England's new three-tier lockdown system

[Howardh]

It's not the act of eating a meal. It's about reducing the time people spend there, and the frequency with which they do, and what they do when they are there.

If you charge 1p, people will be quite happy to order the chicken and chips and not eat it every time they have a pint. I bet in that pub in Preston they will collect it, put it in the microwave and bring it back out as you get each round. That is not the point. He's probably legal by doing it, but it really is taking the mick, will cause spread and people should not be supporting it.

It's actually quite a clever idea - get people to go to the pub less and for less time but to spend more when they are there, so the business is still viable but there's less spread of COVID.

he's not taking the mick, it's this flaming government that's been taking the micky from day 1 - or at least the day Cummings got into his car - with their stupid and virtually unenforcable rules. Good on the guy, and hope others follow. It's heartbreaking to se all the bars last night closing for the last time, and the staff in tears wondering where their next pay cheque is coming from, especially whan there's no proof that bars have caused any spike.

 

[DustyBin]

he's not taking the mick, it's this flaming government that's been taking the micky from day 1 - or at least the day Cummings got into his car - with their stupid and virtually unenforcable rules. Good on the guy, and hope others follow. It's heartbreaking to se all the bars last night closing for the last time, and the staff in tears wondering where their next pay cheque is coming from, especially whan there's no proof that bars have caused any spike.

Fair play to him I say! It’s not hyperbole to say that the hospitality industry is facing ruination. Trade is dire across the board. This is having a devastating impact on people’s lives, it’s not a case of ‘so what if people can’t go for a pint’, people who rely on brewing and selling those pints are having their lives ruined.

 

[Howardh]

Fair play to him I say! It’s not hyperbole to say that the hospitality industry is facing ruination. Trade is dire across the board. This is having a devastating impact on people’s lives, it’s not a case of ‘so what if people can’t go for a pint’, people who rely on brewing and selling those pints are having their lives ruined.

I notice hotelliers in Blackpool are begging the government for more funds. I would like to point out that Brexit-voting Blackpool also inserted two Tory MP's. Be fascinating how they respond to the pleas. Or will it be a case of you get what you votes for?

EDIT - here we go; https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ws/heres-food-manchester-bars-laying-19143644

Just outside Rochdale in Whitworth, the Red Lion Inn is serving £1.50 beef dripping chip butties that the bar said 'some would say is a pretty... substantial meal... if you're picking up what we're putting down here'.
They posted on Facebook : "Meaning, hypothetically of course, anyone who fancied nipping out for a pint or two, would only have to order a chip butty in order to be able to do that.
"If, say, you wanted to come & have a chip butty & bottle of wine while the band is on later, well, that would be completely fine with it being....a substantial meal.
"If on Monday after work you had a powerful craving for a nice, cold beer....and a chip butty. Well then. Nothing wrong with that is there."

I'ts gonna be a conundrum for the government - if they say a chip butty ISN'T a substantial meal, it's about what some kids will be getting as their main meal.

 

[DustyBin]

I notice hotelliers in Blackpool are begging the government for more funds. I would like to point out that Brexit-voting Blackpool also inserted two Tory MP's. Be fascinating how they respond to the pleas. Or will it be a case of you get what you votes for?

I think the problem is people need financial support but the money isn’t there. I’d love to be a fly on the wall in Rishi Sunak’s office....

This is when I think peoples opinions will change regarding restrictions, i.e. when they realise that the government can no longer afford to support them via job support schemes and the like, and they find themselves unemployed with no hope of finding a new job. A section of the population have become addicted to government handouts but they won’t go on forever.

 

[yorksrob]

So you need food with a side to be "substantial". Bit of lettuce with your sausage roll. Job done

 

[Bantamzen]

So you need food with a side to be "substantial". Bit of lettuce with your sausage roll. Job done

Add a bit of cheese, pickled onion & a tomato, and boom! You've got yourself a substantial ploughman's! Take that Hancock!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Add a bit of cheese, pickled onion & a tomato, and boom! You've got yourself a substantial ploughman's! Take that Hancock!

People taking the mick over this will just cause it to get stricter. Please don't.

 

[Howardh]

People taking the mick over this will just cause it to get stricter. Please don't.

We didn't make the rules.
Why can't we just donate the cost of the food we don't want to a food bank/charity etc; if we handed over a fiver at the bar they could exchange for vouchers for the needy, we get our pint (paid on top of course) and have a nice hour or two, and it also prevents pub-crawling.

 

[yorksrob]

People taking the mick over this will just cause it to get stricter. Please don't.

And what will the Government do when they've closed everything down. Nail us in our homes ?

 

[Bantamzen]

People taking the mick over this will just cause it to get stricter. Please don't.

Why would that be taking the Mick?

 

[DB]

People taking the mick over this will just cause it to get stricter. Please don't.

