| Hancock threatening stricter measures 10:57 - Apr 5 with 7533 views | ThisIsMyUsername |
'If you don't want us to have to take the step to ban exercise of all forms outside of your own home, then you've got to follow the rules.'
Following reports of people gathering in parks, having barbecues etc.
It's the type of language you'd expect an adult to use towards a naughty child. And quite frankly the f*cking idiots deserve to be spoken to like that.
TF is wrong with people. |  |
| |  |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 17:39 - Apr 5 with 1061 views | monytowbray |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 17:32 - Apr 5 by StokieBlue |
That's not what you said though, you are changing your position with each post.
There clearly was a plan, which was laid out by the government scientific advisers and which has been modified along the way when information came in. That's how things should work. Perhaps it was modified much too slowly but your narrative is incorrect no matter how many times you post it.
SB |
I’ve not changed any position. I stand by my point there hasn’t been a plan and if there is it’s pretty bad. To pretend the flip flops and lies coming from number 10 was all some kind of genius tactic to ease us into social distancing is beyond my comprehension.
We’ve got NHS staff risking their lives from a lack of PPE and borrowing googles from schools, a potential shortage of ventilators coming soon as the manufacturers won’t hit target by peak after we rejected ventilator and PPE support from the EU. And there are people literally running out of money because they’ve not been paid yet and signing on is overwhelmed.
At what point do we go from “They’re doing their best in a sh1t situation” to “They’re not really doing a good job at all”? Because where we are now was fairly conceivable from the outset in many regards. It’s been like watching a lit fuse slowly tick down.
Even their own media cheerleaders are starting to ask questions on the front pages. [Post edited 5 Apr 2020 17:41]
|  |
| |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 17:43 - Apr 5 with 1050 views | bluelagos |
I like many on here will be very p*ssed off if the lockdown is tightened, but I think once again the politiicans are failing here. For sure, send the message but tbe proposed tightening doesnt sit easy with me.
If there is a problem with say speeding drivers, you target speeding drivers. It would be a nonsense to reduce the motorway limit for everyone because 5% of people speed. You police it.
So why is penalising all of us who stick by the rules the answer? If 3000 people were hanging out at Brockwell park, sunbathing etc.why are they not challenged and fined if they continue?
Why should the good people of Suffolk suffer a harder lockdown due to the inability of the Met police to police it? The police need to start policing rather than the politicians shafting those of us who are social distancing outside during exercise.
And I dont mean the nonsence we saw in Derbyshire, but where the actual problems are... |  |
| |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 17:47 - Apr 5 with 1039 views | sparks |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 17:43 - Apr 5 by bluelagos |
I like many on here will be very p*ssed off if the lockdown is tightened, but I think once again the politiicans are failing here. For sure, send the message but tbe proposed tightening doesnt sit easy with me.
If there is a problem with say speeding drivers, you target speeding drivers. It would be a nonsense to reduce the motorway limit for everyone because 5% of people speed. You police it.
So why is penalising all of us who stick by the rules the answer? If 3000 people were hanging out at Brockwell park, sunbathing etc.why are they not challenged and fined if they continue?
Why should the good people of Suffolk suffer a harder lockdown due to the inability of the Met police to police it? The police need to start policing rather than the politicians shafting those of us who are social distancing outside during exercise.
And I dont mean the nonsence we saw in Derbyshire, but where the actual problems are... |
The simple answer is- "because the greater good demands it currently". |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 17:53 - Apr 5 with 1028 views | bluelagos |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 17:47 - Apr 5 by sparks |
The simple answer is- "because the greater good demands it currently". |
Surely we should find the answer that gives the greatest overall benefit.
Namely the Police ensuring the lockdown whilst enabling people to maintain socially distanced exercise for their physical and mental wellbeing.
