MSE News: Martin Lewis says the Government has misexplained its own travel rules

lisyloo

sheramber said:

Boris says he wants people to take  responsibility for their own actions and not rely on laws.
Well, that has worked   so far!

That worked badly last March. I remember when Boris said don’t go to the pub and they were spilling out onto the pavements in London whilst they were still open.

ratechaser

Grumpy_chap said:

ratechaser said:

Grumpy_chap said:

The BBC's rather odd take on all this is to book two holidays on "no deposit easy cancellation" terms and then cancel whichever one is least favoured / not permitted at the time:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57155307
Irresponsible reporting in my mind as it will cause havoc for both individuals who then find the "easy cancellation" terms actually required Government restrictions and also immense difficulties for the accommodation venues and other associated services.  It's going to be hard enough as it is for the travel industry to recover financially without people going off playing silly games.  No doubt we'll see some threads pop up later in the summer about unfair terms in the "easy cancellation" policy.....

Well I've certainly done that for July, albeit 2 holidays with the same TA, the money with the one I don't take will go towards another one with them too... it's all deposits only in any case.

I'm a big boy and know the T&Cs very well so I'm not going crying to anyone about it. 

Well, maybe if you've done that and explained the plan to the TA from the outset, it is more reasonable, and they'll be on board when they have to process the cancelation part of the scheme.  Let's hope the TA explained the plan all the way along the line to the supply-chain...

Perfectly acceptable within the T&Cs to cancel 3 weeks out for a voucher when the balance is due. That said it's an almost nailed on certainty that they will be cancelling one of them from their side anyway.

ThisnotThat

lisyloo said:

sheramber said:

Boris says he wants people to take  responsibility for their own actions and not rely on laws.
Well, that has worked   so far!

That worked badly last March. I remember when Boris said don’t go to the pub and they were spilling out onto the pavements in London whilst they were still open.

Telling people they're not allowed to go in the pub isn't allowing them to take responsibility for their own actions.

lisyloo

ThisnotThat said:

lisyloo said:

sheramber said:

Boris says he wants people to take  responsibility for their own actions and not rely on laws.
Well, that has worked   so far!

That worked badly last March. I remember when Boris said don’t go to the pub and they were spilling out onto the pavements in London whilst they were still open.

Telling people they're not allowed to go in the pub isn't allowing them to take responsibility for their own actions.

I beg to differ. Leaving the pubs and restaurants open and having no penalties is exactly that.
It's no different to telling people to get exercise, don't get sun burnt and don't eat too much isn't it??
If not then please explain the difference for me. Thanks

sheramber

ThisnotThat said:

lisyloo said:

sheramber said:

Boris says he wants people to take  responsibility for their own actions and not rely on laws.
Well, that has worked   so far!

That worked badly last March. I remember when Boris said don’t go to the pub and they were spilling out onto the pavements in London whilst they were still open.

Telling people they're not allowed to go in the pub isn't allowing them to take responsibility for their own actions.

But there is no enforcement against going. It  is not against the law to go.  Boris says you shouldn't go, other government  officials yes,  you can go.
The usual shambles.
What is the point of the amber list if you cannot go?
Boris doesn't want to upset the travel industry. If it was law, they would have to refund but because it is not law they don't have to.
 Unfortunately, if it results in another lockdown due to a surge in cases those who did respect the advice  are punished as well as those who did go.

ThisnotThat

lisyloo said:

ThisnotThat said:

lisyloo said:

sheramber said:

Boris says he wants people to take  responsibility for their own actions and not rely on laws.
Well, that has worked   so far!

That worked badly last March. I remember when Boris said don’t go to the pub and they were spilling out onto the pavements in London whilst they were still open.

Telling people they're not allowed to go in the pub isn't allowing them to take responsibility for their own actions.

I beg to differ. Leaving the pubs and restaurants open and having no penalties is exactly that.
It's no different to telling people to get exercise, don't get sun burnt and don't eat too much isn't it??
If not then please explain the difference for me. Thanks

I was referring to the two lockdowns where neither were open.  If the pubs aren't open, people can't make a choice to go to them or not.  If they can't make a choice they can't take any responsibility.

lisyloo

ThisnotThat said:

lisyloo said:

ThisnotThat said:

lisyloo said:

sheramber said:

Boris says he wants people to take  responsibility for their own actions and not rely on laws.
Well, that has worked   so far!

That worked badly last March. I remember when Boris said don’t go to the pub and they were spilling out onto the pavements in London whilst they were still open.

Telling people they're not allowed to go in the pub isn't allowing them to take responsibility for their own actions.

I beg to differ. Leaving the pubs and restaurants open and having no penalties is exactly that.
It's no different to telling people to get exercise, don't get sun burnt and don't eat too much isn't it??
If not then please explain the difference for me. Thanks

I was referring to the two lockdowns where neither were open.  If the pubs aren't open, people can't make a choice to go to them or not.  If they can't make a choice they can't take any responsibility.

We agree that clear laws = no personal responsibility.
That works very well in practice from a public health point of view during a pandemic. You only then have a minimal set of law breakers to enforce or allow to get away with it.
It has worked out badly in the past when we have asked people to take personal responsibility, so would expect nothing different when it comes to amber countries.
As with exercise, sun exposure, drinking, food etc. we should expect large amounts of people to make bad decisions (from a public health point of view).
That's normally what we put up with for freedom of choice but a pandemic is a somewhat different situation.
We do need to return to normality at some point and let some people make bad decisions, but now we have the indian variant, is it the right time?

If we assume they are totally competent then what they are doing is saying yes it is the right time to allow people to make bad decisions and hopefully keep jobs and the industry going, but the messaging is confusing.

casjen

There is no mixed messaging at all. Its perfectly clear. Its just that the media/social media prefer to deliberately try and muddy the waters and for some reason a section of society who believe they are entitled to do whatever they want ,  blame the government for their own stupidity and inability to take responsibility for their own actions.. Sadly this is not a new phenomenon. 

lisyloo

casjen said:

There is no mixed messaging at all. Its perfectly clear. Its just that the media/social media prefer to deliberately try and muddy the waters and for some reason a section of society who believe they are entitled to do whatever they want ,  blame the government for their own stupidity and inability to take responsibility for their own actions.. Sadly this is not a new phenomenon. 

I disagree.
George Eustace said people can travel to see friends and family - and yes I have looked at exactly what he said to be careful of media taking it out of context.
People are entitled to travel to legally to amber destinations if they want that's a fact.
I'm not saying I agree with them (I don't) but it's a plain fact that they are entitled.
and I totally agree that if you allow people to do it then they will - that's exactly the problem.

silvercar

Exactly like Christmas, you were allowed to meet up, but Boris told us he was worried about covid spread if people did get together.

People did meet up, the rates increased and we were back into an extended lockdown.

This time we have a large portion of the population vaccinated, so the risks are lower.