4 ms·

I travel in to work sometimes from teir 3 to teir 4, but I was teir 2 last week. Am I still allowed to do that? I tend to go in to make sure things keep working

I travel in to work sometimes from teir 3 to teir 4, but I was teir 2 last week. Am I still allowed to do that? I tend to go in to make sure things keep working for people at home. Is that OK? Only I have three people straight on to Teams asking if they should go in tomorrow. All have things to do that are hard but not impossible to do remotely. What should I tell them? They all saw the speech, perhaps they were not listening hard enough?

mytailorisrich 6y ago
Come on, the speech was as clear as possible: there are no more tiers, all of England is in full lockdown, stay home unless you positively have to leave (including if it is absolutely impossible for you to work from home). He said that in rather clear terms. You answered your own question when you conceded that it was possible to carry out the work remotely and that your trips were not essential.
- jimnotgym 6y ago
  >(including if it is absolutely impossible for you to work from home). If that is what you got from there speech then it was very misleading indeed. > from .gov..you may leave home to...go to work, or provide voluntary or charitable services, if you cannot reasonably do so from home That is a world of difference from 'absolutely impossible.' I also did not say that my trips were not essential, that is just as big a misunderstanding as you made above.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    If you already knew what he meant why did you ask? 'Reasonably' is a well-established concept in English common-law.
    - jimnotgym 6y ago
      If I already knew what who meant? What is your arguement?
chrisseaton 6y ago
I think you're being deliberately dumb. Is it reasonable for you and these other employees to work from home? If yes, do so. If not, go in to work and practice social distancing. Try to apply some common sense, and a 'reasonable' test - that's what the law uses. Don't look for 'but what if' for the sake of it, and don't try to armchair-lawyer it - work towards what the intent that is obvious to any reasonable person, using your own intelligence to achieve this. Law like this isn't code - it isn't a set of 'if, else' conditions. It asks if you were acting reasonably. Could you look a magistrate in the eye and explain your reasoning? Please try to act reasonably rather than quibbling.
- jimnotgym 6y ago
  Are all the staff asking me for advice dumb too? I think I have acted very reasonably throughout, travelling when it was best, staying at home when it is best, that was not enough for your co-judge on this thread, who seems to think that I shouldn't go into work unless it is a matter of life and death, which is clearly not what the rules say.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    'Reasonable'. That's the legal test - full stop. It's what we've used in the UK for a thousand years. It's because you can't cover all eventualities with a code system. The law communicates an intent. Work against that intent. Don't quibble the letter for the sake of it. If you aren't familiar with reasonableness then I guess you've beamed down from Mars in which case good luck to you!
    - jimnotgym 6y ago
      Weird comment. I was actually claiming to have acted reasonably (because I understand the term), it was the poster before who claimed I had no right to make a judgement about what is reasonable. Please stop trolling
      - chrisseaton 6y ago

mytailorisrich 6y ago

Come on, the speech was as clear as possible: there are no more tiers, all of England is in full lockdown, stay home unless you positively have to leave (including if it is absolutely impossible for you to work from home). He said that in rather clear terms. You answered your own question when you conceded that it was possible to carry out the work remotely and that your trips were not essential.

jimnotgym 6y ago
>(including if it is absolutely impossible for you to work from home). If that is what you got from there speech then it was very misleading indeed. > from .gov..you may leave home to...go to work, or provide voluntary or charitable services, if you cannot reasonably do so from home That is a world of difference from 'absolutely impossible.' I also did not say that my trips were not essential, that is just as big a misunderstanding as you made above.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  If you already knew what he meant why did you ask? 'Reasonably' is a well-established concept in English common-law.
  - jimnotgym 6y ago
    If I already knew what who meant? What is your arguement?

chrisseaton 6y ago

I think you're being deliberately dumb. Is it reasonable for you and these other employees to work from home? If yes, do so. If not, go in to work and practice social distancing. Try to apply some common sense, and a 'reasonable' test - that's what the law uses. Don't look for 'but what if' for the sake of it, and don't try to armchair-lawyer it - work towards what the intent that is obvious to any reasonable person, using your own intelligence to achieve this. Law like this isn't code - it isn't a set of 'if, else' conditions. It asks if you were acting reasonably. Could you look a magistrate in the eye and explain your reasoning? Please try to act reasonably rather than quibbling.

jimnotgym 6y ago
Are all the staff asking me for advice dumb too? I think I have acted very reasonably throughout, travelling when it was best, staying at home when it is best, that was not enough for your co-judge on this thread, who seems to think that I shouldn't go into work unless it is a matter of life and death, which is clearly not what the rules say.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  'Reasonable'. That's the legal test - full stop. It's what we've used in the UK for a thousand years. It's because you can't cover all eventualities with a code system. The law communicates an intent. Work against that intent. Don't quibble the letter for the sake of it. If you aren't familiar with reasonableness then I guess you've beamed down from Mars in which case good luck to you!
  - jimnotgym 6y ago
    Weird comment. I was actually claiming to have acted reasonably (because I understand the term), it was the poster before who claimed I had no right to make a judgement about what is reasonable. Please stop trolling
    - chrisseaton 6y ago