And if they decide that is impossible, then a London lockdown (where they cant police it) and the rest of us carry on as now seems a whole lot more palatable. | |
| |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 17:59 - Apr 5 with 1011 views | Swansea_Blue |
Ahem, that's Handjob to you.
|  |
| |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:02 - Apr 5 with 997 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 17:43 - Apr 5 by bluelagos |
I like many on here will be very p*ssed off if the lockdown is tightened, but I think once again the politiicans are failing here. For sure, send the message but tbe proposed tightening doesnt sit easy with me.
If there is a problem with say speeding drivers, you target speeding drivers. It would be a nonsense to reduce the motorway limit for everyone because 5% of people speed. You police it.
So why is penalising all of us who stick by the rules the answer? If 3000 people were hanging out at Brockwell park, sunbathing etc.why are they not challenged and fined if they continue?
Why should the good people of Suffolk suffer a harder lockdown due to the inability of the Met police to police it? The police need to start policing rather than the politicians shafting those of us who are social distancing outside during exercise.
And I dont mean the nonsence we saw in Derbyshire, but where the actual problems are... |
Because forcing people to stay indoors will save more lives than handing out fines to people abusing th3 current measures. |  |
| |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:08 - Apr 5 with 993 views | Ryorry |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 17:47 - Apr 5 by sparks |
The simple answer is- "because the greater good demands it currently". |
It'd stil be stupid to impose blanket bans where situations are completely different tho - ie the same rule for densely crowded cities applying to remote rural communities where when people cycle or walk their dogs, they're likely to be only 3 or 4 of them at most doing so within 5 square miles. Blanket bans are an invitation for people to break a rule which they know is nonsensical.
The whole thing needs to be much more carefully thought through before edicts are issued. What about (eg)
1. With the growing season about to start, people who may need to walk half a mile or a mile to tend their allotments so they can grow healthy stuff to boost their immune systems, particularly given the difficulties of shopping, likely shortages of usual imports & seasonal workers to pick UK lettuces etc
2. People who need to take their pets to vets miles away because of acute illness/injury, as I did 3 x last week - nowhere covered in the rules (unless pets were included in "medical need" - but this wasn't specified).
3. Sunbathing obviously not being "exercise" - yet within sensible limits, it is good for health and the immune system - most people who are tested in the UK are found to be woefully short of vit D, which is essential for both physicsl and mental health. So those unlucky enough not to have gardens or balconies, it could be argued, are discriminated against healthwise by a ban on sunbathing. |  |
| |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:08 - Apr 5 with 993 views | bluelagos |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:02 - Apr 5 by GlasgowBlue |
Because forcing people to stay indoors will save more lives than handing out fines to people abusing th3 current measures. |
You seem very sure of that. And you may be right. But the negative impacts on peoples physical and mental wellbeing of a long term no exercise regime would be huge. Increased deaths from other illnesses. Increased suicides. Increased domestic violence to name but 3.
If there is non compliance that is what we should target rather than a kneejerk damaging tightening of the rules that will probably still be abused by the idiots... | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:10 - Apr 5 with 988 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 17:43 - Apr 5 by bluelagos |
I like many on here will be very p*ssed off if the lockdown is tightened, but I think once again the politiicans are failing here. For sure, send the message but tbe proposed tightening doesnt sit easy with me.
If there is a problem with say speeding drivers, you target speeding drivers. It would be a nonsense to reduce the motorway limit for everyone because 5% of people speed. You police it.
So why is penalising all of us who stick by the rules the answer? If 3000 people were hanging out at Brockwell park, sunbathing etc.why are they not challenged and fined if they continue?
Why should the good people of Suffolk suffer a harder lockdown due to the inability of the Met police to police it? The police need to start policing rather than the politicians shafting those of us who are social distancing outside during exercise.
And I dont mean the nonsence we saw in Derbyshire, but where the actual problems are... |
Completely agree, but then it's always been the way. We always suffer for the idiotic acts of a few.
There's also been quite a discussion on legal twitter about how the Police are interpreting and enforcing the rules/ law. Seems they're not necessarily interpreting things correctly, so that adds another complication around how effective the policing side can be.
