparently are where people cannot work from home such as factories and building sites, supermarkets etc.

Should it be mandatory for companies to test workers regularly at the companies expense and supply the results to Government so that if there are breaches then the company is responsible?

A lot of companies are bending the rules or turning a blond eye. If the onus was on them perhaps the lockdown could be over sooner.

No need for the testing, we’ll never be rid of the virus but most will be vaccinated and the hospitals will cope ..... back to normal now

So when do you think all over 16 will be tested with both jabs I'm 53 not been offerd first as yet and if a winter booster is needed could be some time befor we get to every one

They were offering early 60s in my area last week.

So when do you think everyone will have had both jabs 2022 some time

October, most likely.

What do all over 16 years with both jabs.

Yes. That's the prediction"

Wow hope we can get to that point I have not even been offerd it it yet at 53 mum had it last week at 75. So just a wating game...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *pursChick aka ShortieWoman
over a year ago

On a mooch


"Anyone age 56 and over can book through the NHS website or 16-64 with a qualifying health condition: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/08/when-will-i-be-offered-coronavirus-vaccine-uk-covid"

It’s now 55 and upwards

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""If there are breaches then the company is responsible". The company should be responsible for not allowing someone who tests positive to go into work but how can a company be "held responsible" for someone testing positive who might have caught it off-site ?

In cases of breaches where companies are held responsible - I mean breaches over which the company has control.

Like "your workmate tested positive, but we're not going to tell you" or "social distancing and PPE, yeah we're not paying for that shit, back to work".

At my work there were 11 people off with covid in January. There was no official word of who they were, only rumours. They said Track and Trace would contact people if they were at risk.

I am totally disgusted with the management. I know of other situations where the company is actively doing their own track and trace and contacting people directly.

Only good thing is people have to wear masks at work all the time now apart from when eating."

Sounds just like where i work

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eoeclipseWoman
over a year ago

glasgow

I'm currently on jury duty & unless you present symptoms there is no forced testing, no questioning over masks or not!

They are social distanced, air renewed, disinfecting things passed between folk, wash hands, wearing masks (if you can) only when near others etc.

Given guidance and encouraged yes, but forced...no & that's a court, a system of law so no private businesses cannot do it legally or courts would be doing it already.

One of our jurers isnt feeling well so is at home awaiting results, we were told due to other measures in place we will not need to self isolate the whole jury, only the positive person.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *losernow69Man
over a year ago

Melksham


"Although cases of Covid are falling there still are areas where its rising.

The majority of these apparently are where people cannot work from home such as factories and building sites, supermarkets etc.

Should it be mandatory for companies to test workers regularly at the companies expense and supply the results to Government so that if there are breaches then the company is responsible?

A lot of companies are bending the rules or turning a blond eye. If the onus was on them perhaps the lockdown could be over sooner.

No need for the testing, we’ll never be rid of the virus but most will be vaccinated and the hospitals will cope ..... back to normal now

So when do you think all over 16 will be tested with both jabs I'm 53 not been offerd first as yet and if a winter booster is needed could be some time befor we get to every one

They were offering early 60s in my area last week.

So when do you think everyone will have had both jabs 2022 some time

October, most likely.

What do all over 16 years with both jabs.

Yes. That's the prediction"

Why do kids need it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *losernow69Man
over a year ago

Melksham

[Removed by poster at 11/03/21 00:54:55]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They’ve been testing us every 5 days in work for the last two months but now it’s switched to fortnightly. Plus in my other job I’m also tested every 5 days so I’ve been having a test on a Monday and a Wednesday and neither employers care that I’m tested in the other job. I still have to have them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *pursChick aka ShortieWoman
over a year ago

On a mooch


"Although cases of Covid are falling there still are areas where its rising.

The majority of these apparently are where people cannot work from home such as factories and building sites, supermarkets etc.

Should it be mandatory for companies to test workers regularly at the companies expense and supply the results to Government so that if there are breaches then the company is responsible?

A lot of companies are bending the rules or turning a blond eye. If the onus was on them perhaps the lockdown could be over sooner.

No need for the testing, we’ll never be rid of the virus but most will be vaccinated and the hospitals will cope ..... back to normal now

So when do you think all over 16 will be tested with both jabs I'm 53 not been offerd first as yet and if a winter booster is needed could be some time befor we get to every one

They were offering early 60s in my area last week.

So when do you think everyone will have had both jabs 2022 some time

October, most likely.

What do all over 16 years with both jabs.

Yes. That's the prediction

Why do kids need it?"

Why do you think children don’t need it ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top