"taking the mick" = looking for ways around retrictions in order not to go bust

How unreasonable of these people to want to keep their businesses viable by using any legal loopholes they can find!

 

[Philip]

People taking the mick over this will just cause it to get stricter. Please don't.

How do you see it getting stricter? Can't see 'stay at home' or 'essential shopping only' working if only done on a regional scale.

 

[Yew]

People taking the mick over this will just cause it to get stricter. Please don't.

Quite simply, I'm done with Boris's "follow the rules or I'll punish you with restrictions" rhetoric; especially when the rules are arbitrary and don't address the main causes of issues.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How do you see it getting stricter? Can't see 'stay at home' or 'essential shopping only' working if only done on a regional scale.

I certainly can see a "tier 4" of basically what we had in March, yes, if numbers don't come down. Indeed, I would be very surprised not to see that.

 

[yorksrob]

I certainly can see a "tier 4" of basically what we had in March, yes, if numbers don't come down. Indeed, I would be very surprised not to see that.

You may get that, you may not. Since the tier three rules don't address the causes of the spread of the virus, following them won't make a blind bit of difference.

 

[bramling]

People taking the mick over this will just cause it to get stricter. Please don't.

Unfortunately this is probably right. Whilst I quite like the idea of places finding ways round this, what will happen is the rules will just get changed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately this is probably right. Whilst I quite like the idea of places finding ways round this, what will happen is the rules will just get changed.

Indeed. And the effect will be pubs closed entirely, rather than able to operate like a restaurant where the food, not the drink, is the main event.

 

[Howardh]

"taking the mick" = looking for ways around retrictions in order not to go bust

How unreasonable of these people to want to keep their businesses viable by using any legal loopholes they can find!

...and the staff using their wages to buy stuff to keep the economy going, paying tax, the businesses paying tax (especially booze-tax) all of which keeps our pensions going, the railways going....

 

[Philip]

I certainly can see a "tier 4" of basically what we had in March, yes, if numbers don't come down. Indeed, I would be very surprised not to see that.

Enough people wouldn't follow restrictions in a regional tier 4 approach, which is why it should be made national if they do go for a tier 4. And you can understand/sympathise with a resident of, for example, Greater Manchester or Liverpool, having complied with restrictions for 6 months, saying "enough's enough" and ignoring any 'stay at home' rules, while neighbouring Cheshire East residents dont have such rules to adhere to.

If the whole country is in it together and with a clear exit from lockdown date to look towards, people are more likely to comply.

 

[DB]

If the whole country is in it together and with a clear exit from lockdown date to look towards, people are more likely to comply.

Whatever they do compliance will be way less than earlier in the year, and given the number of claims and promises which have been broken many won't believe the "it's only two weeks" claims - just look at the entirely redictable extension in Scotland.

 

[bramling]

Enough people wouldn't follow restrictions in a regional tier 4 approach, which is why it should be made national if they do go for a tier 4. And you can understand/sympathise with a resident of, for example, Greater Manchester or Liverpool, having complied with restrictions for 6 months, saying "enough's enough" and ignoring any 'stay at home' rules, while neighbouring Cheshire East residents dont have such rules to adhere to.

If the whole country is in it together and with a clear exit from lockdown date to look towards, people are more likely to comply.

Whilst it would take away the “it’s not fair” issues, it’s simply not viable to be locking down parts of the country just to level down. The costs of lockdown are too great a price to pay just for stopping people saying “it’s not fair”.

And having one part of the country bickering with another gets the politicians off the hook as it takes the focus off them. At this point they need to be held on the rack over what the medium and long term strategy is, and whether various negative effects these lockdowns impose on people outweigh what they’re supposed to achieve.

If people aren’t complying then the question needs to be asked whether the policy is the right one.

 

[RuralRambler]

People taking the mick over this will just cause it to get stricter. Please don't.

Unfortunately, it's another case of sloppy legislation drafting by the civil servants. Just like all the loopholes in other laws, especially around taxation. For years, if not decades, legislation drafting has been sloppy and ambiguous seemingly by people who havn't the faintest idea of behaviour/reality. What plonker decided to use the term "substantial" without bothering to think about what it really means, how easy it would be to get around by offering discounted meals. Some of the law drafters really aren't fit for purpose.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately, it's another case of sloppy legislation drafting by the civil servants. Just like all the loopholes in other laws, especially around taxation. For years, if not decades, legislation drafting has been sloppy and ambiguous seemingly by people who havn't the faintest idea of behaviour/reality. What plonker decided to use the term "substantial" without bothering to think about what it really means, how easy it would be to get around by offering discounted meals. Some of the law drafters really aren't fit for purpose.

I don't disagree, but equally why don't people comply with the spirit of the law rather than just the letter of it? We know what, collectively, the aim is to achieve, even if we don't agree with it.