But yeah, feckwits are a major problem gernerally and even more so now. | |
| |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:11 - Apr 5 with 979 views | bluelagos |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:08 - Apr 5 by Ryorry |
It'd stil be stupid to impose blanket bans where situations are completely different tho - ie the same rule for densely crowded cities applying to remote rural communities where when people cycle or walk their dogs, they're likely to be only 3 or 4 of them at most doing so within 5 square miles. Blanket bans are an invitation for people to break a rule which they know is nonsensical.
The whole thing needs to be much more carefully thought through before edicts are issued. What about (eg)
1. With the growing season about to start, people who may need to walk half a mile or a mile to tend their allotments so they can grow healthy stuff to boost their immune systems, particularly given the difficulties of shopping, likely shortages of usual imports & seasonal workers to pick UK lettuces etc
2. People who need to take their pets to vets miles away because of acute illness/injury, as I did 3 x last week - nowhere covered in the rules (unless pets were included in "medical need" - but this wasn't specified).
3. Sunbathing obviously not being "exercise" - yet within sensible limits, it is good for health and the immune system - most people who are tested in the UK are found to be woefully short of vit D, which is essential for both physicsl and mental health. So those unlucky enough not to have gardens or balconies, it could be argued, are discriminated against healthwise by a ban on sunbathing. |
You highlight the impossibility of having rules that fit all situations.
My point is really simple, implement the rules we have rather than maks them ever tighter.... | |
| |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:15 - Apr 5 with 972 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 17:43 - Apr 5 by bluelagos |
I like many on here will be very p*ssed off if the lockdown is tightened, but I think once again the politiicans are failing here. For sure, send the message but tbe proposed tightening doesnt sit easy with me.
If there is a problem with say speeding drivers, you target speeding drivers. It would be a nonsense to reduce the motorway limit for everyone because 5% of people speed. You police it.
So why is penalising all of us who stick by the rules the answer? If 3000 people were hanging out at Brockwell park, sunbathing etc.why are they not challenged and fined if they continue?
Why should the good people of Suffolk suffer a harder lockdown due to the inability of the Met police to police it? The police need to start policing rather than the politicians shafting those of us who are social distancing outside during exercise.
And I dont mean the nonsence we saw in Derbyshire, but where the actual problems are... |
Think we have always accepted that you can not Fix stupid. Guess we are now learning that you can’t quarantine it either. |  |
| |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:18 - Apr 5 with 964 views | bluelagos |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:10 - Apr 5 by Swansea_Blue |
Completely agree, but then it's always been the way. We always suffer for the idiotic acts of a few.
There's also been quite a discussion on legal twitter about how the Police are interpreting and enforcing the rules/ law. Seems they're not necessarily interpreting things correctly, so that adds another complication around how effective the policing side can be.
But yeah, feckwits are a major problem gernerally and even more so now. |
To be fair to the police (for a change eh) the new law is genuinely vague. And despite what the exercise Stazi think, laws are not made in press conferences. The only laws the police can enforce are those passed in parliament.
And the CV laws were passed (inevitably) in a hurry. Then the politicians all p*ssed off home and left the police to try and police them.... | |
| |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:37 - Apr 5 with 938 views | FoghornGleghorn |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:08 - Apr 5 by bluelagos |
You seem very sure of that. And you may be right. But the negative impacts on peoples physical and mental wellbeing of a long term no exercise regime would be huge. Increased deaths from other illnesses. Increased suicides. Increased domestic violence to name but 3.
If there is non compliance that is what we should target rather than a kneejerk damaging tightening of the rules that will probably still be abused by the idiots... |
Exactly. If they can "force people to stay indoors" they can force people to stick to the current rules, rather than just assuming stronger words will make people who aren't currently listening listen. |  | | |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:43 - Apr 5 with 927 views | eireblue |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:11 - Apr 5 by bluelagos |
You highlight the impossibility of having rules that fit all situations.
My point is really simple, implement the rules we have rather than maks them ever tighter.... |
Being slightly cynical, but also aware that the government likes nudge theory and is somewhat libertarian in leadership, the Matt Hancock press conferences now, are somewhat about creating a narrative. It won’t be the governments fault for locking down more stringently, it will be as a result of people’s actions as not responding to government request.
Just as before, telling people please don’t go to the pub, would result in pubs not having customers. But some people went out so the government had to lock down more.
Statistically, the growth in cases without intervention was known, and the capacity of the NHS was known. The government should have possibly taken responsibility, rather than hoping sufficient people would obey. |  | | |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:54 - Apr 5 with 912 views | LankHenners |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:43 - Apr 5 by eireblue |
Being slightly cynical, but also aware that the government likes nudge theory and is somewhat libertarian in leadership, the Matt Hancock press conferences now, are somewhat about creating a narrative. It won’t be the governments fault for locking down more stringently, it will be as a result of people’s actions as not responding to government request.
Just as before, telling people please don’t go to the pub, would result in pubs not having customers. But some people went out so the government had to lock down more.
Statistically, the growth in cases without intervention was known, and the capacity of the NHS was known. The government should have possibly taken responsibility, rather than hoping sufficient people would obey. |
Not cynical at all. Whether too many people are in a park or not is really a minor issue, and pushes the blame onto the public rather than the government.
Appreciated, it's an unprecedented time, the people at the top disagree over the right thing to do, and people would be stupid and flaunt rules anyway, but the total inability to nail down a clear and concise message throughout has been a failure. Effective communication was up there with the most important things to get right and they fluffed it.
This is with having some element of foresight given the outbreaks in other countries as well. |  |
| |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 19:14 - Apr 5 with 885 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:08 - Apr 5 by Ryorry |
It'd stil be stupid to impose blanket bans where situations are completely different tho - ie the same rule for densely crowded cities applying to remote rural communities where when people cycle or walk their dogs, they're likely to be only 3 or 4 of them at most doing so within 5 square miles. Blanket bans are an invitation for people to break a rule which they know is nonsensical.
The whole thing needs to be much more carefully thought through before edicts are issued. What about (eg)
1. With the growing season about to start, people who may need to walk half a mile or a mile to tend their allotments so they can grow healthy stuff to boost their immune systems, particularly given the difficulties of shopping, likely shortages of usual imports & seasonal workers to pick UK lettuces etc
2. People who need to take their pets to vets miles away because of acute illness/injury, as I did 3 x last week - nowhere covered in the rules (unless pets were included in "medical need" - but this wasn't specified).
3. Sunbathing obviously not being "exercise" - yet within sensible limits, it is good for health and the immune system - most people who are tested in the UK are found to be woefully short of vit D, which is essential for both physicsl and mental health. So those unlucky enough not to have gardens or balconies, it could be argued, are discriminated against healthwise by a ban on sunbathing. |
I shouldn't think no.1 is a huge problem. How many people are walking a mile to tend to their allotment? Must be a very small number surely?
Even so, a bit of common sense could be applied. If someone gives that as a reason, and they're on a natural path to said allotments, then let them go on their way. Not really much different to going to the shops to buy food.
No.3 - come on, you don't need to sunbathe in the park to get enough vitamin D. If the people in Brockwell Park yesterday were using their low levels of vit D as an excuse, that would be hilarious. You can get enough vitamin D just by going for a walk in the sun. You don't need to lay in the park in your Bermuda shorts to avoid vitamin D deficiency! |  |
| |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 19:21 - Apr 5 with 875 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:08 - Apr 5 by Ryorry |
It'd stil be stupid to impose blanket bans where situations are completely different tho - ie the same rule for densely crowded cities applying to remote rural communities where when people cycle or walk their dogs, they're likely to be only 3 or 4 of them at most doing so within 5 square miles. Blanket bans are an invitation for people to break a rule which they know is nonsensical.