The problem there is cultural - the UK typically drafts sloppy laws and leaves the Courts to set precedent, sorting out the mess - this is almost done deliberately in some cases. We really could do with coming into line with most of the rest of the world and being more careful.

 

[Howardh]

I don't disagree, but equally why don't people comply with the spirit of the law rather than just the letter of it? We know what, collectively, the aim is to achieve, even if we don't agree with it.

The problem there is cultural - the UK typically drafts sloppy laws and leaves the Courts to set precedent, sorting out the mess - this is almost done deliberately in some cases. We really could do with coming into line with most of the rest of the world and being more careful.

And we now can't even appeal to EU courts to sort the UK laws out that our courts make a mess of!

Seriously, have all these regulations just been handed out willy-nilly by the government in general (Boris/Cummings in particular) without having to go through the upper chamber - in other words, laws under emergency legislation? Basically what I'm asking is that normally don't all laws have to go through the House of Lords - soemtimes several times - before being signed off (by HM?)? Nowadays Boris/whoever dreams up something off the cuff, and if it's somethign Labour don't want then it's in law the following day.

No wonder...

 

[takno]

Unfortunately, it's another case of sloppy legislation drafting by the civil servants. Just like all the loopholes in other laws, especially around taxation. For years, if not decades, legislation drafting has been sloppy and ambiguous seemingly by people who havn't the faintest idea of behaviour/reality. What plonker decided to use the term "substantial" without bothering to think about what it really means, how easy it would be to get around by offering discounted meals. Some of the law drafters really aren't fit for purpose.

The law drafters are probably working 12 hour shifts several days in a row every time gold command (or whatever Commander Hancock is calling his silly meeting) emits a rubbish new idea. Stuff like "substantial" is being invented on the hoof by politicians in interviews, and then a bunch of not-particularly-well-paid civil servants have got to turn it into something resembling a law in about 2 hours flat. And when they're done, nobody from the government even reads it

It's a miracle they produce anything worth reading at all. One of these days they're going to end up at 5 to midnight publishing a statutory instrument which is just five pages of detail on exactly where Matt Hancock can stick it.

 

[Howardh]

On a lighter note, I've noticed that the residents of Baarle Hertog in the Netherlands Belgium are getting confused whe the regulations differ between Belgium and the Netherlands. On the grounds that in some cases, you can meet with a parent on one side of the room, but not the other!!! And we think we're confused!!

For those who think I'm writing rubbish, (hey, why stop now??) it's an area divided up into parcels of land which belong to either The Netherlands or Belgium, and in some cases the border/s go through houses, resturants and even a new police station. I understand if you commit an offence in the police's car-park, the police can't come out of the building and arrest you without an international arrest warrant...as their car-park is across an international border!!

Meanwhile, back to the sanity that is the UK....

 

[yorksrob]

Unfortunately, it's another case of sloppy legislation drafting by the civil servants. Just like all the loopholes in other laws, especially around taxation. For years, if not decades, legislation drafting has been sloppy and ambiguous seemingly by people who havn't the faintest idea of behaviour/reality. What plonker decided to use the term "substantial" without bothering to think about what it really means, how easy it would be to get around by offering discounted meals. Some of the law drafters really aren't fit for purpose.

Or it could be sensible civil servants recognising that the legislation isn't fit to be implemented without loopholes.

 

[Howardh]

Or it could be sensible civil servants recognising that the legislation isn't fit to be implemented without loopholes.

Yes, minister!!!

 

[RuralRambler]

The law drafters are probably working 12 hour shifts several days in a row every time gold command (or whatever Commander Hancock is calling his silly meeting) emits a rubbish new idea. Stuff like "substantial" is being invented on the hoof by politicians in interviews, and then a bunch of not-particularly-well-paid civil servants have got to turn it into something resembling a law in about 2 hours flat. And when they're done, nobody from the government even reads it

It's a miracle they produce anything worth reading at all. One of these days they're going to end up at 5 to midnight publishing a statutory instrument which is just five pages of detail on exactly where Matt Hancock can stick it.

Whilst true, that doesn't excuse all the sloppy law drafting of the last 10,20,30 years! It's nothing new. Eg, which civil servant decided to use a different definition of a business for capital gains tax as opposed to inheritance tax - there's no reason, but for some unfathomable sloppy drafting, the definition is different.

 

[WelshBluebird]

In terms of what some places are doing with cheap clearly loss leading food, my issue isn't that they are doing it. It is the attitude. As I said yesterday the fact that guy tried to argue he wasn't serving free food so people could pay for booze is an utter joke and I am sure he wasn't able to make that claim with a straight face. People like that I have an issue with. If a business is upfront and honest and lays it out buy saying they are offering food as a way to still stay open, even though they fully expect people to drink and not eat the food etc etc, then I'd have a lot more respect for them.