The whole thing needs to be much more carefully thought through before edicts are issued. What about (eg)
1. With the growing season about to start, people who may need to walk half a mile or a mile to tend their allotments so they can grow healthy stuff to boost their immune systems, particularly given the difficulties of shopping, likely shortages of usual imports & seasonal workers to pick UK lettuces etc
2. People who need to take their pets to vets miles away because of acute illness/injury, as I did 3 x last week - nowhere covered in the rules (unless pets were included in "medical need" - but this wasn't specified).
3. Sunbathing obviously not being "exercise" - yet within sensible limits, it is good for health and the immune system - most people who are tested in the UK are found to be woefully short of vit D, which is essential for both physicsl and mental health. So those unlucky enough not to have gardens or balconies, it could be argued, are discriminated against healthwise by a ban on sunbathing. |
Carry on regardless Ryorry...it will be good for you to break the rules....liberating even!  |  |
| |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 19:24 - Apr 5 with 867 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 17:11 - Apr 5 by Clapham_Junction |
They've very much made a rod for their own backs in recent years by telling people not to listen to experts and lying and misleading the public relentlessly.
Now they've suddenly got to tell people what do do for very serious reasons, there's probably a good number of people out there thinking 'I'm not going to be told what do to by the metropolitan elite'.
I saw Gove was doing the news conference yesterday. Did anyone ask him about what his wife had been spreading on Twitter? |
...and then it turns out that different rules apply to the metropolitan elite anyway...ask 80% of current Aldeburgh residents and the Scottish chief medical officer. [Post edited 5 Apr 2020 19:28]
| |
| |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 20:36 - Apr 5 with 828 views | Ryorry |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 19:14 - Apr 5 by BrixtonBlue |
I shouldn't think no.1 is a huge problem. How many people are walking a mile to tend to their allotment? Must be a very small number surely?
Even so, a bit of common sense could be applied. If someone gives that as a reason, and they're on a natural path to said allotments, then let them go on their way. Not really much different to going to the shops to buy food.
No.3 - come on, you don't need to sunbathe in the park to get enough vitamin D. If the people in Brockwell Park yesterday were using their low levels of vit D as an excuse, that would be hilarious. You can get enough vitamin D just by going for a walk in the sun. You don't need to lay in the park in your Bermuda shorts to avoid vitamin D deficiency! |
The number of allotment holders in the UK is huge, and few live right next door to their plot.
You seriously need to read up about vitamin D deficiency in the UK population.
At the end of the long hot summer of 2 years ago, during which I spent many hours daily outdoors, my levels were found to be massively deficient when I was tested for something else. Like other oldies, I no longer absorb it well from sunlight.
In a thread on here a few months ago, many people said they'd been tested & found vey deficient too. [Post edited 5 Apr 2020 20:47]
| |
| |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 20:44 - Apr 5 with 817 views | BloomBlue |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:08 - Apr 5 by Ryorry |
It'd stil be stupid to impose blanket bans where situations are completely different tho - ie the same rule for densely crowded cities applying to remote rural communities where when people cycle or walk their dogs, they're likely to be only 3 or 4 of them at most doing so within 5 square miles. Blanket bans are an invitation for people to break a rule which they know is nonsensical.
The whole thing needs to be much more carefully thought through before edicts are issued. What about (eg)
1. With the growing season about to start, people who may need to walk half a mile or a mile to tend their allotments so they can grow healthy stuff to boost their immune systems, particularly given the difficulties of shopping, likely shortages of usual imports & seasonal workers to pick UK lettuces etc
2. People who need to take their pets to vets miles away because of acute illness/injury, as I did 3 x last week - nowhere covered in the rules (unless pets were included in "medical need" - but this wasn't specified).
3. Sunbathing obviously not being "exercise" - yet within sensible limits, it is good for health and the immune system - most people who are tested in the UK are found to be woefully short of vit D, which is essential for both physicsl and mental health. So those unlucky enough not to have gardens or balconies, it could be argued, are discriminated against healthwise by a ban on sunbathing. |
4. People in an abusive relationship, should be allowed to go out as often and for as long as they want. Saving yourself from a beating should supersede anything |  | | |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 21:04 - Apr 5 with 796 views | stonojnr |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 18:43 - Apr 5 by eireblue |
Being slightly cynical, but also aware that the government likes nudge theory and is somewhat libertarian in leadership, the Matt Hancock press conferences now, are somewhat about creating a narrative. It won’t be the governments fault for locking down more stringently, it will be as a result of people’s actions as not responding to government request.
Just as before, telling people please don’t go to the pub, would result in pubs not having customers. But some people went out so the government had to lock down more.
Statistically, the growth in cases without intervention was known, and the capacity of the NHS was known. The government should have possibly taken responsibility, rather than hoping sufficient people would obey. |
totally agree, and its obvious the Easter weekend & bank holidays, Easter Sunday after all is the one day the food shops will be shut as well, presents a huge risk of the existing measures just completely collapsing on themselves if enough people decide they are bored of it all, especially when its almost certain theyll announce a 3 week extension to the existing measures given the way the numbers are still rising. | | | |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures (n/t) on 21:05 - Apr 5 with 789 views | Tangledupin_Blue |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 21:04 - Apr 5 by stonojnr |
totally agree, and its obvious the Easter weekend & bank holidays, Easter Sunday after all is the one day the food shops will be shut as well, presents a huge risk of the existing measures just completely collapsing on themselves if enough people decide they are bored of it all, especially when its almost certain theyll announce a 3 week extension to the existing measures given the way the numbers are still rising. |
|  |
| |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 21:08 - Apr 5 with 787 views | jeera |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 12:07 - Apr 5 by WD19 |
Callis, the plan has been bloody obvious from the start and consistent throughout.
Leave lockdown until as late as possible without allowing the ‘peak’ to become unmanageably large. Then lockdown and hold on for as long as people can take.....which it would appear is not very long.
The only slight fly in the ointment was a very sunny Mothering Sunday.
The authorities may not have always been totally explicit with the public that this is/was the plan, but it was as clear as day....and they have not shifted from it. |
Cheltenham. Liverpool vs Atletico.
Can't see it.
To fit into the suggestion that the authorities knew what they were doing then would scream irresponsibility at a ludicrous level if they were properly taking on board the implications of allowing events such as those. |  |
| |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 11:29 - Apr 6 with 676 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 20:36 - Apr 5 by Ryorry |
The number of allotment holders in the UK is huge, and few live right next door to their plot.
You seriously need to read up about vitamin D deficiency in the UK population.
At the end of the long hot summer of 2 years ago, during which I spent many hours daily outdoors, my levels were found to be massively deficient when I was tested for something else. Like other oldies, I no longer absorb it well from sunlight.
In a thread on here a few months ago, many people said they'd been tested & found vey deficient too. [Post edited 5 Apr 2020 20:47]
|
"Like other oldies, I no longer absorb it well from sunlight."
So sunbathing isn't the answer then?
I don't need to read up about vitamin D deficiency in the UK population. I'm not denying it. I'm saying the answer isn't necessarily laying in the park in your Bermuda shorts. Surely going for a walk for the same length of time you would have been sunbathing would get the same effect?
To argue that people should be allowed to sunbathe in the park during a pandemic is ludicrous IMHO. | |
| |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 13:06 - Apr 6 with 644 views | WeWereZombies |
| Hancock threatening stricter measures on 11:29 - Apr 6 by BrixtonBlue |
"Like other oldies, I no longer absorb it well from sunlight."
So sunbathing isn't the answer then?
I don't need to read up about vitamin D deficiency in the UK population. I'm not denying it. I'm saying the answer isn't necessarily laying in the park in your Bermuda shorts. Surely going for a walk for the same length of time you would have been sunbathing would get the same effect?
To argue that people should be allowed to sunbathe in the park during a pandemic is ludicrous IMHO. |
Bermuda shorts? I don't think you realise how tough a time of it naturists are having at the moment. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
